A review of the attitudes of the United Nations and belligerent states towards international humanitarian law provisions during armed conflicts

Abstract

It has been argued among men of letters that war is inevitable in human society, that war is so much weaved into the fabric of our being,  that it always was and always will continue to be. Humans, sadly, have been at peace for only 8 percent of the past 3,400 years of  recorded history. According to a Spanish – born American philosopher, George Santayana, it is only death that can set us free from wars;  and the Gospel of Matthew in the Bible warns of “wars and rumours of wars”, concluding glumly that “such things are bound to  happen.” Wars or armed conflicts are actually random disasters of which the definite time and place they will occur, we do not know but  which the recurrence we must expect just as we expect other natural disasters. They are facts and issues of life which we must expect,  accept if we must, and device a means of regulating them as much as we can. Under International Humanitarian Law (the bedrock which  is the 4 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocol), there are sets of rules that regulate and restrict the means and method of  warfare and of course the protection of those who are not and/or are no longer participating in hostilities. Belligerents’ states and all  parties fighting in a conflict are obliged to respect international Humanitarian Law, be they governmental forces or non-state actors.  Article 33 and 13 of the United Nations’ Charter specifically call on the organization to help in the settlement of international disputes by  peaceful means, including arbitration and judicial settlement, and to encourage the progressive development of international law and its  codification. This Article evaluated the attitudes of the United Nations and the belligerent states towards the provisions of International  Humanitarian Law (IHL) during armed conflicts. The researchers employed doctrinal research methodology while data were garnered  from both primary and secondary sources. Findings revealed that while the attitudes of belligerent States to the rules of armed conflict  are majorly influenced by the circumstances of the State’s foreign policy that of the United Nations is politics and their interest in the  area. It is worthy of note that the United Nations, as an inter-governmental institution, is not a party to the Geneva Conventions (Laws of  armed conflict), but the State parties to the organization are, and therefore should adhere to the rules. History shows that in times of  armed conflict, the laws of war are frequently violated. The research ended with recommendations which if religiously followed would  help in regulating and moderating armed conflict and its ugly outcome as there appears to be no end to war.