Abstract

Objective: This study critically examines compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in modern asymmetric conflicts, focusing on both state and non-state actors. It aims to identify the factors influencing adherence and violations, and to evaluate the effectiveness of existing enforcement mechanisms.

Method: A doctrinal research method was employed, analysing primary legal sources including the Geneva Conventions (1949), Additional Protocols (1977), customary international law, and international tribunal judgments. Comparative case studies from Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, and Ukraine were integrated with qualitative analysis of reports from the International Committee of the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, and UN bodies to assess compliance patterns.

Findings: The study finds that compliance with IHL is selective and context-dependent. State actors demonstrate higher adherence due to formal military structures and legal advisory systems, yet political imperatives and military necessity often override legal obligations. Non-state actors show inconsistent compliance, motivated by strategic considerations such as legitimacy, propaganda, and avoidance of sanctions.

Value: This study provides actionable insights for policymakers, legal practitioners, and international organisations. By integrating legal, operational, and sociopolitical perspectives, it informs the development of adaptive enforcement mechanisms, context-specific codes of conduct, and strategies to enhance adherence to IHL, ultimately aiming to reduce civilian harm in contemporary asymmetric conflicts.