Authored By: Manpreet Kaur
Department of Laws, Panjab University, Chandigarh
INTRODUCTION
The foundation of the entire body of international humanitarian law is the duality of military necessity and the preservation of humanity. As a result, each specific provision of international humanitarian law is an illustration of the delicate balancing act that states have developed to accommodate both their legitimate need to conduct hostilities on the battlefield and their willingness to prevent needless suffering of combatants and civilians.In addition, placing a cap on the means and tactics of conflict, today’s international humanitarian law regulations protect individuals who are not or are no longer participating in hostilities, such as injured troops, civilians, and military doctors. This emphasizes how important the handling of captured soldiers in a humane manner was. As a result, in 1949, nations from all over the world gathered in Geneva to approve and adopt the four Geneva Conventions, which uphold the rules of behavior in combat and limit its effects on people who are not or are no longer engaging in hostilities. Due to the fact that it currently serves as a point of agreement amongst human cultures and religions, the worldwide commitment to limiting the frequency and intensity of armed conflict has survived even in the most trying circumstances. Consensus that human rights and the idea of humanity have affected armed conflict to the extent that the international community saw it as significant enough to ensure compliance commitment was a prerequisite for the codification of customary international law standards. Through the years, there was an evolution from total arbitrary use of force, which was the sovereign’s fundamental right, to the limited use of force permitted under the United Nations charter.
PRINCIPLE OF HUMANITY
The principle of humanity, and its absence during the Battle of Solferino of 1859, was the central notion that inspired the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), Henry Dunant. The principle specifies that all humans should have the capacity and ability to show respect and care for all, even their sworn enemies. Not only for prisoners of war, humanitarian treatment has been lawfully laid down for civilians too. The principles of IHL can be found in all major religions and cultures, set out only basic protections, but ones which look to demonstrate that even during armed conflict there is some common sense of and respect for humanity.Modern IHL accepts that harm, destruction and death is necessary and thus lawful during armed conflict but at the same time it looks to limit the harm. The principle of humanity is thus, the heart of this ambition.
The ICRC commentary to the Geneva Conventions defines humanitarian as “being concerned with the condition of man considered solely as a human being, regardless of his value as a military, political, professional or other unit”, and “not affected by any political or military consideration”. We have already said that IHL is divided into Geneva and Hague Law. Hague Law concerns the conduct of hostilities, codified in a series of declarations and treaties following the first Hague Peace Conference in 1899. The most significant principle of Hague Law is that of Hague Convention IV, Article 22 which says “the right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited”. From this derives the prohibition of the use of weapons calculated to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury. Under the Geneva Laws, one of the most important articles is the common Article 3, which by the name can be guessed that it is common to all the four Geneva Conventions, which prescribes humane and non-discriminatory treatment for the hostilities including members of armed forces. The concept of humanity is rooted in Natural law principles, Moral philosophy, and Human rights values. Philosophers like Grotius emphasized that war must be governed by laws of humanity and conscience. The principle reflects the idea that: “Even enemies are human beings and must be treated as such.” It also aligns with modern human rights ideals, reinforcing that: Human dignity is universal, Rights do not disappear during war. The scope of humanity under IHL is very wide and comprehensive. It extends to all persons who are affected by armed conflict, whether directly or indirectly.
(a) Protection of Civilians:- Civilians must not be targeted, They must be protected from violence, intimidation, and harm and Civilian infrastructure (homes, hospitals, schools) must be respected
(b) Protection of Persons Hors de Combat (Hors de combat = out of combat):- This includes: Wounded soldiers,Sick persons, and Captured combatants. They must be treated humanely and must not be attacked.
(c) Protection of Prisoners of War:- They Must be treated with dignity, No torture or cruel treatment and Right to food, shelter, and medical care
(d) Protection of Medical Personnel and Units:- Doctors and nurses must not be attacked, Hospitals must be respected
(e) Protection of Cultural Property and Environment:- Cultural heritage must be preserved and Environmental destruction must be avoided
Legal Basis of the Principle of Humanity
The principle of humanity is strongly supported by various sources of international law:
(a) The Geneva Conventions :
“Article 3 – Conflicts not of an international character
In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following provisions:
(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed ‘hors de combat’ by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.
To this end, the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.
(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.
An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.
The Parties to the conflict should further endeavour to bring into force, by means of special agreements, all or part of the other provisions of the present Convention.
The application of the preceding provisions shall not affect the legal status of the Parties to the conflict.”
Common Article 3 provides: Humane treatment of all persons, Prohibition of violence, torture, and degrading treatment
The Conventions protect: Wounded and sick soldiers, Prisoners of war, Civilians
They establish minimum humanitarian standards applicable in all conflicts.
b) The Martens Clause
“Until a more complete code of the laws of war has been issued, the High Contracting Parties deem it expedient to declare that, in cases not included in the Regulations adopted by them, the inhabitants and the belligerents remain under the protection and the rule of the law of nations, as they result from the usages established among civilized peoples, from the laws of humanity and the dictates of public conscience.”
It is named after Fyodor Fyodorovich Martens, who introduced the clause for the first time in the Preamble of the 1899 Hague Convention (as a compromise in discussions on the treatment of fighters not accorded prisoner-of-war status). The Martens Clause, understood today as of general applicability, has acquired the status of a customary rule and has been adopted, either in whole or in part, by other IHL instruments.
The effect of the clause is to underline that in cases not covered by IHL treaties, persons affected by armed conflicts will never find themselves completely deprived of protection. Instead, the conduct of belligerents remains regulated at a minimum by the principles of the law of nations, the laws of humanity, and from the dictates of public conscience.
c) Additional Protocols (1977)
“Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.” It is binding on the state Parties and signatories
Part III and several chapters of Part IV (Articles 35-60) deal with the conduct of hostilities, i.e. questions which hitherto were regulated by the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and by customary international law. Their reaffirmation and development is important in view of the age of the Hague Conventions and of the new States which had no part in their elaboration. Article 43 and 44 give a new definition of armed forces and combatants. Among the most important Articles are those on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities. They contain a definition of military objectives and prohibitions of attack on civilian persons and objects. Further Articles (61-79) deal with the protection of civil defence organizations, relief actions and the treatment of persons in the power of a party to a conflict.
Apart from these there are some other Legal Basis which are
- Customary International Law
- International Human Rights Law
- Judicial Recognition
THE DOCTRINE OF MILITARY NECESSITY
Military need must be truly necessary to achieve a legitimate military aim that is not banned by international humanitarian law because it typically goes opposed to humanitarian imperatives. Not every military assault meets the definition of “military necessity.” To qualify as such, an attack must have a military purpose, be carried out in support of a military goal, and cause damage to people or civilian property that is reasonable and proportionate to the attack’s concrete and direct military target. The term “military objectives” in this context refers to only those objects whose nature, positioning, function, or use effectively support military action and whose partial or complete destruction or neutralization, depending on the situation at the time, provides a clear military advantage. In times of conflict, military necessity is frequently corrupted to justify the use of violence. A military goal must be the driving force behind any such act of violence or devastation, and it must also not be banned by the law of armed conflict.The use of force can only be justified if it aims to achieve certain military goals and stays within the bounds of the proportionality principle. The idea of military necessity should normally act as a restraint rather than a green light for hostilities. The ideas of proportionality and minimal harm to civilians should serve as its guiding principles. In other words, there shouldn’t be any violence or devastation:
(a) superfluous, such as when the target or victims are unrelated to a particular military goal;
(b) disproportionate—when a military benefit does not match the collateral cost to civilians;
(c) indiscriminate—where the attack does not differentiate between military targets and things belonging to civilians;
(d) intended to instil dread among civilians.
The Lieber Code
The Lieber Code, a set of instructions for the government armies of the United States in the field, was the first attempt to codify the laws of war.” The Lieber code was the first official set of guidelines established by a state regarding how to treat both its own and its adversaries’ troops. The development of the humanitarian law notion that the conduct of war is subject to the idea of military necessity is one of its lasting legacies.
Article 14 of the Code states:
Military necessity, as understood by modern civilized nations, consists in the necessity of those measures which are indispensable for securing the ends of the war, and which are lawful according to the modern law and usages of war.
Declaration of St. Petersburg (1868)
This statement resulted from the understanding that the growing “arms race” and accompanying technological advancement in weapons and ammunition could inflict soldiers’ great agony. The proclamation acknowledges that the only legitimate goal that governments should pursue during a war is to degrade the enemy’s military, and that in order to do this, it is acceptable to disable the greatest number of personnel. The proclamation further emphasizes that when it comes to the employment of specific small-caliber explosive projectiles, the necessities of war must give way to the needs of humanity. The proclamation warned against its use as it would be against the laws of humanity, anticipated the affliction of mankind caused by the use of projectiles, notably its propensity to needlessly worsen the agony and rate of death of warriors. It appears that the term “military necessity” is used in a restrictive manner to forbid actions that are not necessary for achieving a military goal. But in none of these earlier statements, from the lieber code of 1863 through the 1868 convention, did the constraints significantly change how wars were fought; instead, they served to legalize uses that were not then codified.
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907
At first look, The Hague Convention seems to be limited by humanitarian principles. Article 22 of Convention (11) on the Laws and Customs of Land War, for instance, provides that “the rights of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy are not unlimited.” The use of “arms projectiles, or material of a nature to cause superfluous injury” is forbidden by Article 23. However, the term “superfluous injury” is not defined, and the restrictions placed on the ways in which war can be fought are those that do not obstruct military requirements. This is a unique circumstance because The Hague Rules generally attempt to protect the property of the enemy. This reality is further supported by the preamble of Convention (11), which states that the military necessity exception serves the following overriding interests:
In view of the high contracting parties, these provisions, the wording of which has been inspired by the desire to diminish the evils of war so far as military necessities permit, are destined to serve as general rules of conduct for belligerents in their relations with each other and with populations.
The Hague Conventions on military necessity sought to restrain uncontrolled warfare as a whole. But it appears that post-1899 regulations have brought back the argument of military necessity to get around the earlier regulations restricting it. Several International Humanitarian Conventions, such as the 1929 Convention on Prisoners of War, demonstrate this new strategy. The 1949 Geneva Conventions are another such treaty that supports military necessity. Several articles in the 1949 Geneva Conventions permit the use of military necessity as a justification for the suspension of express restrictions. The Parties to the Conflict may Take Such Measures of Control and Security in Regard to Protected Persons as May Be Necessary as a Result of War, according to Article 27 of the Geneva Convention (1v), Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. This section seems to legitimize any potential rule-breaking based on military necessity. Thus, it might be claimed that the conventional regime seemed to forbid those means and ways of waging war that were relatively minor to the military while providing broad exceptions to those means and methods of military importance. Additionally, it might be stated that the 1977 Protocol 1, an amendment to the 1949 Geneva Convention, appears to toy with this line based on the extensive use of military necessity as a defence for breaking the law.Currently, rather than serving as a universal restriction on the means and tactics of waging war, military necessity assumes a sinister form since it is seen as a principle at odds with humanitarian principles. For instance, under Article 54(2), Agriculture and food supplies may be destroyed even though they may be vital to the survival of the civilian population if it is absolutely necessary
for military purposes. As a result, we can state that while earlier Conventional Codifications of the Law of War seem to use military necessity as a limitation on the means and methods of waging war, a more limited conception of necessity has developed in later Conventions to act as a justification rather than a limitation, and which has acted to prioritize military necessity at the expense of humanitarian values.
TESTS OF MILITARY NECESSITY
In order to decide whether there is Military Necessity, the following test was developed
Test 1: Does the measure violate an absolute prohibition contained in IHL
Article 52(2) of the Additional Protocol I provides that civilians can never be a military target. Crimes such as sexual violence, recruiting child soldiers, child labor, looting and terrorism do not therefore move beyond the first step in the cumulative test.
In The Prosecutor v. Dario Kordic Tihofil and others 2004, the armed forces of the Croatian Defence Council of the Croatian Community of Herceg-Bosna attacked Muslim civilian populations in the towns, villages and hamlets. The defense of military necessity was considered by the ICTY but was not accepted because the defense of military necessity cannot be used to justify an attack on civilian populations.
On the Appeal the appellant argued that the villages in question were not civilians but military targets because there were members of military groups in the villages. His argument was that the crime needed to be looked at broadly, not as isolated incidents. According to his evidence, the alleged Muslim civilian populations had many members of the fighting groups among them. The presence of members of the army, he argued, stripped the civilian groups of the privileges of a civilian population. His defense was accepted on the grounds that although mere presence of the militia does not strip a community of the status of a civilian population, but rather the number of members of the militia and whether or not the members of military groups are on leave is relevant in deciding whether a civilian population is a valid military target under international law or not.
Test 2: Is the occupying power facing an actual state of necessity
Rome Statute Article 8 2 b (xiii) prohibits destroying or seizing the enemy’s property unless such destruction or seizure be imperatively demanded by the necessities of war. The same prohibition appears in Hague Rules Article 23(g). There were French civilians living in the beachhead area that would very likely be injured or killed, but they also knew that warning the French civilians of the invasion would seriously jeopardize the chance of its success.
it is clear that killing French civilians was not the object of the attack. The French civilians just happened to be there. This is quite different from the Sierra Leone scenario, where the civilian villages seem to have been the target. They seem to have been the targets because after the attack, the army mutilated the survivors, raped women, recruited some of the children into the army and also looted property. In order to succeed under the defense of military necessity, there must be a military object whose targeting results in reasonable collateral civilian casualties.
Test 3: Is the measure the most adequate and effective response to the existing threat?
The total of the law of warfare including Article 46 of The Hague Regulations and Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol 1 is such that civilians cannot be valid military targets, and that family honor and rights, the lives of persons, and private property, as well as religious convictions and practice, must be respected. It is not called for to consider the adequacy of a response that requires targeting civilians. Assuming that the civilian population was living together with members of military groups, the measure of proportionality differs from case to case
Test 4: Does military advantage outweigh damage to civilian population?
The Additional Protocol to the Geneva Convention of 1949 Article 52(2) provides that attacks shall be limited strictly to military objectives. In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. Article 52(1) of Additional Protocol 1provides that all other objects that are not included in 52(2) of Additional Protocol 1 are civilian objects and must not form the object of the attack.
Test 5: Was the measure adopted after due consideration of all the interests involved and by the proper authority?
According to the definition of a military objective in Article 52(2) of Optional Protocol I military planners are obligated to evaluate (1) the contribution that an object will make and (2) assess military advantage to be gained. In the case of Sadam Hussein, also just discussed in the preceding paragraph, the orchards did not seem to have had substantial military contribution and yet the orchards according to Saddam Hussein’s defense the orchards were harboring guns and training centers for a defunct military group.
BALANCE BETWEEN HUMANITY AND MILITARY NECESSITY
The core objective of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is to maintain a delicate and essential balance between the principles of humanity and military necessity. These two principles represent opposing yet complementary forces within the law of armed conflict. While military necessity permits the use of force to achieve legitimate military objectives, the principle of humanity seeks to limit the suffering caused by such force and to protect human dignity.
This balance is crucial because neither principle can operate in isolation. If military necessity is applied without restraint, warfare would become brutal and unrestricted, leading to widespread destruction and loss of innocent lives. On the other hand, if humanity is applied in an absolute manner without consideration for military realities, it would make effective military operations impossible. Therefore, IHL establishes a framework where military necessity is permitted but strictly controlled by humanitarian considerations.
JUST WAR THEORY
The principles of a Just War originated with classical Greek and Roman philosophers like Plato and Cicero and were added to by Christian theologians like Augustine and Thomas Aquinas. The just war theory is a largely Christian philosophy that attempts to reconcile three things like taking human life seriously wrong,states have a duty to defend their citizens, and defend justice, and protecting innocent human life and defending important moral values sometimes requires willingness to use force and violence. The theory specifies conditions for judging if it is just to go to war, and conditions for how the war should be fought. Although it was extensively developed by Christian theologians, it can be used by people of every faith and none. According to the Just War theory, war perhaps at times is morally right. No war, however, is praiseworthy for being strategic, prudent, or bold. Occasionally, war represents an ethically appropriate use of mass political violence. World War II, on the Allied side, is often cited as the definitive example of a just and good war.
|
Jus Ad Bellum |
Jus In Bello |
|
A code that specifies the conditions for the morally legitimate resort to warfare |
A code that specifies what one might legally do in war |
|
|
Legal Framework for Balancing
In legal terms, the balance between humanity and military necessity is achieved through fundamental principles of IHL.
-
- Principle of Distinction:- The principle of distinction requires parties to a conflict to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, as well as between civilian objects and military objectives. This ensures that military necessity cannot be used as a justification for attacking civilians or civilian infrastructure
- Principle of Proportionality:- Proportionality serves as the central mechanism for balancing humanity and military necessity. According to this principle, even when a legitimate military target is identified, an attack is prohibited if it is expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. This principle introduces a careful evaluation where military gain must be weighed against humanitarian consequences.
- Principle of Precaution:- The principle of precaution requires parties to take all feasible steps to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects. This includes Choosing less harmful methods of warfare, Avoiding attacks in densely populated areas, and Providing warnings where possible. Thus, even necessary military actions must be carried out with care and responsibility.
Role of International Institutions:-
Institutions like the International Criminal Court play an important role in enforcing the balance by prosecuting war crimes, promoting accountability, and strengthening compliance with IHL. However, enforcement remains limited due to political and jurisdictional challenges.
Some important Ongoing International Armed Conflicts (2025)
Russia-Ukraine conflict: It is a major European war since WWII started with Russia’s full-scale invasion in February 2022. This conflict began due to fighting in eastern Ukraine and Crimea since 2014, after Ukraine’s pro- Western shift. Russia aimed for quick control but faced Ukrainian resistance shifting the war to grinding attrition, heavily impacting civilians with alleged war crimes, massive displacement, and destruction of infrastructure, while Ukraine received significant Western aid to defend its sovereignty against Russia.
Gaza-Israel conflict (Middle East): This conflict (part of the broader Israeli- Palestinian conflict) began on October 7, 2023, when Hamas and other Palestinian militant groups launched a surprise land, sea, and air assault on Israel from the Gaza Strip. It involves a complex history of territorial disputes. violence, and failed peace efforts. It has led to a severe humanitarian crisis in the Gaza Strip and spilled over into Lebanon Hezbollah), Syria, and broader regional tensions involving Iran?
The civil war in Sudan: Sudan’s ongoing civil war, which started in April 2023 between the national army (SAF) and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Though it is a civil war which is generally treated as NIAC. The huge displacement (over 11-12 million internally and refugees abroad), food insecurity, and humanitarian needs have affected neighbouring countries (Chad, South Sudan) and international aid svstems. thus making it a global crisis and IAC.
Civil war in Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC): The Hutu-Tutsi conflict spilt into eastern DRC (then Zaire) in late 1994, when Hutu refugees fled the Rwandan genocide. Unfortunately, DRC has experienced decades of devastating conflict, often called “Africa’s World War,” which involves resource exploitation, ethnic divisions, and political instability. It has led to millions of deaths, massive displacement, and ongoing violence by numerous armed groups in the east, despite attempts at peace deals and UN involvement. Though it is a civil war, neighbouring countries Rwanda, Uganda and Burundi provide support to the rebel group, so it has become a regional or international armed conflict.
Civil war in Myanmar: Myanmar’s Civil War is an escalating conflict since the 2021 military coup, pitting the junta (SAC) against a pro-democracy coalition (NUG, PDFs, Ethnic Armed Organizations) fighting for federal democracy. Here, the long-standing issues involve deep-rooted ethnic grievances, Bamar-majority dominance, and military control since independence. This war has led to a significant refugee crisis, with many Rohingya Muslims and ethnic Chin refugees fleeing to neighbouring countries, i.e., Bangladesh and India, thus making it an international conflict.
Example: US–Israel–Iran Conflict
A contemporary example of the tension between humanity and military necessity can be seen in the ongoing conflict involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. The conflict escalated in February 2026 when the United States and Israel launched large-scale strikes targeting Iran’s military infrastructure, nuclear facilities, and leadership. These actions were justified on the grounds of military necessity, aiming to weaken Iran’s strategic capabilities and prevent potential threats. However, the attacks also resulted in significant civilian casualties, including damage to nearby civilian areas such as schools and residential zones.
In response, Iran carried out retaliatory missile and drone attacks targeting military bases, embassies, and oil infrastructure across the region, further intensifying the conflict.
From the perspective of international humanitarian law, while such operations may be considered necessary for achieving military objectives, they must comply with principles of distinction and proportionality. The occurrence of civilian harm in this conflict raises serious concerns about whether humanitarian considerations are being adequately respected. Thus, the conflict clearly illustrates the ongoing struggle to maintain a balance between effective military operations and the protection of human life.
CONCLUSION
Military necessity and the principle of humanity exist in a delicate and often unstable balance within international humanitarian law. On one side, warfare cannot be completely unrestricted, as states have a duty to protect the welfare of their populations, including their armed forces. This responsibility requires them to accept certain limitations in their conduct of hostilities, even in relation to their adversaries. On the other hand, if humanitarian considerations were to dominate entirely, the very possibility of warfare would cease to exist. However, since war continues to be a reality, states must retain a reasonable degree of freedom to carry out military operations effectively.
In this context, international tribunals have increasingly played an important role in shaping this balance. Although their rulings may have limited direct applicability, they significantly influence the broader interpretation and development of international humanitarian law.
Maintaining an appropriate balance between military necessity and humanity requires strict adherence to established legal rules. The growing attention given to international humanitarian law in modern conflicts is a positive development. The active involvement of states, judicial bodies, non-governmental and intergovernmental organizations, scholars, and the wider public in interpreting, promoting, and enforcing these laws demonstrates its continuing relevance.
Ultimately, preserving the careful balance between military necessity and humanity is essential; otherwise, such skepticism about the effectiveness of international humanitarian law may prove justified.
REFERENCE(S):
BOOK
- Jyoti Rattan & Vijay Rattan, United Nations, Human Rights, IHL & ICL (International Law 2), 9th ed., Bharat Law House Pvt. Ltd., 2026
- Dr. H. O. Agarwal, International law and human rights (24th edition) , Central Law, Publication, 2025
RESEARCH PAPER
- MICHAEL N. SCHMITT, “Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance, [vol. 50:4]
- Ienlaye, S. & Okposin, A. (2023). The Doctrine of Military Necessity and the Preservation of Humanity in Warfare: The Sustainability of the Delicate Balance. CULJ Vol 3
- GARGI SANTRA, International Humanitarian Law: A Balance between Military Necessity and Humanity, International Journal of Law Management & Humanities [Vol. 4 Iss 3; 2914]
INTERNATIONAL LEGAL INSTRUMENTS
- Geneva Conventions
- Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions (1977)
- Hague Conventions
WEB SOURCES
- International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), International Humanitarian Law Resources, https://www.icrc.org
- United Nations, International Law and Human Rights, https://www.un.org
- International Criminal Court (ICC), Official Website, https://www.icc-cpi.int
- Human Rights Watch, Reports on Armed Conflict, https://www.hrw.org
- Amnesty International, War and Civilian Protection Reports, https://www.amnesty.org
- International Committee of the Red Cross, Military Necessity | How Does Law Protect in War? – Online Casebook, https://casebook.icrc.org
