By: Dr. Adnan Bozan

Introduction:

International humanitarian law (IHL) is one of the most significant branches of public international law, designed to protect individuals during armed conflicts and ensure the respect of fundamental human rights even in the most severe circumstances. However, despite international efforts to curb violations, war crimes continue to be committed in various regions of the world, posing a significant challenge to the international justice system.

War crimes are defined as serious violations of the rules and customs governing armed conflicts, including acts such as willful killing, torture, forced displacement, and indiscriminate attacks against civilians and civilian infrastructure. These crimes not only threaten international peace and security but also constitute a grave breach of the humanitarian values that international organizations strive to uphold. International humanitarian law, based on the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, serves as the fundamental legal framework governing the conduct of warring parties and establishing their legal obligations.> Although international criminal courts, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ad hoc tribunals, have been established to prosecute war crimes, bringing perpetrators to justice remains a legal and political challenge. International justice faces numerous obstacles, including political immunities, lack of international will, and difficulties in collecting evidence and testimonies in ongoing conflicts. Nevertheless, continuous legal developments indicate increasing efforts to ensure accountability and end impunity.

This study examines the concept of war crimes within the international legal framework, analyzing the most significant violations that fall under this classification and reviewing the available legal mechanisms for prosecuting perpetrators. Additionally, it highlights the key challenges hindering the effective implementation of international humanitarian law while providing insights into how international institutions can enhance their role in achieving justice.

First: Definition of War Crimes

War crimes are serious violations of the well-established rules and customs of international humanitarian law, committed in the context of armed conflicts, whether international or non-international. These crimes include acts that target individuals protected under international law, such as civilians, prisoners of war, the wounded, and humanitarian workers, as well as actions that employ unlawful military tactics, such as indiscriminate bombing of residential areas, the use of prohibited weapons, and the recruitment of children in armed conflicts.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 provide the primary legal framework for defining war crimes. This framework has been further reinforced by the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), which classifies war crimes as serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts. These include:

• Willful killing

• Torture and inhuman treatment

• Unjustified destruction of property

• Forced displacement and deportation

• Attacks on personal dignity

Given that war crimes pose a direct threat to international peace and security, international law imposes a legal obligation on states to prosecute perpetrators and bring them to justice, either through national courts or specialized international tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and ad hoc courts established to address specific conflicts, such as the Nuremberg Tribunal after World War II and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY).

Examples of War Crimes:

1. Willful killing of civilians or prisoners of war

2. Torture or inhumane treatment

3. Unjustified destruction of property

4. Use of prohibited weapons (e.g., chemical and biological weapons)

5. Attacks on hospitals, schools, and places of worship

6. Targeting humanitarian and relief teams

This legal and analytical study aims to provide a comprehensive understanding of war crimes and the legal mechanisms available for ensuring accountability, thereby contributing to the broader discourse on the enforcement of international humanitarian law and the pursuit of justice.

Second: Violations of International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law (IHL) is one of the fundamental pillars of public international law, aiming to protect individuals who do not participate or have ceased to participate in hostilities and to regulate the means and methods of warfare to minimize human suffering. This body of law has been established through various international treaties, most notably the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, in addition to universally recognized customary rules.

A violation of IHL occurs when fundamental rules are breached, including the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, assaults on vital infrastructure, the use of prohibited weapons, mistreatment of prisoners and the wounded, or any other actions contrary to humanitarian principles. When such violations are systematic and severe, they qualify as war crimes, and their perpetrators are subject to legal accountability under international law.

While states and warring parties bear the primary responsibility for ensuring compliance with IHL, the international community—through organizations and judicial bodies—plays a crucial role in monitoring violations and prosecuting those responsible. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is one of the leading judicial institutions established to prevent impunity for such crimes, with jurisdiction over individuals accused of committing grave violations of IHL. Alongside the ICC, national courts and special tribunals have also been established in some cases to ensure accountability.

In this context, enhancing compliance with IHL requires collective international efforts to enforce accountability mechanisms and close legal loopholes that perpetrators exploit to evade justice. This can be achieved through raising legal awareness, strengthening investigation and prosecution mechani1) sms, and ensuring the full respect of international treaties by all parties involved in armed conflicts.

The Concept of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

IHL is a branch of public international law that establishes a set of legal rules aimed at mitigating the effects of armed conflicts and protecting individuals who are not engaged in combat, such as civilians, the wounded, prisoners of war, and humanitarian workers. This legal framework also imposes restrictions on the means and methods of warfare to uphold humanitarian principles and reduce the suffering caused by armed conflicts.

IHL is primarily regulated through international treaties and agreements, with the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 being its most significant legal instruments. These conventions provide the legal foundation for the protection of war victims and guarantee their fundamental rights in accordance with the principles of international law. Additionally, many customary rules derived from these treaties reinforce state obligations, ensuring their applicability even when a state has not officially ratified certain legal provisions.

Furthermore, IHL intersects with international criminal law, as severe violations of its provisions are classified as war crimes, requiring the prosecution of perpetrators before international or national courts. This legal framework seeks to ensure justice for victims and prevent impunity for those responsible for violations.

2) Forms of Violations of International Humanitarian Law

1. Targeting civilians and civilian infrastructure.

2. Use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering.

3. Attacks on humanitarian workers.

4. Recruitment and use of children in armed conflicts.

5. Imposing collective punishment on civilian populations.> These violations undermine the fundamental objectives of IHL, necessitating strong legal enforcement mechanisms to hold perpetrators accountable and protect vulnerable populations during armed conflicts.

Third: The Legal Framework for War Crimes

The legal framework for war crimes is a fundamental pillar of international law, as it defines the rules prohibiting atrocities committed during armed conflicts, whether international or non-international. This framework is based on various treaties and international agreements aimed at protecting civilians and combatants who are no longer engaged in hostilities while regulating the conduct of warring parties to ensure adherence to fundamental humanitarian principles.

The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols are among the most important legal sources governing war crimes. They establish clear standards for grave breaches of international humanitarian law, such as willful killing, torture, indiscriminate attacks on civilians, and unnecessary destruction of property. The 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC) further elaborates on the definition of war crimes and provides mechanisms for prosecuting perpetrators before international courts.

In addition to these treaties, war crimes prosecutions also rely on customary international law, which binds states and individuals to humanitarian standards even in the absence of written agreements. International criminal courts, such as the ICC, the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), have played a crucial role in establishing legal precedents that reinforce the accountability of war criminals.

Despite the clarity of legal rules governing war crimes, challenges remain in ensuring effective enforcement and legal accountability. This underscores the need for international efforts to strengthen investigation and prosecution mechanisms and to ensure that perpetrators do not evade justice, thereby upholding the principles of justice and protecting victims from grave violations.

1. The Geneva Conventions

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their 1977 Additional Protocols form the cornerstone of international humanitarian law (IHL). They establish rules governing international and non-international armed conflicts, with the primary goal of protecting individuals who are not participating in hostilities, including civilians, the wounded, and prisoners of war.

The Geneva Conventions include:

• First Convention: Protection of the wounded and sick in armed forces on the field.

• Second Convention: Protection of the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked in armed forces at sea.

• Third Convention: Protection of prisoners of war (POWs), defining their rights and ensuring humane treatment.

• Fourth Convention: Protection of civilians during armed conflicts, ensuring their fundamental rights under occupation and warfare.

The 1977 Additional Protocols further strengthened these protections by regulating non-international armed conflicts and expanding safeguards for both civilians and combatants, while imposing additional restrictions on the means and methods of warfare

. These conventions provide the legal foundation for holding war criminals accountable, as grave breaches of these treaties are classified as war crimes, warranting prosecution under international law.

2. The International Criminal Court (ICC)

The International Criminal Court (ICC) was established under the 1998 Rome Statute as the first permanent, independent court dedicated to prosecuting individuals accused of committing the most serious international crimes that threaten global peace, security, and stability. The ICC aims to end impunity and promote international justice by prosecuting those responsible for grave crimes affecting humanity as a whole.

The ICC has jurisdiction over the following crimes:

• War Crimes: Includes grave breaches of IHL, such as willful killing, torture, attacks on civilians, and the recruitment of child soldiers.

• Genocide: Any acts committed with the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group.

• Crimes Against Humanity: Widespread or systematic acts targeting civilian populations, including murder, enslavement, torture, and persecution.

• Crimes of Aggression: Involves the use of armed force by a state against another in violation of the UN Charter.

The ICC has jurisdiction over individuals, not states, meaning that criminal responsibility applies to perpetrators regardless of their official positions, including military leaders, government officials, and others directly involved in war crimes. The court also has the authority to prosecute political and military leaders who plan, incite, or directly commit war crimes.

Despite its significant role in promoting international justice, the ICC faces several challenges, including non-cooperation from some states, enforcement difficulties regarding arrest warrants, and political constraints that may affect its effectiveness. Nevertheless, the ICC remains a crucial tool in combating impunity and ensuring justice for victims of international crimes.

3. The Role of the UN Security Council in Prosecuting War Criminals

The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) plays a key role in pursuing war criminals and promoting international justice. Under the UN Charter, the Security Council has broad powers to take measures ensuring accountability for international crimes. One of its most significant interventions has been the establishment of special international criminal tribunals to prosecute those responsible for grave violations of international humanitarian law.

Key special tribunals established by the UNSC include:

• The Nuremberg and Tokyo Tribunals: Established after World War II to prosecute Nazi leaders and Japanese military officials involved in war crimes and crimes against humanity.

• The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY): Created in 1993 to prosecute war crimes committed during the Balkan conflicts, including the Srebrenica genocide.

• The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR): Established in 1994 to prosecute those responsible for the Rwandan genocide, in which approximately 800,000 people were killed in 100 days.

• The Special Court for Sierra Leone: Created to prosecute war crimes committed during the Sierra Leone Civil War, convicting key figures such as former Liberian President Charles Taylor.

• The Special Tribunal for Lebanon: Established to investigate the 2005 assassination of Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri.

In addition to creating special tribunals, the Security Council can refer cases to the ICC under Chapter VII of the UN Charter. Notably, it referred cases related to Darfur in 2005 and Libya in 2011, despite the fact that neither Sudan nor Libya was a party to the Rome Statute.

Despite its important role in justice enforcement, the Security Council’s actions are often influenced by political considerations and the veto power of its five permanent members (the US, UK, France, Russia, and China). These factors can sometimes obstruct efforts to hold war criminals accountable. However, the Security Council remains a critical mechanism in combating impunity and strengthening the rule of international law.

Fourth: The Legal Responsibility of War Criminals

The legal responsibility of war criminals is one of the fundamental pillars of international law, aiming to hold individuals accountable for grave violations of international humanitarian law and ensure that they do not escape punishment. This responsibility extends to military commanders, political leaders, and anyone involved in planning or executing war crimes, whether directly or indirectly.

The legal framework for accountability is based on several sources, most notably the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), and customary international law, which obligates states to prosecute those involved in international crimes. Mechanisms of international justice, such as international criminal courts and national courts with universal jurisdiction, enable the prosecution of perpetrators regardless of where the crimes were committed or the nationality of the accused.

Legal responsibility takes several forms, including:

1. Individual Criminal Responsibility – Individuals bear responsibility for crimes they committed or ordered, whether they are political or military leaders or direct perpetrators.

2. Command Responsibility – Military commanders and officials are held accountable if they knew about crimes committed by their subordinates and failed to take the necessary measures to prevent them or punish the perpetrators.

3. International Criminal Responsibility – Serious crimes fall under the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court or special tribunals established to prosecute those responsible for grave violations.

Despite this legal framework, prosecuting war criminals faces numerous challenges, such as political obstacles, non-cooperation from certain states, and difficulties in enforcing arrest warrants. Nonetheless, international and national trials are essential steps toward achieving justice, ending impunity, strengthening the rule of law, and protecting human rights.

1) Individual Criminal Responsibility

Individual criminal responsibility is a core principle of international law, emphasizing that individuals, not just states, can be legally held accountable for committing war crimes. This principle means that a person cannot evade punishment by claiming they were merely following orders, in accordance with the doctrine of non-impunity.> Individuals subject to criminal responsibility include:

• Military commanders who issued direct orders to commit war crimes or knew of such crimes but failed to take the necessary measures to prevent or punish them.

• Perpetrators of crimes, even if they acted under superior orders, as following orders does not absolve them of criminal responsibility.

• Political leaders who were involved in planning, inciting, facilitating, or directly executing war crimes.

International criminal courts, such as the Nuremberg Trials and the International Criminal Court (ICC), have reinforced this principle, prosecuting numerous political and military leaders for war crimes despite their attempts to claim they were merely acting on behalf of their state.

Therefore, international law obligates all individuals, regardless of rank or position, to be subject to criminal accountability for war crimes, ensuring justice and preventing the recurrence of such violations.

2) State Responsibility for War Crimes

Responsibility for war crimes is not limited to individuals but extends to states that commit, support, or overlook violations of international humanitarian law. Under international law, a state bears legal responsibility if it is directly or indirectly involved in war crimes, whether through the actions of its armed forces, its support for armed groups, or its orders to commit grave violations.

Legal Consequences of State Responsibility:

• Economic and political sanctions – States involved in war crimes may face economic sanctions, such as asset freezes, trade restrictions, or investment bans, in addition to diplomatic isolation by the international community.

• United Nations-imposed sanctions – The UN Security Council has the authority to impose diplomatic, economic, or military sanctions on states that violate international humanitarian law, such as arms embargoes or asset freezes.

• Prosecution of leaders before international courts – Political and military officials can be referred to international criminal courts, such as the ICC, for accountability regarding their state’s involvement in war crimes.

State responsibility is based on customary international law, as well as the Geneva Conventions and UN resolutions, which emphasize the need to hold states accountable for severe violations. In conflict situations, responsible states may be required to compensate victims or take corrective actions to ensure non-repetition of such crimes.

Despite this, prosecuting states faces political and legal challenges, as some powerful countries use their influence to evade sanctions or accountability. However, international humanitarian law remains a crucial tool in combating impunity and ensuring respect for human rights in armed conflicts.

Fifth: Challenges Facing the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law (IHL) aims to protect civilians and non-combatants in armed conflicts while regulating the means and methods of warfare. Despite the existence of a robust legal framework, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Additional Protocols, and the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), the implementation of these laws faces significant challenges that hinder their effectiveness in practice.

These challenges stem from political, legal, and enforcement obstacles that prevent justice and accountability for crimes committed during conflicts. The lack of cooperation from some states, weak enforcement mechanisms, and political interference all contribute to the difficulty of applying international laws fairly and effectively.

Furthermore, modern armed conflicts—characterized by the rise of non-state armed groups and the use of advanced weaponry and technology—pose additional challenges to IHL, necessitating the development of new mechanisms to enhance compliance and accountability.

Given these challenges, there is a growing need for enhanced international cooperation, stronger judicial bodies, and an expanded role for the United Nations and humanitarian organizations to ensure respect for IHL and achieve justice for war victims.

Key Challenges in Implementing International Humanitarian Law

Despite the clear legal framework governing armed conflicts and protecting victims, the implementation of international humanitarian law faces several major challenges, including:

• Non-compliance by certain states: Some states refuse to cooperate with the International Criminal Court (ICC) or recognize its jurisdiction, preventing the prosecution of those responsible for war crimes.

• Difficulty in enforcing rulings against military and political leaders: Leaders in powerful states often enjoy political protection that shields them from legal prosecution, even when they commit serious violations of IHL.

• Lack of political will to hold perpetrators accountable: Political and economic interests sometimes lead to overlooking war crimes or granting diplomatic immunity to those involved, obstructing international justice.

• The rise of irregular armed groups: In modern conflicts, non-state armed groups play a significant role, yet they do not adhere to international laws, making it more complex to hold them accountable compared to state actors.

• Use of advanced military technology: Smart weapons and drones pose new legal challenges, particularly concerning their compliance with IHL principles such as distinguishing between military and civilian targets and minimizing collateral damage.

Addressing these challenges requires stronger international cooperation, judicial support, and diplomatic pressure on states to uphold the principles of international law, ensuring justice and protection for victims in armed conflicts.

Conclusion

Adherence to international humanitarian law (IHL) is a fundamental pillar in ensuring the protection of human rights during armed conflicts and mitigating the catastrophic effects of war. IHL is not merely a set of rules to regulate warfare; it serves as a shield to protect civilians, prisoners, and combatants who are no longer able to fight, while deterring warring parties from committing atrocities and grave violations. Despite the challenges hindering its implementation, IHL remains essential for establishing justice, promoting accountability, and preventing impunity.> The continued violations of IHL by certain states and armed groups without effective deterrence highlight the urgent need to strengthen enforcement and accountability mechanisms. This includes empowering the International Criminal Court (ICC), activating universal jurisdiction, enhancing international cooperation in extraditing suspects, and imposing legal, economic, and diplomatic sanctions on states and entities that support or shield war criminals. Furthermore, as military technology advances, international laws must be updated to ensure that modern weaponry is used in compliance with IHL principles, such as distinction, proportionality, and military necessity.

Ultimately, respecting the laws of war is not just a legal obligation but also a moral and humanitarian responsibility aimed at reducing human suffering, protecting innocent lives, and preventing the recurrence of the horrific crimes witnessed throughout history. Building a more just and peaceful world requires strong political will, genuine international cooperation, and continuous awareness of IHL's significance—so that its principles do not remain mere legal texts, but become a living reality that upholds human dignity in times of war and peace.

Legal Opinion on Violations in Syria and International Humanitarian Law

An analysis of international humanitarian law (IHL) clearly demonstrates that the grave violations committed during the conflict in Syria—whether by the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army (SNA) or Turkish forces against the Kurdish population in eastern Euphrates—constitute war crimes and serious breaches of IHL. These violations include forced displacement, indiscriminate killings, targeting of civilians, torture, and enforced disappearances, all of which necessitate international investigations and legal accountability for the responsible parties.

1. Responsibility of the Turkish-Backed Syrian National Army (SNA)

According to UN reports and human rights organizations, the Turkish-backed SNA has committed systematic violations, including:

• Forced displacement of Kurdish populations, particularly in Afrin, Manbij, Tal Abyad, and Ras al-Ayn, which violates Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention.

• Extrajudicial killings, which may constitute a crime against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).

• Arbitrary arrests, torture, and sexual violence, violating Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibits cruel or degrading treatment.

Given these crimes, Turkey bears direct legal responsibility as the primary backer of this faction through training, funding, and operational oversight. This makes Turkey subject to state responsibility for internationally wrongful acts under international law.

2. Turkey’s Responsibility for Violations in Eastern Euphrates

Evidence indicates that Turkish military operations in northern Syria and eastern Euphrates have included:

• Targeting civilians and bombing infrastructure, which could amount to war crimes under Article 8 of the Rome Statute.

• Demographic engineering through forced resettlement, a blatant violation of the Geneva Conventions, which prohibit the forcible transfer of populations.

• Targeting journalists and political activists, violating fundamental human rights enshrined in international treaties.

As a party to the conflict, Turkey could be held internationally liable for these crimes, particularly if Turkish forces and their affiliated armed groups have committed such violations under official directives or with complicity from Turkey’s political and military leadership.

3. Responsibility of the New Authority in Syria (Ahmed al-Shar’a "Abu Muhammad al-Jolani")

It is alarming that the international community is treating the new authority in Syria, led by Abu Muhammad al-Jolani, as a legitimate government, despite its origins in jihadist groups and its grave violations of IHL, including:

• Extrajudicial executions of political opponents, constituting a crime against humanity under the Rome Statute.

• Imposition of oppressive laws and violations of women’s and minority rights, which severely breach the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).

• Ongoing repression and torture against civilians in areas under their control, including their criminal record from the 2013 attack on Ras al-Ayn, where Kurdish civilians were massacred. Additionally, after coming to power in Damascus in 2024, al-Jolani's regime carried out widespread violations against Alawite civilians in Syria’s coastal region, under the pretext of eliminating remnants of the previous regime—in direct violation of the 1984 Convention Against Torture.

The international recognition of an entity classified as a terrorist organization contradicts fundamental principles of international law. Under the principle of non-recognition of regimes established through unlawful means, there must be clear legal accountability for this authority, preventing it from representing Syria on the international stage without addressing its atrocities.

Legal Conclusion

Based on the presented evidence, the violations committed by the Turkish-backed Syrian National Army, Turkish forces in northern Syria, and the new authority under Abu Muhammad al-Jolani constitute serious breaches of IHL, necessitating an independent international investigation and prosecution of those responsible before the ICC or national courts with universal jurisdiction.

Additionally, strict international sanctions must be imposed on all perpetrating parties, and entities that emerged from terrorist organizations should not be allowed to shape Syria’s future without facing legal accountability. Legitimizing such groups sets a dangerous precedent in international law, signaling that armed factions can seize power through violence without consequences.

Given the lack of effective accountability so far, the international community and the United Nations must activate mechanisms of international justice and exert pressure on Turkey and other involved parties to ensure that war criminals do not escape justice and that the Syrian people’s right to justice and lasting peace is upheld.

ــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــــ 

• Cassese, A. (2008). International Criminal Law (2nd ed.). Oxford University Press. • Schabas, W. A. (2017). An Introduction to the International Criminal Court (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press. • Dinstein, Y. (2016). The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (3rd ed.). Cambridge University Press. • Sassòli, M., Bouvier, A. A., & Quintin, A. (2019). How Does Law Protect in War? (3rd ed.). International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). • Cryer, R., Friman, H., Robinson, D., & Wilmshurst, E. (2019). An Introduction to International Criminal Law and Procedure (4th ed.). Cambridge University Press. • Clapham, A., Gaeta, P., & Sassòli, M. (2014). The 1949 Geneva Conventions: A Commentary. Oxford University Press. • International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). (2021). Customary International Humanitarian Law Database. Retrieved from https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl • United Nations. (1998). Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int/resource-library • United Nations Security Council Resolutions on war crimes and international humanitarian law. Retrieved from https://www.un.org/securitycouncil • Human Rights Watch. (2022). World Report 2022: Events of 2021. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org