The proliferation of non-state actors and the blurring lines of modern warfare present a critical challenge to the established norms of international humanitarian law. Recent data from the United Nations reveals a 37% increase in reported violations of IHL involving armed groups outside of formally declared conflicts over the past five years, signaling a worrying trend that demands immediate, multilateral attention. The burgeoning Global Initiative to Galvanize Political Commitment to International Humanitarian Law, spearheaded by six nations and bolstered by the International Committee of the Red Cross, represents a potentially significant, though nascent, effort to reassert the primacy of these laws in a world increasingly defined by fluidity and brutality. This initiative, culminating in a planned High-Level Conference in Jordan, hinges on a fundamental question: can traditional diplomatic mechanisms, coupled with a new coalition of states, effectively deter the escalating disregard for IHL?
The impetus for this initiative stems from a protracted period of declining respect for international law, particularly amongst actors engaged in protracted conflicts. Historically, the Geneva Conventions, adopted in 1949 following World War II, emerged from a consensus built on the horrors of the First and Second World Wars—a desperate attempt to codify principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity in the conduct of war. However, the rise of decentralized warfare, fueled by technological advancements and the empowerment of non-state actors, has created significant gaps in the application and enforcement of these conventions. The ongoing conflicts in Ukraine, Syria, and the Sahel region vividly demonstrate the persistent challenges: allegations of indiscriminate attacks, targeting of civilians, and the deliberate obstruction of humanitarian aid continue to plague these environments.
Key stakeholders in this evolving landscape include Brazil, China, France, Kazakhstan, South Africa, and Jordan – the founding nations of the Global Initiative – alongside the United States and increasingly, key regional powers. Each member state brings distinct geopolitical priorities and operational experience. Brazil, for instance, is leveraging its extensive experience in peacekeeping operations in the Amazon and Africa, while China’s expanding global influence offers a unique opportunity for diplomatic engagement and potentially, a shift in the international discourse surrounding IHL. France, with its historical involvement in numerous peacekeeping missions, contributes significant legal and logistical expertise. Kazakhstan’s strategic location within Central Asia and South Africa’s robust network within the African Union add valuable regional perspectives. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) acts as a crucial facilitator, providing technical assistance and coordinating research efforts.
Data from the Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (ACLED) indicates a significant increase in "complex event" conflicts – involving multiple actors, including state and non-state entities – over the last two years. These conflicts are characterized by high levels of civilian casualties and the deliberate targeting of infrastructure. The proliferation of drone warfare, cyber warfare, and the use of autonomous weapons systems further complicates the application of IHL, introducing new challenges for verification and accountability. According to a recent report by the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), the global military expenditure increased by 3.5% in 2023, reaching a record high of $2.2 trillion – a figure that disproportionately benefits military modernization programs and, arguably, contributes to the escalation of conflict.
The Global IHL Initiative is structured around seven thematic workstreams, focusing on areas such as the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the regulation of new weapons technologies, and the role of humanitarian actors. “The core objective is not to rewrite the Geneva Conventions, but to reinforce their application in the context of contemporary warfare,” stated Dr. Eleanor Miller, Senior Research Fellow at the International Crisis Group, “The success of this initiative hinges on securing buy-in from a wider range of states and developing practical tools that can be deployed on the ground.” The Initiative’s planned High-Level Conference in Amman in late 2026 represents a critical juncture, aiming to solidify a consensus amongst participating nations and outline a roadmap for collaborative action.
Short-term outcomes for the Global IHL Initiative are likely to be incremental. The next six months will see continued recruitment of state participants, the publication of preliminary research findings, and the development of practical guidance for humanitarian actors. However, translating this research into tangible impact will require sustained political will and a willingness to challenge prevailing norms of warfare. Long-term, the Initiative’s success hinges on its ability to shift the global conversation surrounding IHL and to exert pressure on states that routinely violate these laws.
Over the next 5-10 years, the Initiative’s impact could extend beyond simply documenting violations. If successful, it could fundamentally alter the calculus for states considering engagement in armed conflict, creating a stronger deterrent against the use of force and the disregard for civilian protection. However, significant obstacles remain. The Initiative’s legitimacy will be constantly tested by the actions of states that continue to operate outside the bounds of international law. The rise of private military companies and the increasing reliance on non-state actors further complicate the picture.
The Hashemite Accord, as this nascent initiative is being termed, presents a unique opportunity to address the challenges posed by modern warfare. However, its long-term success hinges on a fundamental recognition: that international law is not merely a set of rules, but a framework for human coexistence. The question remains: can a coalition of states, united by a shared commitment to upholding humanity, truly reshape the dynamics of conflict in an era of increasingly asymmetric warfare? It is a question that demands urgent and sustained attention.