Is Compliance with International Humanitarian Law Susceptible to Logical Measurement

The literature on international humanitarian law (IHL) focuses exclusively on its positive rules (i.e. that civilians must not be made the subject of attack, that unnecessary suffering is prohibited etc), taking it for granted that the application of IHL is an ideal tool for all stakeholders. This is natural given the imperatives which the jus in bello aims to accommodate, thus rendering it subject to a strict erga omnes regime. During peacetime the majority of states will proclaim their adherence to the principles of IHL and will genuinely strive to instruct their armed forces and will themselves participate in the global effort to uphold and augment these principles. During situations of armed conflict, however, militarily weak states will no doubt experience such a degree of stress against powerful adversaries that may incline them to deviate from their prior declarations of adherence. The objective of this brief article is to test the presumption that compliance with IHL is beneficial for all states and at all times, irrespective of their particular qualities. This should in no way be taken to mean that I am advocating or supporting the violation of IHL in respect to some actors. My intention is simply to employ logic in order to test the validity of this assumption.