Senior Workshop on International Rules Governing Military Operations (SWIRMO) in Riyadh: Humanitarian Law as part of the Military Doctrine

How are these training programs designed for different armies and doctrines around the world? The two delegates emphasize that the fundamental principles of IHL are non-negotiable. “The fundamental principles are indivisible: distinction, proportionality, and precautions,” says Kandil, but adds, “If it’s cold, you dress warmly… That’s how IHL should be adapted. This doesn’t mean changing the fundamental principles, but rather how the information is communicated and how it’s reflected in practice.”

This adaptation is key. “If the state, for example, is governed by Islamic law,” explains Kandil, “we focus on the individual’s inherent respect for their own Islamic law. If, however, the state is governed solely by secular laws, we focus more on these laws.” Sometimes, the approach might be to respect the leader or tribal chief. The goal is always to find the “appropriate approach” to ensure respect for the law.

This aligns perfectly with the ICRC’s research, such as the report “The Roots of Restraint,” which found that linking the law to local values and customs gives it far greater impact than simply focusing on the law as a rigid text.

This highlights the importance of the delegates’ military background. “A soldier in the field must first understand the law, then accept, in order to apply and respect it later,” says Nakhleh. He compares the principles of humanitarian law to classical military theories: “Clausewitz’s principles of war are 200 years old and still applicable, while Sun Tzu’s are over 2,000 years old. The difference lies in how these principles are applied.” This application is adapted not only culturally, but also according to the ranks of the participants in the training (between non-commissioned officers or senior commanders) and the context (theoretical training in peacetime differs from direct practical training during conflicts).

This adaptation has reached the point where many advanced militaries issue their own practical manuals on the “law of armed conflict.” “Some ask, what’s the difference?” says Nakhleh. “The content, spirit, and purpose are the same, but the difference is that this law of armed conflict is an applied system of IHL that takes into account the state’s capabilities, doctrine, equipment, education and training systems, and penal code.”

As the nature and characteristics of modern warfare evolve, so do the challenges. The ICRC today faces pressing questions about emerging technologies, autonomous weapons, and cyber warfare. Kandil emphasizes that the ICRC takes a “proactive” approach, citing Article 36 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which obliges states to review new weapons to ensure their compliance with the law. “We keep track of all new developments in weaponry and modern warfare,” he says. “If we sense that a state possesses new weapons, we take a proactive step and discuss IHL in its modern forms.”

This proactive approach was recently exemplified in a specialized regional workshop held in Jordan in 2023, which focused exclusively on “Emerging Technologies and International Humanitarian Law” and brought together officers and legal advisors from 11 countries in the Middle East and North Africa.

Nakhleh goes even further, arguing that technology, if used correctly, can actually strengthen respect for the law. “Today’s technologies can distinguish and gather intelligence better, faster, and more accurately,” he says. “You can see the target with high precision and identify it.” But he concludes with a crucial warning: “All of this is on one condition: that the final decision remains with the human being, not the machine.”

But what is the real impact of dialogues and training? The impact is the story of Ghana mentioned above, where one workshop participant became a bridge for integrating IHL into the programs of a national army. The impact is the transition from theoretical lectures to “map-based training” and application during military operations, where the law becomes part of the strategic commander’s decision-making. The biggest challenge, as the delegates see it, is not in the texts of the law, but in the mindset and the will.

“The first challenge we face is the mixing of IHL with other laws,” says Kandil. “We must fight a mindset with a mindset.” He offers a powerful analogy: “When a driver makes a mistake and runs a red light, is the fault with the light or with the driver? The fault lies with the one who did not respect the law.” The problem isn't always with the law itself, but with states' willingness to implement it and integrate it into their national legislation.

Nakhleh agrees, pointing to a common misconception: "Some believe that the responsibility for ensuring respect for the law lies with the ICRC. In fact, it's the responsibility of the parties and states that have signed the Geneva Conventions. Our role is to help parties to conflicts to respect the law."

These practitioners don't seek to restrict armies, but rather to reframe the law as an element of power.

Nakhleh summarizes this philosophy by saying: "IHL doesn't prevent the achievement of military objectives. On the contrary, it promotes their proper achievement, respecting the rules of war such as economy of means and force, while simultaneously considering humanitarian values and aspects. For the ICRC, the law is a tool for assistance, not a tool for accountability."

As for Kandil, he succinctly summarizes the entire field in one word: "IHL is, in short, one word: humanity – how to be human during armed conflicts. And we are always and forever at the service of humanity and at the service of humankind."