Families fleeing shattered homes in Gaza City represent a stark illustration of a crisis facing international humanitarian law, according to a new analysis revealing a pattern of escalating abuses against civilians and detainees in conflicts worldwide.
The assessment, detailed by international lawyer Stuart Casey-Maslen, head of the Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights, points to a “breaking point” for the legal framework designed to protect those caught in armed conflict. The analysis of 23 armed conflict situations between July 2024 and the end of 2025 reveals a consistent pattern of civilian deaths, abuse, and starvation, coupled with a failure of accountability mechanisms.
“Violations are no longer concealed or exceptional,” Casey-Maslen wrote in an opinion piece published Tuesday. “They are increasingly open, systematic, and unpunished, with catastrophic consequences for those whom the law is supposed to protect.”
The report specifically cites genocidal violence in Gaza and a renewed risk of genocide in Sudan as examples of this broader collapse of restraint. Conflict-related sexual violence has reached “epidemic levels,” with documented cases of rape, sexual slavery, and sexual violence used as a tool of territorial control in Colombia, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Myanmar, and Sudan. Alarmingly, a growing number of these attacks involve children, including victims as young as one year old.
Casey-Maslen argues that the problem isn’t a lack of legal clarity, but a “political choice” and a “persistent failure to enforce” existing laws. He points to the United Nations Arms Trade Treaty, ratified by major exporters like China, France, and the United Kingdom, as an example of a framework undermined by strategic and political considerations. Despite the treaty’s requirement to deny arms transfers where there is a clear risk of serious law violations, continued arms exports to countries like Israel and Russia have fueled civilian harm.
The analysis calls for the consistent application of existing rules, including enforceable export controls, independent scrutiny of licensing decisions, and accountability for breaches of the law. It also highlights the need to clarify ambiguities in international humanitarian law regarding attacks near military targets and the permissible level of incidental civilian harm. Restricting air-delivered weapons to precision-guided munitions is proposed as a measurable step toward improving civilian survival rates.
The increasing leverage of drones, both by state and non-state actors, presents a new challenge. The report emphasizes the urgent need for stronger mechanisms to attribute, investigate, and prosecute unlawful drone and autonomous weapon attacks, citing examples of drone use by Russian forces in Ukraine and by groups like JNIM in the Sahel, Islamic State in Somalia, and the Arakan Army in Myanmar.
Casey-Maslen stresses that addressing this crisis requires sustained political and financial support for institutions designed to promote compliance with international humanitarian law, including domestic courts and international tribunals. He warns that the current situation represents a critical test for the future of international humanitarian law, echoing a warning from Hersch Lauterpacht that the law existed at the “vanishing point” of international law.