From Geneva to Kyiv: The Evolution of Humanitarian Law Under Fire

By Matthew Parish, Associate Editor

Thursday 4 June 2026

The laws of war are born in paradox. They seek to impose humanity upon circumstances specifically designed to extinguish it. They acknowledge that armed conflict may be unavoidable while insisting that even amidst violence there remain limits beyond which civilised societies must not pass. For more than a century and a half, the modern framework of international humanitarian law has attempted to establish those limits. Yet nowhere has the resilience and fragility of that system been tested more severely in recent decades than in Ukraine.

The journey from Geneva to Kyiv is not merely a geographical one. It represents the evolution of humanitarian law from a nineteenth-century project concerned principally with wounded soldiers on battlefields into a twenty-first-century struggle to regulate drone warfare, cyber operations, information campaigns and industrial-scale attacks upon civilian infrastructure. Ukraine has become both a battlefield and a laboratory in which many of the assumptions underlying contemporary humanitarian law are being challenged.

The origins of modern humanitarian law are generally traced to the experience of Swiss businessman Henry Dunant. Witnessing the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino in 1859, Dunant was horrified by the suffering of wounded soldiers abandoned without adequate medical care. His subsequent efforts led to the establishment of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the First Geneva Convention of 1864.

The original Geneva Convention was modest in scope. It sought principally to protect wounded military personnel and those caring for them. Yet the idea it embodied was revolutionary. It asserted that even in war there existed universal humanitarian obligations transcending national loyalties and military objectives.

Over time, this framework expanded dramatically. Additional Geneva Conventions adopted in 1906, 1929 and most importantly 1949 broadened protections to include prisoners of war, civilians under occupation and victims of armed conflicts generally. The horrors of the Second World War profoundly influenced this development. The Holocaust, mass civilian bombing campaigns and widespread atrocities demonstrated that existing legal protections were inadequate to restrain modern industrial warfare.

The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 remain the cornerstone of contemporary humanitarian law. Their provisions establish protections for wounded combatants, shipwrecked military personnel, prisoners of war and civilians. They are amongst the most universally ratified treaties in history. Virtually every state on earth has accepted their binding force.

Yet the success of these instruments has always depended upon more than legal ratification. Humanitarian law possesses no independent army. It relies upon military discipline, political will, international pressure and the expectation of reciprocity. States comply not merely because rules exist but because they perceive benefits in maintaining a legal order that may one day protect their own citizens and soldiers.

Throughout the Cold War, humanitarian law evolved further through the Additional Protocols of 1977. These instruments sought to address decolonisation conflicts, guerrilla warfare and increasingly sophisticated military technologies. They strengthened protections for civilians and introduced more detailed rules concerning proportionality and distinction.

The principle of distinction lies at the heart of modern humanitarian law. Combatants must distinguish between military targets and civilians. Military operations must be directed against legitimate military objectives rather than civilian populations. Closely related is the principle of proportionality, which prohibits attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm relative to the anticipated military advantage.

For decades these principles appeared reasonably stable. They faced violations, certainly, but their conceptual foundations remained largely uncontested. The conflicts of the twenty-first century have changed this.

Ukraine illustrates the transformation dramatically.

When Russia launched her full-scale invasion in February 2022, humanitarian law entered an environment unlike any previously encountered. Satellite imagery documented events in near real time. Civilian mobile telephones recorded alleged war crimes almost instantly. Open-source intelligence analysts scrutinised military operations from thousands of kilometres away. Artificial intelligence increasingly assisted both military targeting and evidence collection.

The result has been unprecedented visibility.

Historically, investigations into wartime atrocities often occurred years after hostilities ended. In Ukraine, allegations emerged within hours. International investigators, journalists and civil society organisations rapidly assembled vast archives of digital evidence. Events in places such as Bucha, Mariupol and Izium became subjects of immediate international scrutiny.

This digital revolution has transformed humanitarian accountability. The challenge is no longer merely obtaining evidence but evaluating enormous quantities of it. Artificial intelligence systems increasingly assist investigators in sorting photographs, videos and communications records. The same technologies that enable modern warfare are also becoming instruments for documenting its consequences.

Yet the conflict in Ukraine has exposed significant weaknesses in existing legal frameworks.

Drone warfare represents one of the most important examples. Humanitarian law was developed largely with human decision-makers in mind. The principles of distinction and proportionality assume identifiable commanders assessing military objectives and civilian risks. Autonomous and semi-autonomous systems complicate these assumptions.

Ukraine has witnessed extensive deployment of first-person-view drones, loitering munitions and increasingly sophisticated autonomous systems. The legal questions are profound. Who bears responsibility when an artificial intelligence-assisted targeting system makes an error? How should proportionality be assessed when decisions occur at machine speed? Can meaningful human control remain a realistic requirement on future battlefields?

These questions remain largely unresolved.

Cyber warfare presents another challenge. Traditional humanitarian law focuses upon physical destruction and physical harm. Yet contemporary conflicts increasingly involve attacks against digital infrastructure. A cyber operation disabling an electrical grid may indirectly threaten hospitals, water supplies and civilian populations without a single bomb being dropped.

Ukraine has experienced repeated cyber attacks alongside conventional military operations. These incidents have forced legal scholars to confront difficult questions regarding what constitutes an attack under humanitarian law. If malware causes widespread civilian suffering without direct physical destruction, should it be regulated identically to kinetic military action? Existing treaty frameworks offer only partial guidance.

The targeting of critical infrastructure has generated further controversy. Modern societies depend upon interconnected energy systems, telecommunications networks and transportation infrastructure. Distinguishing between civilian and military functions becomes increasingly difficult.

Electricity generation facilities provide a notable example. They serve civilian populations but may also support military operations. Determining whether such infrastructure constitutes a lawful target requires highly contextual analysis. Ukraine has demonstrated the practical difficulty of applying legal categories developed in an earlier technological era.

Yet perhaps the most important lesson from Ukraine concerns the continuing relevance rather than the obsolescence of humanitarian law.

Some observers argue that international law has failed because violations continue to occur. This criticism misunderstands the purpose of legal systems generally. Laws against theft do not eliminate theft. Laws against murder do not eliminate murder. The existence of violations does not demonstrate the irrelevance of legal norms.

Indeed, one of the most striking features of contemporary warfare is the extent to which states continue to justify their actions in legal terms. Governments accused of violating humanitarian law rarely respond by rejecting the law itself. Instead they typically dispute facts, interpretations or legal classifications. This behaviour reflects an important reality: humanitarian law retains normative power precisely because legitimacy matters.

The conflict in Ukraine has generated unprecedented efforts at accountability. Investigations by national prosecutors, international institutions and civil society organisations continue on a scale rarely seen in modern warfare. Whether these efforts ultimately produce comprehensive justice remains uncertain. Nevertheless they demonstrate that humanitarian law remains a living system rather than a historical relic.

The future evolution of humanitarian law will likely be shaped substantially by lessons learned in Ukraine. New legal instruments may emerge addressing autonomous weapons, cyber operations and artificial intelligence. Existing doctrines concerning civilian protection may require adaptation to increasingly interconnected societies. Mechanisms for evidence collection and accountability will continue evolving alongside digital technologies.

Yet the central challenge remains remarkably similar to that faced by Henry Dunant more than 160 years ago.

Humanitarian law ultimately rests upon a simple proposition: human dignity does not disappear when war begins. Technologies change. Battlefields evolve. Weapons become more sophisticated. Yet the underlying moral question remains constant. How can societies preserve humanity amidst organised violence?

The roads from Solferino to Geneva and from Geneva to Kyiv are separated by centuries of technological transformation. Nevertheless they are connected by a common aspiration. Each generation confronts new forms of warfare and new opportunities for cruelty. Each generation must therefore reinterpret humanitarian principles for contemporary realities.

Ukraine has shown that humanitarian law is neither static nor complete. It remains a work in progress, forged not in academic seminars but under the pressure of real conflict. The laws of war continue to evolve because warfare itself continues to evolve. The challenge for the international community is ensuring that legal protections evolve at least as rapidly as the technologies capable of undermining them.

The future of humanitarian law may be uncertain. Its necessity is not. As long as wars continue, humanity will require rules that seek to limit suffering. The experience of Ukraine reminds us that these rules are not self-executing. They require vigilance, enforcement and continual adaptation. Under fire, humanitarian law is tested. Yet under fire it also evolves.

The story from Geneva to Kyiv is therefore not one of legal failure. It is the story of an unfinished project, continually challenged by history and continually renewed by the determination that even amidst war there remain lines that civilised nations must not cross.