Where is the competition held?

The competition takes place in Sanremo, ITA.

What is the eligibility level for participants?

The competition is designed for participants at the college level, specifically cadets from military academies.

What is the format of the competition?

The competition involves a simulated "Armed Conflict" scenario, requiring participants to apply International Humanitarian Law.

24th Competition on IHL for Military Academies

Mar 23–27, 2026Sanremo, ItalyIn-person

ConcludedRegistration closed

The Competition on International Humanitarian Law (IHL) for Military Academies is a significant event designed to immerse future military officers in the complexities of IHL. Hosted in Sanremo, ITA, this program offers a unique educational experience, combining theoretical knowledge with practical application through a simulated "Armed Conflict" scenario. Participants engage in a dynamic environment that challenges their understanding of the rules governing armed conflict and their ethical implications. This competition is tailored for cadets from military academies, providing them with an essential foundation in IHL before they embark on their professional careers. The program emphasizes critical thinking and decision-making under pressure, fostering a deep appreciation for the humanitarian principles that underpin military operations. It serves as a crucial platform for future leaders to develop a nuanced perspective on the legal and ethical dimensions of warfare.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 4 countries stand on the dominant committee topic. Click through for the full country profile.

Italy

As the host nation, ITA plays a crucial role in facilitating this educational initiative on International Humanitarian Law.

Role in topic

ITA provides the venue for the competition in Sanremo, underscoring its commitment to promoting the study and application of International Humanitarian Law among future military leaders. Its historical and ongoing contributions to international law and humanitarian efforts position it as a key supporter of such educational programs.

Switzerland

CHE, as the depositary of the Geneva Conventions, holds a foundational position in the development and promotion of International Humanitarian Law.

Role in topic

While not directly hosting, CHE's historical role in the genesis and custodianship of the Geneva Conventions makes it a silent but significant presence in any IHL competition. Its commitment to neutrality and humanitarian principles provides a strong moral and legal backdrop for the study of IHL.

United States

The USA, as a major military power, has a vested interest in ensuring its military personnel are well-versed in International Humanitarian Law.

Role in topic

The USA's extensive involvement in global military operations necessitates a strong emphasis on IHL training for its armed forces. Participation in such competitions allows future US officers to engage with international peers and reinforce their understanding of the legal frameworks governing "Armed Conflict".

United Kingdom

The GBR, with its significant military history and current global engagements, actively promotes adherence to International Humanitarian Law.

Role in topic

The GBR's military doctrine incorporates IHL as a fundamental component of operational planning and execution. Participation by GBR military academies in this competition would reflect their commitment to training officers who can navigate the complexities of "Armed Conflict" within legal and ethical boundaries.

Topics & background

The history behind each committee topic and the states that shape it.

International Humanitarian Law

International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the law of war, is the body of rules that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. Its modern foundations were laid in 1864 with the First Geneva Convention, championed by Henry Dunant and the nascent International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) after the Battle of Solferino. The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 added rules on the conduct of hostilities, while the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 — adopted in the aftermath of the Second World War — codified protections for the wounded and sick, shipwrecked, prisoners of war, and civilians. The 1977 Additional Protocols extended these protections to victims of international and non-international armed conflicts. The core dispute in contemporary IHL centers on how a body of treaty law designed primarily for inter-state war applies to today's predominantly non-international and asymmetric conflicts. Questions about the status of non-state armed groups, the lawfulness of targeted killings and drone strikes, the use of autonomous weapons systems, cyber operations, the conduct of hostilities in densely populated urban environments, and the protection of humanitarian and medical workers have all strained existing frameworks. Allegations of grave breaches in conflicts from Syria and Yemen to Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, and the Sahel have intensified scrutiny of state and non-state compliance. Today IHL is upheld through a patchwork of mechanisms: the ICRC's monitoring and confidential dialogue with parties, universal jurisdiction prosecutions in domestic courts, ad hoc tribunals, and the International Criminal Court established by the 1998 Rome Statute. Yet enforcement remains uneven, politicized at the UN Security Council, and complicated by the refusal of several major military powers to join the ICC or the Additional Protocols. Strengthening compliance, clarifying rules for new technologies, and protecting humanitarian space remain the central challenges for states, armed forces, and humanitarian actors.

Key players

Law of Armed Conflict

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) is the operational expression of IHL as taught and applied within armed forces. It draws on two complementary streams: Hague law, which regulates the means and methods of warfare, and Geneva law, which protects persons hors de combat. LOAC rests on four cardinal principles — distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality in attack, military necessity, and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering — supplemented by precaution in attack. These principles bind commanders in planning and executing operations and are reflected in national military manuals, rules of engagement, and targeting processes. The contemporary core dispute concerns how LOAC applies across the spectrum of modern operations: counterinsurgency and counterterrorism campaigns, coalition warfare, hybrid conflicts blending state and proxy forces, urban siege warfare, maritime grey-zone operations, and the integration of cyber, space, and artificial-intelligence-enabled systems. Debates persist over the threshold for an armed conflict, the geographic scope of hostilities, the legal status of foreign fighters and private military companies, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and command responsibility for violations. Recent conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Nagorno-Karabakh, Tigray, and Sudan have generated intense LOAC analysis around siege tactics, attacks on critical infrastructure, and the treatment of prisoners of war. State practice today is shaped by national interpretations of treaty obligations, the ICRC's Customary IHL Study, judgments of international and hybrid tribunals, and the ongoing work of forums such as the Group of Governmental Experts on Lethal Autonomous Weapons under the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons. Military academies and operational legal advisers (LEGADs) play an increasingly visible role in embedding LOAC into doctrine and training. The central challenge is to translate evolving legal standards into disciplined, lawful conduct on contemporary battlefields where adversaries may not reciprocate compliance.

Key players