Where will the High-Level Conference on Humanity in War take place?

The conference will be held in Amman, JOR.

When is the High-Level Conference on Humanity in War scheduled?

The conference is scheduled to begin in December.

Which city is hosting the High-Level Conference on Humanity in War?

The host city for the conference is Amman.

High-Level Conference on Humanity in War 2026

Name: High-Level Conference on Humanity in War 2026
Start: 2026-12-07T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-12-07T00:00:00Z
Location: Amman

Dec 7, 2026Amman, JordanIn-person

Registration open

The High-Level Conference on Humanity in War will convene in Amman, Jordan. This significant gathering aims to address critical issues surrounding humanitarian principles and their application during armed conflicts. The conference serves as a platform for high-level discussions on safeguarding human dignity amidst the complexities of modern warfare. Participants will engage in deliberations focused on strengthening adherence to international humanitarian law and exploring effective strategies for protecting civilians and ensuring humanitarian access in conflict zones. The event underscores the ongoing global commitment to upholding humanity in times of war.

Committees & topics

Topics
International Humanitarian Law · Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts · Rules of War

Why it matters

The conference is particularly relevant given the persistent challenges in protecting civilians and ensuring compliance with international humanitarian law in contemporary armed conflicts. The discussions in Amman will contribute to the ongoing global dialogue on how to mitigate the human cost of war and reinforce the foundational principles of humanity.

By bringing together key stakeholders, the conference seeks to foster greater understanding and collaboration among nations, international organizations, and humanitarian actors. The outcomes of these discussions could influence future policy decisions and operational frameworks aimed at improving humanitarian responses in conflict-affected regions.

The focus on humanity in war is a testament to the enduring importance of international norms and legal frameworks designed to limit the brutality of armed conflict. This event provides an opportunity to reaffirm these commitments and to collectively seek innovative solutions to protect vulnerable populations.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for the High-Level Conference on Humanity in War should focus on understanding the current state of international humanitarian law and its challenges in contemporary conflicts. A thorough review of recent case studies where humanitarian principles have been tested will be beneficial. Understanding the perspectives of various nations and non-state actors involved in conflict zones is crucial for effective participation.

It is advisable to research the specific humanitarian challenges prevalent in different regions, considering how these might influence discussions on civilian protection and humanitarian access. Participants should also be prepared to contribute to discussions on accountability mechanisms and strategies for promoting greater respect for humanitarian norms. Engaging with the complexities of conflict dynamics and the diverse interpretations of humanitarian law will enhance a delegate's ability to contribute meaningfully to the conference.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 8 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Jordan

Host nation, emphasizing regional stability and humanitarian efforts.

Role in topic

As the host city, Amman, JOR plays a central role in facilitating this high-level dialogue on humanity in war. The nation's perspective will likely emphasize the importance of regional stability, humanitarian assistance, and the protection of civilians in conflict-affected areas, drawing on its own experiences.

Switzerland

Advocate for international humanitarian law and neutrality.

Role in topic

CHE, as the depositary state of the Geneva Conventions, is a key proponent of international humanitarian law. Its delegates will likely advocate for strict adherence to these laws, emphasize the importance of neutrality in humanitarian action, and promote mechanisms for accountability and compliance.

United States

Major global actor with significant military and humanitarian involvement.

Role in topic

The USA, a prominent global actor, will likely contribute perspectives shaped by its extensive involvement in international security operations and humanitarian aid. Its stance may focus on balancing national security interests with humanitarian obligations, and on the effectiveness of international interventions.

Russia

Major power with distinct views on sovereignty and intervention.

Role in topic

RUS, a permanent member of the UN Security Council, holds significant influence in international affairs. Its perspective at the conference may emphasize state sovereignty, non-interference in internal affairs, and its own interpretations of international humanitarian law, particularly in contexts of its military engagements.

China

Rising global power, emphasizing non-interference and development.

Role in topic

CHN, as a rising global power, typically advocates for principles of non-interference in internal affairs and emphasizes development as a means to prevent conflict. Its delegates may highlight the importance of multilateralism and the role of the UN in addressing humanitarian crises.

France

Advocate for human rights and international law.

Role in topic

FRA, a strong proponent of human rights and international law, will likely emphasize the protection of civilians, the fight against impunity, and the importance of humanitarian access. Its delegates may also highlight the role of international institutions in upholding these principles.

United Kingdom

Committed to international law and humanitarian action.

Role in topic

The GBR is a significant contributor to humanitarian aid and a strong advocate for international law. Its delegates will likely focus on practical measures to improve humanitarian responses, strengthen accountability for violations, and promote respect for international humanitarian law in complex environments.

Ukraine

Nation directly affected by ongoing armed conflict.

Role in topic

UKR's perspective will be shaped by its direct experience with ongoing armed conflict. Its delegates will likely emphasize the urgent need for civilian protection, accountability for war crimes, and robust international mechanisms to prevent and respond to humanitarian crises stemming from aggression.

Topics & background

The background behind each topic and the actors that shape it.

International Humanitarian Law

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is the body of rules that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. Its modern foundation was laid in 1864 with the first Geneva Convention, inspired by Henry Dunant's account of the Battle of Solferino and the founding of the International Committee of the Red Cross. Successive treaties — the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005 — have built a framework distinguishing combatants from civilians, regulating means and methods of warfare, and protecting the wounded, prisoners of war, and those under occupation. During the second half of the twentieth century, IHL expanded to cover non-international armed conflicts (notably through Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II) and was reinforced by specialized treaties banning or restricting chemical and biological weapons, anti-personnel mines, cluster munitions, and certain conventional weapons. The establishment of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and of the International Criminal Court in 2002, gave IHL stronger enforcement mechanisms by criminalizing grave breaches as war crimes. Today IHL faces serious stress tests. Conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Syria, Yemen, and the Sahel have produced credible allegations of indiscriminate attacks, starvation as a method of warfare, and obstruction of humanitarian access. New technologies — autonomous weapons systems, cyber operations, and military uses of artificial intelligence — raise unresolved questions about how core principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution apply. States debate whether existing law is adequate but underenforced, or whether new instruments are required to keep pace with the changing character of war.

Key players

Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflicts

The protection of civilians (PoC) became a defining concern of the international community after the Second World War, when the scale of civilian death prompted the 1949 Fourth Geneva Convention, dedicated specifically to protected persons in time of war. Yet the failures of the 1990s — the genocide in Rwanda, the massacre at Srebrenica, and the siege of Sarajevo — exposed how thinly civilians were shielded in practice. In response, the UN Security Council placed PoC formally on its agenda in 1999 (Resolution 1265), and successive resolutions have built a normative architecture including the Responsibility to Protect doctrine endorsed at the 2005 World Summit. PoC today encompasses several interlocking strands: legal protection under IHL and human rights law; physical protection through peacekeeping mandates, which since MONUC in the Democratic Republic of Congo have routinely authorized the use of force to protect civilians; and humanitarian protection through assistance, displacement response, and accountability for violations. Specialized regimes address sexual violence in conflict (Resolution 1820 and subsequent texts), children and armed conflict, and attacks on hospitals, schools, and humanitarian workers. Recent conflicts have severely tested these frameworks. Mass civilian casualties and displacement in Gaza, Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, and Ethiopia's Tigray region, combined with record numbers of aid workers killed and repeated strikes on medical facilities, have raised alarm that protection norms are eroding. Security Council paralysis, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, siege warfare, and the weaponization of food and water are central concerns. Debates focus on strengthening compliance, ensuring humanitarian access, and translating PoC commitments into operational practice for both state and non-state armed actors.

Key players

Rules of War

The 'rules of war' refer to the customary and treaty-based norms governing both when states may resort to force (jus ad bellum) and how hostilities must be conducted (jus in bello). The jus ad bellum is anchored in the UN Charter of 1945, which prohibits the threat or use of force except in self-defence under Article 51 or when authorized by the Security Council under Chapter VII. The jus in bello rests on the Hague and Geneva traditions and on customary international law, requiring parties to distinguish between combatants and civilians, to use force proportionate to concrete military advantage, and to take all feasible precautions to spare civilian life and objects. Over the past three decades these rules have been challenged by new forms of conflict. The 'war on terror' raised disputes over the legal status of detainees, targeted killings, and extraterritorial uses of force against non-state armed groups. Doctrines of anticipatory self-defence, humanitarian intervention, and Responsibility to Protect have stretched debates over when force is lawful. At the operational level, urban warfare, drone strikes, private military companies, and cyber operations have complicated traditional categories of combatant, battlefield, and attack. Contemporary conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, the Sahel, and the South China Sea region have re-centred questions about aggression, occupation, blockade, and the targeting of dual-use infrastructure such as energy grids and communications. Negotiations continue at the UN and in expert fora on lethal autonomous weapons systems, the application of IHL in cyberspace, and the crime of aggression at the ICC. The central tension is between sovereign claims to security and the universal interest in restraining the destructiveness of war.

Key players