What is the primary focus of the conference?

The conference focuses on humanitarian law, international justice, and human rights, exploring their intersections and contemporary challenges.

International Conference on Humanitarian Law, International Justice, and Human Rights

Name: International Conference on Humanitarian Law, International Justice, and Human Rights
Start: 2026-09-15T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-09-15T00:00:00Z
Location: Copenhagen

Sep 15, 2026Copenhagen, DenmarkIn-person

Registration open

The International Conference on Humanitarian Law, International Justice, and Human Rights convenes in Copenhagen, DNK, bringing together scholars, practitioners, and policymakers. This event serves as a critical forum for discussing the evolving landscape of international law, particularly as it pertains to the protection of human dignity and the pursuit of accountability in complex global scenarios. Participants will engage with contemporary challenges and explore innovative approaches to upholding fundamental principles. The conference aims to foster a deeper understanding of the interplay between humanitarian law, international justice mechanisms, and human rights frameworks. It provides a platform for sharing research, debating policy implications, and identifying best practices in addressing violations and promoting adherence to international norms.

Committees & topics

Topics
International Justice and Accountability · Humanitarian Law in Conflict Zones · Rights of Victims in International Law · War Crimes and Human Rights

Why it matters

In an era marked by persistent conflicts and humanitarian crises, the principles of international humanitarian law, justice, and human rights face continuous scrutiny and challenge. This conference is significant because it directly addresses the mechanisms and norms designed to mitigate suffering and ensure accountability during and after such events. The discussions held in Copenhagen, DNK, are vital for reinforcing the legal and ethical foundations that underpin global stability and human protection.

The gathering offers an opportunity to analyze the effectiveness of existing international instruments and institutions in responding to contemporary issues, from protracted conflicts to emerging forms of human rights abuses. By facilitating dialogue among diverse stakeholders, the conference contributes to the refinement of legal interpretations and the development of more robust strategies for implementation and enforcement. This collective effort is essential for strengthening the international legal order and ensuring that justice is accessible and human rights are respected globally.

Furthermore, the conference's focus on the intersection of these three critical areas acknowledges their inherent interconnectedness. Humanitarian law dictates conduct during armed conflict, international justice seeks to prosecute those who violate these laws, and human rights provide a universal standard for how states should treat individuals. Understanding these linkages is crucial for developing holistic responses to crises and for building a more just and peaceful world.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for this conference should engage in a thorough review of current events that challenge international humanitarian law and human rights, such as ongoing conflicts and their humanitarian consequences. Understanding the nuances of recent legal precedents set by international courts and tribunals will be particularly beneficial. A strong grasp of the foundational treaties and conventions, including the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, as well as key human rights instruments, is indispensable.

Consider preparing case studies or analyses of specific situations where the application of these legal frameworks has been particularly complex or contested. This could involve examining the role of non-state actors in armed conflicts, the challenges of prosecuting war crimes, or the impact of new technologies on human rights. Employing a framework like the 'Dynamic Analysis' lesson can help in dissecting the evolving nature of these challenges.

Participants should also reflect on the 'Hidden Stakeholders' in humanitarian and justice efforts. Identifying and understanding the perspectives of various actors, including affected communities, civil society organizations, and different state actors, will enrich discussions. Preparing to articulate how different national legal systems interact with international norms, especially from the perspective of countries like USA, RUS, or CHN, could provide valuable insights. The 'Engagement Strategies' lesson offers guidance on how to approach these complex interactions.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 6 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Denmark

A strong advocate for international law and human rights, often contributing to peacekeeping missions and supporting international justice mechanisms.

Role in topic

As the host nation, DNK provides a neutral and supportive environment for discussions on international law. It has a long-standing tradition of upholding human rights and contributing to the development and enforcement of international humanitarian law, often through its foreign policy and support for international institutions like the International Criminal Court (ICC) in NLD.

United States

A complex relationship with international justice, often advocating for human rights while maintaining reservations about certain international legal bodies.

Role in topic

The USA plays a significant role in shaping international humanitarian law and human rights discourse, often through its influence in the United Nations and its own foreign policy. Its perspective is crucial due to its military interventions and its stance on the jurisdiction of international courts, which can impact the enforceability of international justice.

Russia

Emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, often critical of interventions based on humanitarian grounds without UN Security Council authorization.

Role in topic

RUS's perspective is vital for understanding geopolitical challenges to international law. Its actions and interpretations of humanitarian law, particularly in contexts of armed conflict like UKR or SYR, often highlight tensions between national interests and universal human rights principles. Its permanent seat on the UN Security Council gives it significant leverage in international justice matters.

China

Prioritizes state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, while also being a signatory to many human rights treaties.

Role in topic

CHN's growing global influence means its approach to international humanitarian law and human rights is increasingly significant. Its emphasis on non-interference and its economic ties with many developing nations shape its engagement with international justice mechanisms, often advocating for a state-centric approach to human rights.

South Africa

A strong proponent of international justice and human rights, drawing from its own history of overcoming apartheid.

Role in topic

ZAF offers a unique perspective rooted in its transition from apartheid, emphasizing reconciliation and justice. It has been a vocal advocate for the ICC and the prosecution of international crimes, reflecting its commitment to universal human rights and accountability, particularly in contexts like SDN.

Ukraine

A nation currently experiencing armed conflict, highlighting the urgent need for adherence to humanitarian law and international justice.

Role in topic

UKR's current situation places it at the forefront of discussions on international humanitarian law and justice. Its experiences underscore the critical importance of these frameworks in protecting civilians, documenting war crimes, and seeking accountability for violations committed during armed conflict.

Topics & background

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

International Justice and Accountability

Modern international justice traces its origins to the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals after World War II, which established the principle that individuals — not only states — bear criminal responsibility for the gravest violations of international law. This framework expanded in the 1990s with the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), and culminated in the 1998 Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court (ICC), which began operating in 2002 with jurisdiction over genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. The core dispute today concerns the reach, legitimacy, and selectivity of international justice. The ICC has faced criticism for a perceived focus on African situations, while major powers including the United States, Russia, China, and India remain outside the Rome Statute. High-profile arrest warrants — such as those issued against Russian President Vladimir Putin in 2023 and Israeli officials in 2024 — have triggered backlash, sanctions threats, and questions about enforcement when states refuse cooperation. Accountability efforts have nonetheless expanded through hybrid courts (Kosovo Specialist Chambers, Special Tribunal for Lebanon), universal jurisdiction prosecutions in national courts (notably Germany's Koblenz trial on Syrian state torture), and new mechanisms such as the IIIM for Syria and the UN investigative team for Da'esh crimes in Iraq (UNITAD). Delegates must weigh how to strengthen complementarity, secure cooperation, and close impunity gaps without entrenching perceptions of double standards.

Key players

Humanitarian Law in Conflict Zones

International humanitarian law (IHL), codified primarily in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, regulates the conduct of hostilities and protects persons not, or no longer, taking part in fighting. Its core principles — distinction, proportionality, precaution, and humanity — bind states and non-state armed groups alike and are reinforced by customary international law, the Hague Regulations, and treaties on specific weapons and protected categories such as cultural property and medical personnel. Contemporary conflicts have placed IHL under severe strain. The wars in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, Syria, Ethiopia, and Myanmar have produced credible allegations of indiscriminate attacks on civilians, sieges and starvation as methods of warfare, attacks on hospitals and humanitarian workers, and obstruction of aid corridors. The ICRC has repeatedly warned of an erosion of compliance, while urbanization of warfare, the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, and the proliferation of armed drones and autonomous systems raise new interpretive challenges. Debate centers on how to reinforce compliance without renegotiating the Conventions themselves. Initiatives include the 2022 Political Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA), the Safe Schools Declaration, ongoing GGE talks on lethal autonomous weapons, and proposals for stronger fact-finding and humanitarian access mechanisms. Delegates must grapple with enforcement against both state and non-state actors, the protection of humanitarian space, and the regulation of emerging means and methods of warfare.

Key players

Rights of Victims in International Law

The rights of victims emerged as a distinct strand of international law through the 1985 UN Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power and the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation (the 'Van Boven/Bassiouni Principles'). These instruments crystallized a framework of five pillars: the right to truth, justice, reparation, rehabilitation, and guarantees of non-repetition. They built on human rights treaties such as the ICCPR, the Convention against Torture, and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance. Victim participation gained institutional grounding with the Rome Statute, which for the first time in international criminal law allowed victims to participate in proceedings independently of the prosecution and created the Trust Fund for Victims to deliver reparations and assistance. Regional systems — particularly the Inter-American Court of Human Rights — have developed expansive reparations jurisprudence, while transitional justice processes in Colombia, South Africa, Tunisia, Sierra Leone, and elsewhere have tested how to balance victims' demands with political reconciliation. The contemporary debate focuses on implementation gaps. Reparations remain underfunded and inconsistently delivered; mass-victimization contexts such as Ukraine, Syria, the Rohingya crisis, and Gaza have generated proposals for compensation registers and international claims commissions. Delegates are asked to consider how to operationalize victim-centered approaches, ensure meaningful participation without re-traumatization, protect witnesses, and address the specific needs of women, children, and victims of conflict-related sexual violence.

Key players

War Crimes and Human Rights

War crimes — serious violations of the laws and customs of armed conflict entailing individual criminal responsibility — were systematically defined in the Nuremberg Charter and elaborated in the grave breaches regimes of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 8 of the Rome Statute. Although IHL and international human rights law developed along separate tracks, the ICJ, regional courts, and UN treaty bodies have increasingly affirmed that human rights obligations continue to apply during armed conflict, with IHL operating as lex specialis in matters of conduct of hostilities. The convergence of these two regimes has shaped responses to contemporary atrocities. UN Human Rights Council-mandated commissions of inquiry and fact-finding missions on Syria, Myanmar, Ukraine, the occupied Palestinian territory, Ethiopia, and Sudan combine IHL and human rights analyses to document violations and identify perpetrators. Their reports have fed national prosecutions under universal jurisdiction, ICC investigations, and ICJ contentious cases such as The Gambia v. Myanmar and South Africa v. Israel. Despite this expanded toolkit, accountability remains uneven. Vetoes in the Security Council have repeatedly blocked referrals to the ICC, sanctions and counter-sanctions have been deployed against investigators, and the protection of evidence in active conflict zones is precarious. Delegates must consider how to strengthen documentation standards, secure cooperation with international and hybrid courts, protect witnesses and human rights defenders, and ensure that the dual framework of IHL and human rights translates into meaningful redress for affected populations.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on Humanitarian Law, International Justice, and Human Rights.

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Supreme Court's Voting Rights Impact on 2026

Trump's Federal Election Strategy

Supreme Court VRA Ruling Empowers GOP 2026

AAP's Internal Crisis

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Engagement Strategies

Dynamic Analysis

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

Conflict Resolution

Advanced Negotiation

Multilateral Negotiation

Policy Brief Writing

The states in play, with the data that shapes their stance

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Country dossier

Denmark September 2026

By committee

Frequently asked questions

International Conference on Humanitarian Law, International Justice, and Human Rights

Sep 15, 2026Copenhagen, DenmarkIn-person

Registration open

Committees & topics

Topics
International Justice and Accountability · Humanitarian Law in Conflict Zones · Rights of Victims in International Law · War Crimes and Human Rights

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 6 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

Denmark

A strong advocate for international law and human rights, often contributing to peacekeeping missions and supporting international justice mechanisms.

Role in topic

United States

A complex relationship with international justice, often advocating for human rights while maintaining reservations about certain international legal bodies.

Role in topic

Russia

Emphasizes state sovereignty and non-interference, often critical of interventions based on humanitarian grounds without UN Security Council authorization.

Role in topic

China

Prioritizes state sovereignty and non-interference in internal affairs, while also being a signatory to many human rights treaties.

Role in topic

South Africa

A strong proponent of international justice and human rights, drawing from its own history of overcoming apartheid.

Role in topic

Ukraine

A nation currently experiencing armed conflict, highlighting the urgent need for adherence to humanitarian law and international justice.

Role in topic