What is the primary focus of this conference?

The conference focuses on the intersection of international humanitarian law and the regulations governing armed forces.

Is this event a recurring conference?

Information available indicates this is a new event, with no past editions mentioned.

International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations

Name: International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations
Start: 2026-07-13T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-07-13T00:00:00Z
Location: Copenhagen

Jul 13, 2026Copenhagen, DenmarkIn-person

Registration open

The International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations, held in Copenhagen, DNK, focuses on the critical intersection of military operations and the established norms of international humanitarian law. This event serves as a platform for experts, practitioners, and policymakers to discuss the evolving challenges and interpretations of these regulations in contemporary armed conflicts. The conference aims to foster a deeper understanding of how armed forces can operate effectively while adhering to legal and ethical frameworks.

Committees & topics

Topics
International Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflict · Legal Protections for Civilians in War · The Role of Treaties in Humanitarian Law · Challenges in Enforcing Humanitarian Law · Evolving Frameworks of International Humanitarian Law · Military Governance and Legal Oversight · Human Rights in Armed Conflict · Operational Law and Military Ethics

Why it matters

The adherence to international humanitarian law by armed forces is paramount for several reasons. It provides a framework for protecting civilians, regulating the means and methods of warfare, and ensuring accountability for violations. In an era marked by complex global conflicts and the rise of non-state actors, the principles of international humanitarian law are frequently tested. Discussions at this conference are crucial for reinforcing these principles and adapting them to new realities, thereby contributing to the reduction of human suffering in conflict zones.

The implications of robust international humanitarian law application extend beyond immediate conflict situations. It influences post-conflict reconciliation, the legitimacy of military actions, and the long-term stability of regions. For instance, the conduct of armed forces in situations like those in UKR or SYR directly impacts international perceptions and the potential for future diplomatic resolutions. By examining regulations and best practices, the conference helps to strengthen the international legal order and promotes a more humane approach to warfare.

How to prepare

Delegates preparing for this conference should focus on understanding the nuances of international humanitarian law as it applies to modern armed forces. This includes a review of key treaties, customary international law, and recent case studies involving military operations. Familiarity with the challenges faced by armed forces in adhering to these laws, such as distinguishing combatants from non-combatants, the use of new technologies in warfare, and the protection of cultural property, will be beneficial.

Consideration should also be given to the perspectives of various stakeholders, including military legal advisors, human rights organizations, and government representatives. Understanding the different interpretations and priorities these groups bring to the discussion can inform more effective engagement strategies. Engaging with concepts such as "hidden-stakeholders" and employing "dynamic-analysis" can help delegates anticipate diverse viewpoints and contribute meaningfully to the discourse on regulating armed forces.

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

United States

Emphasizes the importance of military necessity while upholding international humanitarian law, often engaging in debates regarding the interpretation and application of certain provisions, particularly concerning new technologies and non-state actors.

Role in topic

As a major military power, the USA's practices and interpretations of international humanitarian law significantly influence global norms and discussions. Its involvement in various conflicts provides extensive case studies for analysis.

Switzerland

A strong proponent and guardian of international humanitarian law, particularly through its role in hosting the International Committee of the Red Cross and its consistent advocacy for strict adherence to the Geneva Conventions.

Role in topic

CHE plays a foundational role in the development and promotion of international humanitarian law, serving as a neutral ground for discussions and a key actor in humanitarian diplomacy.

Russia

Often faces scrutiny regarding its adherence to international humanitarian law in its military operations, with ongoing debates about its interpretations and applications in specific conflicts.

Role in topic

RUS's military actions and legal interpretations are frequently at the center of international discussions on the enforcement and challenges to international humanitarian law, particularly in contexts like UKR.

United Kingdom

Generally aligns with international humanitarian law, contributing to its development and implementation, but also faces scrutiny regarding its military conduct in certain operations.

Role in topic

GBR, as a permanent member of the Security Council and a significant military contributor to international missions, plays a role in shaping and implementing international humanitarian law.

Israel

Operates in a complex security environment, leading to unique interpretations and applications of international humanitarian law, particularly concerning self-defense and proportionality.

Role in topic

ISR's military operations in contested territories provide frequent and often contentious examples for the application and interpretation of international humanitarian law.

Topics & background

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

International Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflict

International humanitarian law (IHL), often called the law of armed conflict or jus in bello, 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 Red Cross movement, and were dramatically expanded after the Second World War through the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005. Alongside the Geneva tradition, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 established rules on the means and methods of warfare, including restrictions on weapons and the treatment of occupied territory. The core principles of IHL — distinction between combatants and civilians, proportionality in attack, military necessity, and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering — apply to both international armed conflicts and, through Common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II, to non-international armed conflicts. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) serves as the guardian of these conventions, while ad hoc and permanent tribunals, including the ICTY, ICTR, and the International Criminal Court, have developed jurisprudence on war crimes. Today IHL is under strain from conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Yemen, and the Sahel, where parties are accused of indiscriminate attacks, sieges, and attacks on hospitals and humanitarian workers. Debates focus on how classical rules apply to urban warfare, non-state armed groups, cyber operations, and autonomous weapons, and on whether enforcement mechanisms are sufficient to deter violations.

Key players

Legal Protections for Civilians in War

Civilian protection sits at the heart of modern IHL. The Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, drafted in response to the mass civilian victimization of World War II, was the first treaty dedicated specifically to the protection of civilian persons in time of war, including those in occupied territory. Additional Protocol I (1977) extended these protections by codifying the principle of distinction, prohibiting indiscriminate attacks, and protecting civilian objects such as hospitals, schools, and cultural property. The UN Security Council formally took up the Protection of Civilians (PoC) agenda in 1999 with Resolution 1265, and successive resolutions have addressed conflict-related sexual violence (Resolution 1820), children and armed conflict (Resolution 1612), and the protection of medical personnel (Resolution 2286). The Responsibility to Protect doctrine, endorsed at the 2005 World Summit, further grounded the international community's role in preventing atrocity crimes against civilian populations. Despite this dense legal framework, civilians continue to bear the brunt of contemporary conflict. The ICRC and UN OCHA have documented record levels of civilian casualties, displacement, and attacks on humanitarian and medical infrastructure in Gaza, Sudan, Ukraine, and Myanmar. Sieges, starvation as a method of warfare, and attacks on energy and water systems have revived debates about the adequacy of existing rules and the political will to enforce them.

Key players

The Role of Treaties in Humanitarian Law

Treaty law is the principal vehicle through which humanitarian norms have been codified. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 enjoy universal ratification, an exceptional status in international law, and their Additional Protocols of 1977 substantially expanded protections for victims of both international and non-international armed conflicts. Complementing them are weapon-specific treaties: the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its protocols, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the 1997 Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines, the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, and the 2017 Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Treaty-making in this field has often been driven by coalitions of small and middle powers working with civil society, as seen in the Ottawa and Oslo processes. Treaties also interact with customary international humanitarian law, comprehensively studied in the ICRC's 2005 customary IHL study, which binds even states that have not ratified specific instruments. The Rome Statute of 1998 created the International Criminal Court and translated many IHL violations into individual criminal liability for war crimes. Current debate focuses on whether the treaty architecture can keep pace with new technologies and tactics. Negotiations within the CCW on lethal autonomous weapons systems have stalled, and major military powers remain outside key instruments such as the Ottawa Convention, the Cluster Munitions Convention, and the Rome Statute. Delegates must consider how to strengthen, universalize, or supplement existing treaties without undermining hard-won baseline protections.

Key players

Challenges in Enforcing Humanitarian Law

Enforcement has long been IHL's weakest link. The Geneva Conventions oblige states to 'respect and ensure respect' for the law and to prosecute grave breaches under universal jurisdiction, yet domestic prosecutions remain rare. The ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda in the 1990s demonstrated that international criminal accountability was possible, and the International Criminal Court, operational since 2002, was designed to provide a permanent forum. However, the ICC depends on state cooperation and has faced sustained pushback, including U.S. sanctions on its officials and non-cooperation from several situation states. Other enforcement avenues include the International Court of Justice (e.g., the South Africa v. Israel and Ukraine v. Russia cases), commissions of inquiry under the Human Rights Council, the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission established under Additional Protocol I, and targeted sanctions through the UN Security Council. National courts have increasingly exercised universal jurisdiction, notably the German Koblenz trials concerning Syrian state torture. Key obstacles include the politicization of accountability, Security Council vetoes blocking referrals (as with Syria in 2014), the asymmetry between state and non-state armed group obligations, restrictions on humanitarian access, and the difficulty of investigating violations in real-time conflict zones. Delegates will need to weigh proposals to strengthen monitoring, secure evidence preservation, and close impunity gaps.

Key players

Evolving Frameworks of International Humanitarian Law

IHL has always evolved in response to changes in the character of warfare. The shift from interstate to predominantly non-international armed conflicts since 1945 prompted the development of Common Article 3 jurisprudence and Additional Protocol II. The rise of transnational armed groups after 2001 generated debate about the legal classification of conflicts against organizations such as Al-Qaeda and ISIL, the geographic scope of hostilities, and the boundary between IHL and international human rights law. More recently, the law has been pressed to adapt to cyber operations (the subject of the Tallinn Manuals), military uses of artificial intelligence and autonomous weapons (debated within the CCW Group of Governmental Experts since 2014), private military and security companies (the Montreux Document of 2008), and environmental harms in war. The ICRC's 2019 'IHL and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflicts' report and its updated Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions reflect ongoing reinterpretation of long-standing rules. The central question is whether existing principles — distinction, proportionality, precaution — are sufficient when adapted, or whether new binding instruments are required. Disagreement persists between states favoring incremental interpretation and those, often joined by civil society, pushing for explicit new treaties, particularly on autonomous weapons and cyber.

Key players

Military Governance and Legal Oversight

Effective implementation of IHL depends on how armed forces are governed domestically. The Geneva Conventions require states to disseminate IHL, train their forces, integrate it into military manuals, and provide legal advisers under Article 82 of Additional Protocol I. Military justice systems, civilian oversight bodies, and parliamentary defense committees together form the architecture of legal oversight over armed forces. Standards have been developed through bodies such as the Geneva Centre for Security Sector Governance (DCAF), the OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security (1994), and UN Security Sector Reform guidance. Civil-military relations differ widely: some states embed robust judge-advocate systems and independent inspectors general, while others struggle with politicized militaries, weak parliamentary control, or impunity for security forces. The expansion of private military and security companies, addressed by the Montreux Document and the International Code of Conduct, has further complicated oversight. Contemporary issues include accountability for special operations and drone strikes, oversight of intelligence-led targeting, command responsibility for subordinate violations, the treatment of detainees, and the use of military forces in domestic policing roles. Delegates will consider how to strengthen national legal frameworks and military justice systems to ensure compliance with international obligations.

Key players

Human Rights in Armed Conflict

The relationship between international human rights law (IHRL) and IHL has evolved substantially since the 1968 Tehran Conference on Human Rights, which first formally linked the two regimes. The International Court of Justice, in its 1996 Nuclear Weapons advisory opinion and the 2004 Wall opinion, confirmed that human rights treaties continue to apply in armed conflict, with IHL operating as lex specialis for issues such as the conduct of hostilities. The European Court of Human Rights and the Inter-American system have also extended human rights review into situations of armed conflict and occupation. In practice, this means that rights such as the prohibition of torture, fair trial guarantees, freedom from arbitrary detention, and economic and social rights remain in force during war, subject to permissible derogations under instruments like Article 4 ICCPR. UN human rights mechanisms — the Human Rights Council, commissions of inquiry on Syria, Ukraine, Myanmar, and the OPT, and the Special Procedures — increasingly monitor conduct in armed conflict. Tensions remain over the extraterritorial reach of human rights treaties, derogations during emergencies, the protection of women and children in conflict (under CEDAW and the CRC), and obligations toward refugees and IDPs. Delegates will weigh how the two bodies of law can be coherently applied without diluting either.

Key players

Operational Law and Military Ethics

Operational law — the application of legal rules to the planning and execution of military operations — emerged as a distinct discipline in Western militaries during and after the 1991 Gulf War. It integrates IHL, rules of engagement (ROE), status-of-forces agreements, host-nation law, and ethical considerations into targeting cycles, detention practices, and the conduct of multinational operations. The San Remo Manual on the Law of Naval Warfare (1994), the HPCR Manual on Air and Missile Warfare (2009), and various NATO doctrine publications reflect this operationalization. Military ethics traditions, including just war theory and professional codes of conduct, sit alongside legal rules to shape decisions on use of force, treatment of detainees, and protection of civilians. Cases such as Abu Ghraib, the My Lai legacy, and incidents in Afghanistan and Iraq have prompted reforms in training, command responsibility, and after-action investigations. The rise of remote and autonomous systems raises new ethical questions about distance, accountability, and moral responsibility in lethal decision-making. Contemporary debates focus on the integration of legal advisers into targeting and special operations, the harmonization of ROE in coalition operations, the ethics of AI-enabled decision support, and the obligations of soldiers to refuse manifestly unlawful orders. Delegates will examine how operational law and ethics can be strengthened to ensure that legal compliance becomes a routine feature of military practice rather than an afterthought.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations.

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

Bhagwant Mann Launches Punjab Campaign Summit

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

Country dossier

Country dossier

By committee

Frequently asked questions

International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations

Jul 13, 2026Copenhagen, DenmarkIn-person

Registration open

Committees & topics

Topics
International Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflict · Legal Protections for Civilians in War · The Role of Treaties in Humanitarian Law · Challenges in Enforcing Humanitarian Law · Evolving Frameworks of International Humanitarian Law · Military Governance and Legal Oversight · Human Rights in Armed Conflict · Operational Law and Military Ethics

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Where the most-relevant 5 countries stand on the core issues in play. Click through for the full country profile.

United States

Role in topic

Switzerland

Role in topic

CHE plays a foundational role in the development and promotion of international humanitarian law, serving as a neutral ground for discussions and a key actor in humanitarian diplomacy.

Russia

Often faces scrutiny regarding its adherence to international humanitarian law in its military operations, with ongoing debates about its interpretations and applications in specific conflicts.

Role in topic

United Kingdom

Generally aligns with international humanitarian law, contributing to its development and implementation, but also faces scrutiny regarding its military conduct in certain operations.

Role in topic

GBR, as a permanent member of the Security Council and a significant military contributor to international missions, plays a role in shaping and implementing international humanitarian law.

Israel

Operates in a complex security environment, leading to unique interpretations and applications of international humanitarian law, particularly concerning self-defense and proportionality.

Role in topic

ISR's military operations in contested territories provide frequent and often contentious examples for the application and interpretation of international humanitarian law.

Topics & background

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

International Humanitarian Law and Armed Conflict

Key players

Legal Protections for Civilians in War

Key players

The Role of Treaties in Humanitarian Law

Key players

Challenges in Enforcing Humanitarian Law

Key players

Evolving Frameworks of International Humanitarian Law

Key players

Military Governance and Legal Oversight

Key players

Human Rights in Armed Conflict

Key players

Operational Law and Military Ethics

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations.

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

Bhagwant Mann Launches Punjab Campaign Summit

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

Country dossier

Country dossier

By committee

Committees & topics

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Resources

Related conferences

Geopolitics & Business Security

V2 Security Copenhagen 2026

Copenhagen Democracy Summit 2026

VL Summit 2026

International Conference on Rules of War, Armed Conflicts, and Legal Enforcement (ICRWACLE)

AARCON Summer Conference 2026: "Transitions: The Aftermath of War and Conflict"

Frequently asked questions

Committees & topics

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Resources

Related conferences

Geopolitics & Business Security

V2 Security Copenhagen 2026

Copenhagen Democracy Summit 2026

VL Summit 2026

International Conference on Rules of War, Armed Conflicts, and Legal Enforcement (ICRWACLE)

AARCON Summer Conference 2026: "Transitions: The Aftermath of War and Conflict"

Frequently asked questions