What is the primary focus of the ICRWACLE event?

The event focuses on the rules of war, armed conflicts, and their legal enforcement.

When does the conference begin?

The conference is scheduled to begin in early June.

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

Name: International Conference on Rules of War, Armed Conflicts, and Legal Enforcement (ICRWACLE)
Start: 2026-06-02T00:00:00Z
End: 2026-06-02T00:00:00Z
Location: Amman

Jun 2, 2026Amman, JordanIn-person

Registration open

The International Conference on Rules of War, Armed Conflicts, and Legal Enforcement (ICRWACLE) convenes in Amman, JOR, to address the complex legal frameworks governing armed conflicts. This gathering serves as a critical platform for scholars, practitioners, and policymakers to discuss the evolving challenges in upholding international humanitarian law and ensuring accountability in contemporary warfare. The conference emphasizes the practical application and enforcement mechanisms of these rules, moving beyond theoretical discussions to explore tangible solutions.

Committees & topics

Topics
Evolving Norms in International Humanitarian Law · Military Governance and Legal Oversight · Risk Management in Armed Conflicts · Legal Compliance in Military Operations · The Role of Military Ethics in Conflict Law · Policy Enforcement in Military Law · Legal Advisory Roles in Armed Conflicts · Compliance Standards in Military Governance

Why it matters

The rules of war, often referred to as International Humanitarian Law (IHL), are fundamental to mitigating the suffering caused by armed conflicts. In an era marked by persistent and evolving conflicts, understanding and enforcing these rules is more crucial than ever. This conference provides a vital forum for examining how IHL adapts to new forms of warfare, including those involving emerging technologies and non-state actors. The discussions will likely delve into the nuances of defining armed conflict, the protection of civilians, and the prohibition of certain weapons, all of which have profound implications for global stability and human rights.

The enforcement of these rules remains a significant challenge. While international bodies and national courts play a role, their effectiveness is often debated. The conference's focus on legal enforcement mechanisms highlights the ongoing struggle to hold perpetrators accountable and ensure compliance. This includes exploring the roles of international criminal justice, national prosecutions, and other accountability frameworks. The insights generated from such discussions can inform policy recommendations and strengthen the international community's capacity to respond to violations of IHL. The location of the conference in JOR, a country in a region frequently impacted by armed conflicts, adds a layer of practical relevance to these discussions, grounding the academic discourse in real-world contexts.

How to prepare

To effectively engage with the themes of ICRWACLE, delegates should undertake a thorough review of the foundational principles of International Humanitarian Law, including the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Understanding the historical development and contemporary interpretations of these legal instruments will be crucial. Participants should also familiarize themselves with current global armed conflicts and the specific challenges they pose to IHL, considering the perspectives of various states and non-state actors involved. This preparation will enable a more nuanced contribution to discussions on legal enforcement and accountability.

Furthermore, delegates could benefit from exploring the concept of "hidden stakeholders" and applying "dynamic analysis" to better understand the complex interplay of actors in armed conflicts. Considering "engagement strategies" for promoting compliance with IHL among diverse groups, including military forces, armed non-state actors, and civilian populations, will also be valuable. A "stakeholder mapping workshop" approach could be useful for identifying key actors whose actions impact the observance of the rules of war. These frameworks will aid in developing comprehensive and actionable insights during the conference.

Country perspectives

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

Jordan

As the host nation, JOR likely emphasizes regional stability and the practical challenges of upholding IHL in conflict-affected areas.

Role in topic

JOR is situated in a region frequently impacted by armed conflicts, giving it a direct interest in the effective application and enforcement of the rules of war. Its perspective would likely highlight the humanitarian consequences of conflict and the need for robust international mechanisms.

Switzerland

CHE, as the depositary state of the Geneva Conventions, advocates for the universal respect and implementation of IHL.

Role in topic

CHE plays a pivotal role in the development and promotion of International Humanitarian Law. Its perspective would focus on the integrity of IHL, the protection of civilians, and the importance of neutral humanitarian action.

United States

The USA, a major military power, often emphasizes the balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations, and the challenges of applying IHL to new forms of warfare.

Role in topic

The USA's involvement in various armed conflicts globally means its perspective often centers on the operational challenges of adhering to IHL while pursuing military objectives, as well as the legal interpretations surrounding emerging technologies in warfare.

Russia

RUS frequently highlights state sovereignty and national security interests in discussions surrounding IHL, sometimes questioning the universal applicability of certain norms.

Role in topic

RUS, as a permanent member of the UN Security Council and a state involved in significant conflicts, often brings a perspective that prioritizes national security and challenges what it perceives as politically motivated interpretations of IHL.

United Kingdom

GBR generally supports the robust enforcement of IHL and international criminal justice mechanisms, while also navigating the complexities of modern warfare.

Role in topic

GBR is a strong proponent of the rules-based international order and IHL. Its perspective would likely emphasize accountability for war crimes and the importance of adapting IHL to contemporary conflict environments.

Topics & background

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

Evolving Norms in International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law (IHL) developed in stages from the 1864 Geneva Convention through the four 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, codifying protections for the wounded, prisoners of war, and civilians. The post-Cold War era added the 1998 Rome Statute creating the International Criminal Court, alongside specialized treaties such as the 1997 Ottawa Convention on landmines and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions. The ICRC's customary IHL study (2005) consolidated rules binding even on non-parties to specific treaties. The contemporary debate centers on adapting these norms to realities the drafters did not foresee: protracted urban warfare, non-international armed conflicts dominated by non-state armed groups, autonomous weapons, cyber operations, and the use of starvation and infrastructure attacks as tactics. Conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, Sudan, Tigray, and Yemen have surfaced sharp disagreements about proportionality, the definition of military objectives, and the threshold for war crimes. States increasingly contest ICC jurisdiction, and IHL faces a credibility gap when enforcement depends on a divided Security Council. Delegates must consider whether to negotiate new instruments, clarify existing rules through soft-law declarations, or strengthen compliance mechanisms such as the long-dormant International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission established under Additional Protocol I.

Key players

Military Governance and Legal Oversight

Military governance refers to the constitutional, statutory, and command structures through which armed forces are directed, disciplined, and held accountable. Modern frameworks trace to post-1945 reforms emphasizing civilian control, parliamentary oversight, and judicial review, reinforced by instruments such as the UN Basic Principles on the Use of Force (1990) and the Geneva-based DCAF good-practice standards on security sector governance. Legal oversight operates at several levels: military justice systems (courts-martial, military commissions), inspectors general, parliamentary defense committees, ombuds institutions, and external review by domestic courts and regional human rights bodies such as the European Court of Human Rights. In armed conflict, these structures interact with IHL obligations to investigate suspected violations, as articulated in the Turkel Commission report and the ICRC's guidance on internal compliance. Practice varies widely: some states embed independent military prosecutors, while others retain command-driven discipline that critics view as structurally incapable of impartial investigation. Current debates focus on oversight of special operations, private military and security companies, foreign basing arrangements, and the chain of command for autonomous and cyber capabilities. Coups and unconstitutional transfers of power in the Sahel have further sharpened questions about how international norms can reinforce civilian oversight without breaching sovereignty.

Key players

Risk Management in Armed Conflicts

Risk management in armed conflict spans the prevention, mitigation, and response to harms suffered by civilians, combatants, infrastructure, and the environment. Doctrinally it draws on IHL principles of distinction, proportionality, and precautions in attack (AP I, Articles 48-58), as well as targeting methodologies such as collateral damage estimation. Humanitarian actors apply parallel risk frameworks under the IASC and Sphere standards, while the UN's protection of civilians mandate (since UNSC Resolution 1265 in 1999) has institutionalized civilian harm tracking in peace operations. Recent conflicts have exposed systemic gaps: urban warfare in Mosul, Mariupol, Gaza, and Khartoum has produced civilian casualties at rates that triggered the 2022 Political Declaration on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas (EWIPA), endorsed by more than 80 states. Risk also extends to environmental damage (oil infrastructure strikes, the Kakhovka dam destruction), nuclear safety at facilities like Zaporizhzhia, and cascading effects on food and energy systems. NATO and several national militaries have institutionalized Civilian Harm Mitigation and Response policies, though implementation remains uneven. Delegates will weigh how to harmonize military risk assessments with humanitarian benchmarks, how to ensure deconfliction with humanitarian operations, and whether new reporting obligations should attach to the use of high-impact weapons systems.

Key players

Legal Compliance in Military Operations

Legal compliance in military operations rests on the integration of IHL, international human rights law, and applicable domestic law into operational planning, rules of engagement (ROE), targeting cycles, and detention practice. The San Remo Manual on naval warfare, the HPCR Manual on Air and Missile Warfare, and the Tallinn Manuals on cyber operations represent expert efforts to articulate how existing law applies in specific operational domains. NATO's Allied Joint Doctrine and the U.S. DoD Law of War Manual provide influential national frameworks. Compliance failures—ranging from Abu Ghraib and Bagram detention abuses to alleged violations in Bucha, Tigray, and Gaza—have driven calls for stronger pre-operational legal review, real-time targeting oversight, and post-action accountability. Article 36 weapons reviews under AP I, mandatory ROE training, and embedded legal advisors are central tools. Coalition operations raise additional challenges: caveats, differing national interpretations of IHL, and intelligence-sharing constraints can produce compliance gaps when partners apply divergent standards. The committee will examine how to operationalize compliance for emerging capabilities (AI-enabled targeting, persistent ISR, cyber effects), how to manage detainee transfers consistent with non-refoulement, and how to align partner-force support with the duty to ensure respect for IHL (Common Article 1).

Key players

The Role of Military Ethics in Conflict Law

Military ethics provides the moral foundation that underpins, and at times exceeds, the requirements of conflict law. The just war tradition—from Augustine and Aquinas through Grotius and modern theorists such as Michael Walzer—shaped categories of jus ad bellum and jus in bello later codified in the UN Charter and the Geneva framework. Professional military ethics today is institutionalized through codes of conduct, oaths, service academies, and chaplaincy and ethics advisory functions. Ethics and law diverge most visibly at the operational edge: lawful but ethically contested actions (e.g., dual-use targeting, signature strikes), and ethically required restraint that goes beyond legal minimums. Doctrines such as "courageous restraint" in Afghanistan, the debate over autonomous weapons and meaningful human control, and the moral injury literature emerging from prolonged counterinsurgency campaigns have brought ethics into mainstream defense policymaking. The ICRC, the Stockdale Center, and bodies like the International Society for Military Ethics shape transnational dialogue. Delegates should consider how ethics training, command climate, and selection systems can reinforce legal compliance, how to address ethical risks in private military contracting and AI-enabled warfare, and whether common professional standards across militaries can support adherence to IHL.

Key players

Policy Enforcement in Military Law

Enforcement of military law combines internal disciplinary systems with external accountability mechanisms. Domestically, courts-martial, summary jurisdiction, and military appellate courts handle service offenses and war crimes, often subject to civilian judicial review. Internationally, enforcement runs through the ICC (operational since 2002), ad hoc and hybrid tribunals (ICTY, ICTR, SCSL, Kosovo Specialist Chambers), universal jurisdiction prosecutions in national courts (notably Germany's Koblenz judgments on Syria), and UN sanctions regimes. Enforcement gaps are persistent. The ICC faces non-cooperation, withdrawal threats, and contested jurisdiction over nationals of non-party states, illustrated by tensions surrounding investigations in Afghanistan, Palestine, and Ukraine. The UNSC's referral power under Article 13(b) of the Rome Statute is constrained by the veto, leaving situations like Syria and Myanmar without referral. At the national level, command responsibility doctrine (Yamashita, Čelebići) remains central but unevenly applied, and statutes of limitations, amnesties, and immunities continue to shield perpetrators. The committee will assess how to strengthen complementarity, support specialized war crimes units, regulate private military and security companies in line with the Montreux Document, and address enforcement against states and commanders that reject the jurisdiction of international courts.

Key players

Legal Advisory Roles in Armed Conflicts

Article 82 of Additional Protocol I obliges states to ensure that legal advisers are available, when necessary, to advise military commanders on the application of IHL and on appropriate instruction to the armed forces. Operational law (OPLAW) has since become a professionalized field, with judge advocates and military legal advisers embedded at strategic, operational, and tactical levels, participating in ROE development, targeting boards, detention review, and post-incident investigations. The role has expanded with the complexity of modern operations: legal advisers now address cyber effects, information operations, partner-force vetting under laws like the U.S. Leahy Law, status-of-forces agreements, and interactions with humanitarian actors. The ICRC's advisory services, military-to-military exchanges, and institutions such as the Lieber Institute and the International Institute of Humanitarian Law in San Remo support the diffusion of good practice. Tensions persist over the independence of legal advisers from command pressure, the proper role of lawyers in targeting decisions, and the protection of legal advisers' privileged communications. Delegates will explore standards for the training, placement, and independence of military legal advisers, and how to extend advisory capacity to non-state armed groups and UN-mandated operations where compliance gaps are most acute.

Key players

Compliance Standards in Military Governance

Compliance standards in military governance link internal institutional integrity—procurement, personnel, finance, conduct—to the broader rule-of-law obligations of armed forces. Key reference points include the UN Convention against Corruption (2003), NATO's Building Integrity programme, the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention, and the Voluntary Principles on Security and Human Rights. The Montreux Document (2008) and the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers extend compliance expectations to contracted security actors. Weak compliance—corruption in defense procurement, ghost soldiers, abusive recruitment, sexual exploitation and abuse (SEA), and impunity for misconduct—undermines operational effectiveness and feeds conflict. The UN Secretary-General's zero-tolerance policy on SEA in peace operations, the Kigali Principles on the Protection of Civilians, and Women, Peace and Security commitments under UNSC Resolution 1325 (2000) have raised the bar for troop-contributing countries. Yet implementation remains inconsistent across national systems and missions. The committee will examine how to harmonize compliance benchmarks across defense institutions, how to vet and screen forces deployed in multinational operations, how to regulate dual-use exports and end-use monitoring, and how to ensure that governance reforms translate into measurable improvements in conduct on the ground.

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on Rules of War, Armed Conflicts, and Legal Enforcement (ICRWACLE).

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Trump's Economic Reset

GOP Promotes Trump's Tax Savings on Deadline

Howard Lutnick's Senate Testimony on 2027 Bud

Bhagwant Mann Launches Punjab Campaign Summit

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Dynamic Analysis

Engagement Strategies

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

By committee

Frequently asked questions

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

Jun 2, 2026Amman, JordanIn-person

Registration open

Committees & topics

Topics
Evolving Norms in International Humanitarian Law · Military Governance and Legal Oversight · Risk Management in Armed Conflicts · Legal Compliance in Military Operations · The Role of Military Ethics in Conflict Law · Policy Enforcement in Military Law · Legal Advisory Roles in Armed Conflicts · Compliance Standards in Military Governance

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.

Jordan

As the host nation, JOR likely emphasizes regional stability and the practical challenges of upholding IHL in conflict-affected areas.

Role in topic

Switzerland

CHE, as the depositary state of the Geneva Conventions, advocates for the universal respect and implementation of IHL.

Role in topic

United States

The USA, a major military power, often emphasizes the balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations, and the challenges of applying IHL to new forms of warfare.

Role in topic

Russia

RUS frequently highlights state sovereignty and national security interests in discussions surrounding IHL, sometimes questioning the universal applicability of certain norms.

Role in topic

United Kingdom

GBR generally supports the robust enforcement of IHL and international criminal justice mechanisms, while also navigating the complexities of modern warfare.

Role in topic

Topics & background

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

Evolving Norms in International Humanitarian Law

Key players

Military Governance and Legal Oversight

Key players

Risk Management in Armed Conflicts

Key players

Legal Compliance in Military Operations

Key players

The Role of Military Ethics in Conflict Law

Key players

Policy Enforcement in Military Law

Key players

Legal Advisory Roles in Armed Conflicts

Key players

Compliance Standards in Military Governance

Key players

Resources

News, lessons, and country profiles to prep for International Conference on Rules of War, Armed Conflicts, and Legal Enforcement (ICRWACLE).

Recent reporting to ground your prep

Trump's Economic Reset

GOP Promotes Trump's Tax Savings on Deadline

Howard Lutnick's Senate Testimony on 2027 Bud

Bhagwant Mann Launches Punjab Campaign Summit

Lessons

Bite-sized lessons to build the basics

Hidden Stakeholders

Dynamic Analysis

Engagement Strategies

Stakeholder Mapping Workshop

Courses

Guided courses that go deeper on the topic

By committee

Committees & topics

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Resources

Related conferences

EU-Jordan summit 2026

International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations

International Conference on Conflict Resolution, Gender Studies, and Violence Policy

International Conference on Conflict Resolution, Gender Studies, and Violence Policy (ICCRGVP)

International Conference on Human Geography, Politics and Sociology (ICHGPS - 2026)

International Conference on Industry 5.0, Resilience, and Sustainability (ICIRS 2026)

Frequently asked questions

Committees & topics

Why it matters

How to prepare

Country perspectives

Topics & background

Resources

Related conferences

EU-Jordan summit 2026

International Conference on International Humanitarian Law and Armed Forces Regulations

International Conference on Conflict Resolution, Gender Studies, and Violence Policy

International Conference on Conflict Resolution, Gender Studies, and Violence Policy (ICCRGVP)

International Conference on Human Geography, Politics and Sociology (ICHGPS - 2026)

International Conference on Industry 5.0, Resilience, and Sustainability (ICIRS 2026)

Frequently asked questions