The laws of war and aimed conflict is a body of law concerning acceptable justifications to engage in (jus ad bellum) right to wage war, and the limits to acceptable war time conduct (Jus in bello). The law of war s considered an aspect of public international law (the law of nations) and is distinguished from other bodies of law, such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent to a conflict that may also provide legal limits of the conduct or justification of war. Among other issues, the laws of war addressed other vital issues such as declaration  of war, acceptance of surrender, the treatment of prisoner of war, acceptance of surrender, the treatment of prisoners of war, differentiation between combatants and non combatants, the principle of military necessity along with distinction and proportionality and the use of or prohibition of certain weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering especially to the civilian population.

            Also referred to as international humanitarian law, the laws of war or customs of war is the legal corpus that comprises the Geneva. Conventions and the Hague conventions as well as subsequent treaties, case laws and customary international law. It defines the conduct and responsibility of belligerent nations, neutral states and individuals engaged in war fare, in relation to each other and protected persons usually civilians. The laws of war is mandatory for nations bound by the appropriate treaties. There are other customary unwritten rules of war many of which were explored at the nurembering trials. All these  define the permissive rights of states as well as prohibitions on their conduct in times of conflict.

Historical background: efforts to regulate the conduct of individuals, nations and other agencies in war to mitigate the worst effects of war have a long history. The earliest known instances are found in the old testament of the holy Bible. In Deuteronomy 20:19-20, the following laid down rules were put in place:
When thou shall besiege a city a long time in making war against it, thou shall not destroy the trees thereof by forcing an area against them, for thou mayest eat of them and thou shall not cut them down (for the tree of the field Is man’s life) to employ them in the siege. Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shall destroy and cut them down and thou shall build bulwarks against the city that maketh war wit thee, until it be subdued…
Even in the midst of the carnage of history, there were expressions of humanitarian worms to protect the victims of armed conflict comprising the wounded, the sick and the ship wrecked. This attempt dates back to ancient times. Again in the old testament, the king of Israel prevents the slaying of the captured based on prophet Elisha’s admonition to spare the enemy. He advised the king on the fate of prisoners of war.
You shall not slay them. Would you slay those whom you have taken captive? set bread and go to their master….
Islamic law provides that “non combatants who did not take part in fighting such as women, monks and hermits, the aged, the blind and insane” were not to be molested.3‑
   Stop, o’ people that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the battle field. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the path. You must not mutilate dead bodies. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire, especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to monastic service, leave them alone…4
            Those rules were put into practice during the early Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th centuries. From them onwards, Islamic legal treaties on international law covered the application of Islamic military jurisprudence to hostages, refrugees and prisoners of war, the right of asylum, conduct on the battle, protection of women, children and civilians across the line of battle, the use of poisonous weapons and the devastation of the enemy territory. These laws were put into practice by Muslim armies during the crusades.
         Islamic jurists have held that a prisoners should not be killed as he cannot be held responsible for mere acts of belligerency.5 Islamic law however did not spare all non-combatants. In the case of those who refine to convert to Islam or pay alternative case, were allowed in principle to kill any one of them, combatants or non combatants provided they were not killed treacheranly and with mutilation…6
                In ancient India, there are records for example the laws of Manu, describing the type of weapons that should not be used in battle soldiers were given specific instructions.

   ….. When he fights with his foes in battle, let him not strike with weapons concealed in wood, nor with such as are barbed, poisoned or the points of which are blazing with fire….7
            There is also the command not to strike the eunuch nor the enemy who… folds his hands in supplication… nor he who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking part in the fight…8
            In medieval Europe, the roman catholic church also promulgated teachings on Jurt War. This was reflected in the rise of peace movements such as the “ peace and truce of hood” a medieval European movement of eth catholic church which applied spiritual sanctions in order to limit the violence of private wars in feudal societies. This movement constituted the first organized attempt to control civil society in medieval Europe through non-violent means. This great impulse to restrich the extent of warfare and especially protect the lives and property of non-combatants continued with Hugo Grotius- philosopher, theologian, Christian apologist, play Wright, poet etc. whose work laid the foundation for international law and the laws of war.

Growth of modern laws of war:  
Modern humanitarian international law is made up of two historical streams. The law of the Hague referred to in the part as the laws of war proper and the law of Heneva or Humanitarian law. The two streams take their names from a number of international conferences which drew up treaties relating to war and conflicts, in particular the Hague contentious of 1899 and 1917, and the Geneva conventions, the first of which was drawn up in 1863. both are branches of jus in Bello international  law regarding acceptable practices while engaged in war and armed conflict.
            The law of the Hague or the law of war proper “determines the rights and duties of belligerents in the conduct of operations and limits the choice of means in doing harm.9 in particular, it concerns itself with the definitions of combatants, established rules relating to the means and methods of warfare and examines the issue of military objectives. 10
            The long and systematic attempts to limit the savagery of warfare only began to develop in the 19th century. Such concerns were able to build on the changing view of warfare by states influenced by the age of enlightenment. The purpose of warfare was to overcome the enemy state and this was obtainable by disabling the enemy combatants. Thus, the distinction between combatants civilians, the requirement that wounded and captured enemy combatants must be treated humanly, and that quarter must be given some of the pillars of modern humanitarian law all follow from this principle.

Codifications of humanitarian norms: It was not until the second half of the 18th century that a more systematic approach was initiated. In the United States, a German immigrant, Francis Lieber drew up a code of conduct in 1863 which came to be called the Lieber code for the Northern army. The lieber code included the humane treatment of civilian populations in the areas of conflict and also for bade the execution of prisoners of war. At the same time, the involvement of a number of individuals such as Florence nightingale during the Crimean war and Henry Dunant, a Swiss business man who had worked with wounded soldiers at the battle of solferino led to more systematic efforts to prevent the suffering of war victims.
            Dunant wrote a book titled “a memory of solferino” in which he described the horrors he had witnessed.  His reports were so shocking that they led to the founding of the international committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) In 1864. the ICRC then drew up the “Genera Convention” for the Amelioration of the condition of he wounded in Armies in the field.12. The law of General is directly inspired by the principle of humanity. It relates to those who are not participating in the conflict as well as military personal horsed combat. It provides the legal basis for protection and humanitarian assistance carried out by impartial humanitarian organization such as the ICRC. 13
The Geneva convention: The Geneva conventions are the result of a process that developed in a number of stages between 1864 and 1949, which focused on the protection of civilians and those who can no longer fight in a conflict. As a result of world war II, all former conventions were revised based on previous revisious and partly on some of the 1907 Hague conventions. And re-adopted by the international community in 1949. later conferences hacve added provisions prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars.

The Geneva conventions are 13
1.         First Geneva convention: for the Ameciovation of the condition of wounded, sick in armed forces in the field this was adopted in 1864.
2.        Second Geneva convention: For eh Amehioration of the condition of wounded sick and ship wrecked members of timed forces at sea. This was adopted in 1949.
3.         Third Geneva Convention: relating to the treatment of prisoners of war, first adopted in 1929.
4.         Fourth Geneva Convention: Relating to the protection of civilian persons in time of war first adopted in 1949.
5.         1977 protocol 1: Relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflict.
6          1977 protocol II: relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts
7.         Protocol III (2005): relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem.
            While the Geneva conventions of 1949 can be seen as the result of a process which began in 1864, to day, they have achieved universal participation with 1941 parties. This means that they apply to almost any international armed conflict14.

The basic rules of international humanitarian law are summarized as follows:
1.         Persons “hors de combat” and those not directly taking part in hostilities shall be protected and treated humanely.
2.         It is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who his surrendered or who is “hors de combat”
3.         The wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict which has them in its power.
4.         A paraduction  or soldier ceasing a plane in distress is protected.
5.         The emblem of the ‘Red Cross”  or ‘ Red Crescent’ shall be respected as a sign of protection. It is inviolate.
6.         captured combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to receive relief.
7.         the use of chemical biological or meteorological weapons is prohibited.
8.         No one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading treatment.
9.         parties to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have unlimited choice of methods and means of warfare.
10.       The position of neutral states must be acknowledged and respected.
11.       Parties to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilians population and combatants.
12.       Prisoners of war should not be killed or subjected to torture or medical and biological experiment.
13.       Attacks shall be directed solely against military objects, civilians centers such as chamber, hospitals, school, museums must be protected.
14.       An attack on doctors or ambulances displaying a red cross emblem is prohibited.
15.       it is prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle or ship bearing a white flag, since that, being considered the flag of trace, indicates an intent to surrender or desire to communicate.
            The person or persons protected by the red cross or white
flag are expected to maintain neutrality and they may not engage
in war like acts themselves. In fact, engaging in war like activities
under a white flag or red cross is in itself a violation, of the laws of
war. This is perfidy.

Purposes of the laws of war:  
Some of the central principles underlying the laws of war are to ensure that
1.         Wars should be limited to achieving the political goals that led to the war and should not lead to unnecessary destruction.
2.         Wars should be executed with speed and brought to an end as quickly as possible.
3.         Persons and property that do not contribute to the war efforts should be protected against unnecessary destruction and hardship.
4.         Laws of war are intended to mitigate the evils and atrociousness of war by protecting both combatants and non combatants from unnecessary suffering.
5.         Safeguarding certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy particularly prisoners of war, the civilians the wounded and the sick.
6.         Facilitating the restoration of peace.
7.         The laws of war placed limits on the lawful exercise of the power and ability of the belligerents or employing a level of violence considered unnecessary or unreasonable for specific military purposed.
8.         Belthgerents must conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and chivalry.

Application of Laws of War to States and Individuals
            The laws of war is binding not only upon states as such but also upon individuals and in particular the members of the armed forces parties are bound by the laws of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving legitimate military goals. Combatants who deliberately bomb residential areas are guilty of war crimes.
            Similarly, combatants who intentionally use protected people, areas and property as shield or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and we responsible to those that should be protected.
            Soldiers who break specific provisions of the laws of war loses the protections and status afforded as prisoners of war. They have by such acts become unlawful combatants and they must be made to face a ‘competent tribunal. They must however be treated with humanity and right to fair hearings and regular trial.
            Spies and terrorists may be subject to civilians or military tribunal for their acts and in practice may be subjected to torturen or executions. They laws of war neither approves nor condemns such acts. However, nations that are signatory to the UN convention against torture are often more careful not to subject anyone to torture.
            Under any condition. The controversy that surrounded America’s extra ordinary rendition policy was a source of serious embarrassment to the bush administration when it became known that governmental approved the idea of subjected terror suspects to torture and in human treatment, but where he has committed acts against the state, the court or tribunal will determine his punishment. In war, all is not given. A nation and its army cannot just do all it could to win victory. Actions must be regulated within the bounds of reason and guided by what is permissible and acceptable under the laws of war. At the cessation of hostilities, persons who have committed war crimes would be held accountable for their actions. Officers and commanders and indeed politicians, who have given orders that breached the laws of war are held individually accountable. Those who commit atrocities are also made to face the consequences of their action. Nations that have signed the Geneva conventions are expected to search out and punish their own officers and men who have committed or given orders that led to the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or atrocities.
            History have shown that laws of war are traditionally more strictly applied to the defeated as the victors are placed in the role of determining the rules of engagement. There are strongly held views in many parts of the world that George Bush and Tony Blair should be held accountable for the faulty premise that spurned the Irag war of 2003. The argument is that the Iraqi people were subjected to years of hardship and mayhem, not became Saddan Hussein was a  danger to the world but simply to effect the regime change policy of London and Washington.
            Recently, private corporation can now be held civilly liable for aiding and abetting war crimes. Some corporations and MNC’s have be accused of knowingly providing assistance in the commission of war crimes. Private security.

Effects of the laws of war on warfare.
            There are those who believe that the issue is not just giving warfare a human face but outdating totally the idea of war. Some have suggested the establishment of a world government or a collective security arrangement on the baris of one for all and all for one. Unfortunately, this idea remain a utopian project. War is an instrument of polities and will continue to play a vitals rule in inter state relationship as a policy option when diplomacy fails. The desire to give warfare a moderating human face is a recognition of this fact.
            There are evidence to show that the laws of men has gained relative success in the effort to regulate human conduct in the field of battle. Some of these effects include the following:
1.         The existence of the law of war has led to a degree of acceptance and observance of certain valuable and baric ideas, for instance the protection of prisoners of war.
2.         That a state is entitled to neutrality vis a vis a conflict situation involving other states irrespective of the relationship between them. Such neutrality is respected.
3.         That military invation / occupation of another country’s territory must be regarded as provisional and involves duties as well as rights for the occupies and the occupied respectively.
4.         That certain places eg. Hospitals churches, national centers and archives etc. are normally spared as non legitimate targets of attack.
5.         Persons not taking active part in the conflict for instance women, children, the aged and sick, are spared from the unpleasant consequences of war, as much as possible.
6.         Torture has been accepted as a wrong weapon in war and even though it is still widely employed, the awareness that torture is illegal has continued to gain immense grand.
            The extent to which the laws of war are observed depends on the combatants being aware of them. Most times, the laws of war are violated more out of ignorance than a deliberate desire to do so. To this end the  1977 Geneva convention made it mandatory that countries should educate their soldiers on the laws of war and provide combatants with pamphlets and manuals while out on a military campaign. The principles of reciprocity have also advanced the observance of the laws of war and armed conflict.

War Criminals:
            At the end of a war, the following could be held accountable for their actions if it violates the wars of other.
1.         Persons involved in conspiracies: industrialists, financiers soldiers, politicians etc who were indicted for such crimes including policies, decisions, action and inactions which could lead to aggression or the violations of te laws of war.
2.         Members of the enemy forces and civilians charged with ordinary offences against the laws of war.
3.         Collaborationists found guilty of treason or treachery.
4.         Person guilty of gross failure to control subordinates responsible for atrocities.
5.         Those with the ability to influence public opinion who may have passed on late massages responsible for genocide or crimes against humanity eg. Media personnel, religions preachers, academicians etc.

Just and unjust wars
            The doctrine of just and unjust war has been one of the controversial issues that history have had to contend with theologians in particular were concerned about the increasing incidence of violence in the world. They raised several questions which demanded clear answers.
            Such questions include the criteria upon which a prince or monarch could go to war. On what basis could a war be proven to be North while considering other related, consequences? Considering the light level of brutality and savagery that war entails, it became necessary to protect the victims of the hostile states.
            For many centuries, the attitude of the world power towards the legality of war were dominated by the teachings of the Roman catholic church. One of the first theologians to write on the subject was St. Augas time (354-430). He tried to determine the basis under which a war could be described as just.
…… just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, when the nation or city against which warlike action warlike action is to be directed ahs neglected either to punish wrongs committed by its own citizens or to restore what has been unjustly taken by it. Further that kind of war is undoubtedly just while God himself ordains…… 
            These ideas held sway for a period of over a thousand years. War was regarded as a means o obtaining reparations for wrongs previously suffered. Wars against unbelievers and genetics were also regarded as God’s war and such wars are believed to be commended by God himself.
            However, from the late 16th century the distinction between just and unjust wars began to break down theologians and scholars began to admit that each side in a war could be blameless if it genuinely believed that it was on the right. Other questions that arose include who has the right to declare a war. If they wrong authority declares a war, is it a just war or not? Could issues be determined on moral and immoral rounds? What role does plain human emotion play on the incidence of war.
            War were said to be justified if they were fought for the defense of certain vital interest but each state remained the sole judge of its vital interests without a precise definition.  The doctrine of vital interests constituted, not a legal criterion of the legality of war, but a source of political justification and excuses to be used for propaganda purposes.
            In an unjust war the question of your tactics does  not arise since the war has been declared unjust. If a war in  just, then the questions raised are whether in pursuit of a just war one should use all the means of his disposal. Secondly, when involved in a just war, the support of the international community, (IPO) will be on the side of the belligerent.
            Colonized people, fighting to throw off a foreign colonical power may be called terrorists or bandits by the colonial power but such war would be seen as a just war. Such a war is just since war would be seen as a just war. Such a war is just since it was not meant to disrupt international peace and tranquility. Attempts by colonized people to free themselves through force of arms war recognized by the Geneva protocol of 1977.  They  were seen as legitimate participants in armed conflict. They could not be described as terrorists or bandits or crooks. However, was intended for economic reasons and expansionish purposes and hegemonic or ideological influences are unjust wars. Those are wars of aggression.

Principles of Combat.
            The most fundamental customary principles of international  laws is that the rights of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. There must be some of thesie principles are explained below: fairness even in war.
1.         The principles of proportionality: which deals with the response of a belligerent in a conflict to  grievance that has been committed in relation to the activities of the opponent an in relation the response of the other side. A state in other words, cannot use excessive force in responding to a grievance beyond the proportion necessary. The infliction of disproportionate injury or harm in life and property is regarded, as inhuman and therefore illegal.
2.        The principle of military necessity: This principle demands that only that degree of force not otherwise prohibited by the laws of aimed conflict required for the partial or complete submission of the enemy and with millimum expenditure of time, life and physical resources may be applied.
3.         The Principle of humanity: The employment of any kind of degree of force not required for the purpose of the partial or complete submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time, life and physical resources is prohibited by the law of war. It is regarded as going beyond acceptable human levels.
4.         The principles of chivacry: Dishonorable and treacherous means or conduct during armed conflict are forbidden. Shooting a surrendered or wounded soldier is against the laws of war. Such a solider has become incapacitated and should be placed at the mercy of eh enemy. If on the other hand the one feigning injury or surrender turns back to school the other person he would be held liable to treacherous conduct.
5.        The principle of discrimination: This principle demands that in war situations, distinctions has to be made between combatants and non combatants. The target of attack must not include those who are not involved in the fight. Civilians, woman and children, the aged and infirm an patients in hospital, whether connected with the war or not, should be spared the gory aspects of he conflicts. Non military targets must also not be subjected to attack these include hospitals, churches, markets, schools, measures, heritage and other establishment not connected with the war effort. Contractors may also be held liable for having the knowledge that a crime is being committed. The main idea behind the laws of war is to reduce, as much as possible the resort to war in foreign policy engagement and when war becomes inevitable, it must be fought with a human face.

The US military and the laws of war
            IN 1863, American soldiers fighting the civil war  were given manuals on what they should or shall not do, and how to conduct themselves in battle. This was followed by other countries assuring their own military manuals on the conduct of combatants. This how become acceptable as parts of the combatants. This has become acceptable as parts of the corrections signed since after the America civil war. The US military is guided by the Hague and genera conventions in the following terms:
1.         Fight only enemy combatants
2.         Do not harm enemies who surrenders-disarm the and hand them over to the chain of command.
3.         Do not kill or torture detainees or  degrade them
4.         Collect and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
5.         Do not attack medical personnel, their facilities or equipment.
6.         Destroy no more than the mission required.
7.         Treat all civilians humanely no matter who the are
8.         Do no steal or deprive people of their legitimate possession.
9.         Respect private property and avoids all acts of vandal hisun
10.       Do your best to prevent the violation or the laws of war.
11.       Report all violations of the laws of war to superiors officers.

Violations of the laws of war
            During conflict, punishment for vidating the laws of war may consist of a specific, deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisals. Soldiers who break specific provisions of the law of war  but only after facing a “competent tribunal”. At that point they become unlawful  combatants but they must still be treated with humanity and, in case at trial, shall not be deprived at the rights of fair and regular trial.
            Spies and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds them is in a state of armed conflict or war until they are found to be unlawful combatants. Depending on the circumstance, they may be subject to civilian law or military tribunal for their acts or in other cases subjected to fortune or execution. The laws of war neither approves nor condemns such acts, which full outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN convention Against torture have committed them selves not to use fortune on anyone for any reasons.
            After a conflict has ended, person who have committed any breach of the law of war and especially atrocities, may be held individually acceptable for war crimes through the process of law.
            If is a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certainties uniform or other badge/attire that easily identifies than. Weapons are to be carried openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy’s uniform is forbidden hostage taking is also prohibited by the laws of war.

International treaties of the laws of war
1.         Paris declaration respecting Maritime law which demolished privateering-private person or warship authorised to attack foreign ship-1956.
2.         First Genera convention for the amelioration of the condition of the grounded and sick in armed forces in the field-1864.
3.         St Petersburg Declare Removing the use, in time of war, of Explosive projectiles under 400 grams weight-1968.
4.         Project of an international declaration concerning the laws and customs of war – 1874.
5.         Geneva committee proposals on manual of the laws and customs of war – 1880.
6.         Hague conventions consisting of four main sections 1889
(a)       Pacific settlement of international disputes
(b)       Laws and customs of war on land
(c)       Adaptation to maritime warfare of principles of Geneva convention of 1964.
(d)       Prohibition of the landing of projectiles and Explosives for Balloons.
(e)       Declaration on the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or Deleterious Gages.
7.         Hague conventions which hand 13 sections out of which 12 were ratified – 1917.
(a)       The pacific settlement of international disputes.
(b)       The limitations of employment of force for recovery of contract Debts.
(c)       The opening of Hostilities
(d)       The laws and customs of war on land.
(e)       The rights and duties of Neutral Powers and persons in case of war on land
(f)        The status of every merchant ship at the outbreak of hostilities
(g)       The laying of automatic submarine contact mines
(h)       Bombardment by Newal Forces in time of war
(i)        adaptation to maritime war of the principles of the genera convention.
5.         Certain restrictions with regard to the Exercise e of the right of capture in Naval war.
k.         The creation of an international prize court (not ratified)
(j)        The rights and Duties of Neutral powers in naval war
8.         London Declaration concerning the laws of Naval war 1909.
9.         Washington newel Treaty (also known as the five power treaty-122
10.       Hague Draft rules of aerial warfare-1923
11.       Geneva protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of Asphyxiating, poisonous or other cases, and of Bacteriohegical methods of warfare-1925
12.       Greco-German arbibunal – 1927-1930
13.       Kellog-Briand pact also known as the pact of Paris-1928
14.       Geneva convention negative to the treatment of prisoners of war – 1929
15.       Geneva convention on the treatment of wounded and sick-1929
16.       London Naval treat for the limitation and reduction of Naval Armament – 1930
17.       Second London naval treaty- 1936
18.       Amsterdam Draft convention for the protection of civilian population Against New engines of war – 1938
19.       League of Nation declarationf or the protection of civilian opulation against bombing form the air in time of war – 1938
20.       United nations charter -      1945
21.       Judgement of the international military tribunal at Nuremberg – 1946
22.       Nuremberg principles formulated under UN General Assembly resolution 177-1947.
23.       United Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of homicide – 1948
24.       Geneva convention I for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field 1949.
25.       Geneva convention for the Amelioration of the condition of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of Armed forces of Sea – 1949.
26.       Geneva convention III relative to the treatment of prisoners of war – 1949
27.       Geneva convention IV relative to the protection of civilian persons in times of war – 1949
28.       Hague convention for the protection of cultural property in the Event of Armed conflict – 1954
29.       Zagreb resolution of the institute of international law on conditions of application of humanitarian rules o Armed conflict to hostilities in which the UN forces may be engaged – 1971
30.       UN convention on the prohibition of military of any other Hostile use of Environmental modification techniques – 1977.
31.       Geneva protocol I relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflict – 1977
32.       Geneva protocol II relating to the protection of victims of NON-International armed conflicts – 1977
33.       Red Cross foundational rules of International humanitarian law applicable in Armed conflict – 1978
34.       United nations convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be Excessively injurious or to Have indiscriminate effect – 1980.
I           Protocol I on Non-Detectable fragments -           1980
II          Protocol II on prohibitions and restrictions on the use of wines, booby traps and other devices – 1980
iii.       Protocol III on prohibitions and restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons  - 1980
iv         Protocol iv on blinding laser weapons – 1995
v.         Protocol v on prohibition or restrictions on the use of mines, boody Tarps and other Devices – 1996
vi.        Protocol on explosives remnants of war – 2006
v.         35.       Reno manual on international law applicable to armed conflict at sea – 1994.
36.       ICRC/UNGA guidelines for military manuals and instructions on the protection of the environment in time of armed conflict – 1994.
37.       UN convention on the safety of UN and Associated personnel – 1994
38.       ICJ Advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of Nuclear weapons – 1996
39.       Ottawa convention on the prohibition of the use stockpiling and production and transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction – 1977.
40.       Rome statute of the international criminal court – 1998
41.       Optional protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict - 2002
Share on Google Plus


The publications and/or documents on this website are provided for general information purposes only. Your use of any of these sample documents is subjected to your own decision NB: Join our Social Media Network on Google Plus | Facebook | Twitter | Linkedin