Russia’s Disregard for International Humanitarian Norms Threatens Lives and Global Trust Commentary
Hubert2T / Pixabay
Russia’s Disregard for International Humanitarian Norms Threatens Lives and Global Trust
Edited by: JURIST Staff

Continued attacks on civilians and civilian objects by the armed forces of the Russian Federation violate international law and basic human decency. Over the past centuries, mankind has attempted to govern conduct on the battlefield in the hope that those found on the battlefield, such as the wounded and sick, prisoners of war, and civilians, are treated humanely and are protected.

Since the establishment of the United Nations after World War II, there are a number of conventions, protocols, and treaties that ensure during an international or non-international armed conflict the methods and means of warfare are regulated by international law.

The former Soviet Union and the Russian Federation ignore the law and conduct themselves lawlessly and commit horrific violations of that law. They are committing war crimes on a daily basis. A recent attack on a hospital, a protected place, is an example.

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 play a crucial role in protecting individuals found on the battlefield, ensuring that even amidst armed conflicts, basic human rights and principles are respected. These conventions establish rules for the humane treatment of wounded and sick soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians caught in the midst of armed conflicts.

By adhering to the Geneva Conventions, nations acknowledge the significance of upholding humanitarian principles during times of war. These treaties emphasize the prohibition of torture, cruel treatment, and indiscriminate attacks on civilians. They also outline the responsibilities of states to provide medical care, ensure fair treatment for prisoners of war, and facilitate the exchange of information between parties involved in a conflict.

While the Russian Federation is a signatory to the Geneva Conventions, concerns have been raised about its adherence to these principles in certain situations. Non-compliance with the Conventions not only risks the lives and well-being of individuals affected by armed conflicts, but it also undermines the international community’s trust in a nation’s commitment to humanitarian norms.

Disregarding the Geneva Conventions can have significant consequences for the Russian Federation. It may lead to diplomatic isolation, strained international relations, and potential legal repercussions. Moreover, failure to abide by these conventions undermines Russia’s credibility as a responsible global actor, impacting its standing in the international community. Additionally criminal liability attaches to the actions by President Putin, his military commanders, and soldiers. The International Criminal Court has opened war crimes cases and has already issued an arrest warrant for Putin and another colleague for war crimes.

Recognizing the importance of the Geneva Conventions is crucial for all nations, including the Russian Federation. By upholding these humanitarian principles, countries demonstrate their commitment to protecting the lives and dignity of individuals affected by armed conflicts, fostering stability, and promoting respect for human rights even in the midst of war.

David M. Crane is the Founding Chief Prosecutor of the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone; Founder of the Global Accountability Network; leads a working group assisting the international community in setting up a Special Tribunal for Ukraine on the Crime of Aggression.

Suggested citation: David M. Crane, Russia’s Disregard for International Humanitarian Norms Threatens Lives and Global Trust, JURIST – Academic Commentary, June 8, 2023, https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/06/Russia-and-Geneva-Conventions.


This article was prepared for publication by JURIST staff. Please direct any questions or comments to them at commentary@jurist.org


Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.