A CRITICAL ANALYSIS OF CIVILIAN PROTECTION IN THE ISRAEL/US AND IRAN ARMED CONFLICT UNDER INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Abstract

International Humanitarian Law seeks to protect persons who are not directly participating in hostilities. This is firmly established under the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols. Despite these comprehensive legal provisions, civilians continue to bear the brunt of modern armed conflicts, raising concerns about the effectiveness of existing legal and institutional frameworks. This research examines the persistent gap between the normative guarantees of civilian protection and the realities of their enforcement in contemporary armed conflicts. Focusing on the Israel/US and Iran armed conflict as a case study, the research interrogates the extent to which the parties comply with the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, such as distinction, proportionality, and precaution. Adopting a doctrinal and analytical methodology, this research draws on relevant legal instruments, state practice, and reports from international organizations to assess compliance with established norms. The research finds that while the legal regime governing civilian protection is robust in theory, its implementation is significantly undermined by weak enforcement structures and strategic military considerations. It concludes that the continued endangerment of civilians is not due to a deficiency in law, but rather a failure of compliance and accountability. The research advocates for strengthened civilian harm mitigation and enforcement mechanisms, stronger political will, and enhanced international cooperation to ensure that the protection of civilians moves from legal promise to practical reality.