CIVILIAN VULNERABILITIES AMID GEOPOLITICAL RIVALRIES:REASSESSING INTERNATIONAL LAW'S ENFORCEMENT THROUGHPOSITIVIST CRITIQUE

Abstract

Civilians have historically been tormented in times of conflicts, whether international or non-international, despite the protections offered under several international instruments, including the Fourth Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I, and the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Customary International Humanitarian Law further reinforces these norms for the protection of civilians. These norms have been interpreted and applied by international tribunals such as the ICTY and the ICTR. Despite these well-developed norms, contemporary conflicts continue to demonstrate the vulnerability of civilian populations. Ongoing hostilities in regions such as Ukraine, Gaza and Sudan illustrate how civilians remain disproportionately affected by military operations, raising renewed concerns regarding the effectiveness of international criminal law in ensuring accountability. This paper examines the enforcement gap between the normative protections available and the limited enforcement of those protections in practice. Drawing from Austin’s command theory and Holland’s characterisation of international law, it critiques the absence of a unified sovereign and the unenforceability of sanctions. The paper attempts to assess whether the enforcement challenges faced by the international criminal law reflect deeper structural limitations of the international legal order. By connecting doctrinal analysis with contemporary conflict situations, the paper argues that the persistent enforcement gap in civilian protection is not merely the result of institutional inefficiency but reflects the decentralised and politically contingent nature of international law itself. Ultimately, the paper suggests that navigating geopolitical friction demands bridging normative aspirations with effective legislative safeguards in international organisations. 

KEYWORDS: International Humanitarian Law, Civilian Protection, Positivist Critique, Geopolitical Friction, Enforcement Gaps