The Elasticity of IHL Strategic Misinterpretation in Modern Armed Conflicts

This essay critically examines Mirjana Spoljaric’s warning that International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is increasingly being reshaped to justify unlawful acts, rather than simply being violated. Through a comparative analysis of three major contemporary conflicts—Sudan, Gaza, and Ukraine—the essay demonstrates how states and armed actors strategically reinterpret the core principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution to legitimise conduct that causes extensive civilian harm.Drawing on treaty law, customary IHL, UN reports, ICRC commentary, and leading scholarship, the essay shows how expansive “dual‑use” claims, speculative notions of military necessity, and rhetorical narratives such as “human shields” are used to reclassify civilian objects as military targets. In Sudan, the Sudanese Armed Forces rely on broad dual‑use arguments to justify indiscriminate bombardments and starvation tactics. In Gaza, Israel’s systematic reinterpretation of IHL—combined with dehumanising rhetoric and political shielding—has been scrutinised by the UN, the ICJ, and the ICC. In Ukraine, Russia’s attacks on civilian infrastructure and misuse of legal terminology reveal a similar pattern of distortion. Across all three conflicts, the essay argues that IHL is not merely being breached but actively reshaped into a tool of strategic expediency. Weak enforcement mechanisms, selective state responses, and political protection further erode the universality of humanitarian norms. The analysis concludes that Spoljaric’s warning is well‑founded: contemporary state practice is hollowing out the protective purpose of IHL, placing civilian populations at unprecedented risk and pushing the law toward a critical breaking point.