The erosion of international humanitarian law carries consequences that extend well beyond conflict zones, touching Canada’s economy, its development commitments and its standing in the world.

A Crisis of Compliance, Not Just Conflict

When a hospital is bombed in Ukraine, a school destroyed in Sudan, or an aid convoy blocked at the border of Gaza, these events are often described as tragedies of war. That framing, while understandable, obscures a more precise truth: these are violations of international law.

International humanitarian law (IHL), grounded in the Geneva Conventions that Canada helped draft and ratify, establishes the boundaries of permissible conduct even in armed conflict. Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibits the deliberate targeting of civilians.

Medical facilities cannot be attacked. Populations cannot be starved as a method of warfare. Humanitarian access must be granted. These are not aspirational principles, they are binding legal obligations.

Yet across major active conflicts today, these obligations are being systematically disregarded. In Gaza, aid deliveries have been blocked for months at a time. In Sudan, entire cities have been besieged and cut off from essential supplies. In Ukraine, energy infrastructure has been repeatedly targeted. In Lebanon, repeated strikes on civilians and civilian infrastructure makes an already fragile recovery even harder to achieve. In Iran, recent hostilities resulted in civilian casualties and damage to critical infrastructure.

The pattern is not incidental. Civilians are being targeted, aid workers killed, and the civilian systems that sustain life deliberately dismantled. What is equally notable is the muted character of the international response.

Why This Matters for Canada

Canada has long positioned itself as a champion of the rules-based international order, a commitment reflected in its early ratification of the UN Charter and the Geneva Conventions. But the implications of IHL’s erosion are not only principled. They are legal, economic and strategic.

Four Dimensions Are Worth Examining in Turn

Economic Exposure

Canada is actively working to diversify trade and supply chains resilience across Africa, the Middle East, and Eastern Europe. These are precisely the regions where IHL violations are most acute and where economic consequences of armed conflict are most severe.

The connection between the erosion of IHL and economic disruption is not abstract. As conflicts intensify and respect for international norms weakens, critical trade routes, energy supplies and commercial networks become increasingly vulnerable. The conflict involving Iran, Israel and the US which erupted earlier this year illustrated how quickly these impacts can be felt beyond the immediate region. The closure of the Strait of Hormuz, a passage that normally carries roughly 20 percent of global oil trade, triggered one of the largest supply disruptions to global energy markets in decades. In Canada, gasoline prices rose by roughly 43 cents per liter within a matter of day. Several Canadian airlines cancelled flights as fuel prices more than doubled compared to the previous year. This case demonstrates how instability in conflict-affected regions can generate economic consequences far beyond their borders, including for Canada. 

Fiscal Implications

Canada is a significant contributor to global humanitarian assistance, consistently providing over 800 million annually. The failure to uphold international humanitarian law increases humanitarian needs, drives up the cost of emergency response and places additional demands on all country donors’ contribution including Canada. Civil society organizations consistently report that the destruction of civilian infrastructure disrupts livelihoods, deepens poverty and delays recovery efforts. Prevention and protection are significantly less costly than emergency response, yet the current trajectory continues to prioritize the latter.

Credibility and Influence

Canada’s international standing rests, in part, on its reputation as a principled actor.  Canada has demonstrated leadership in defending civilians and supporting accountability efforts in contexts such Ukraine and Myanmar. These actions have strengthened its credibility as a partner committed to international law and civilian protection. The challenge is ensuring that this commitment is applied consistently across crises.

Legal Obligations

By signing the Geneva Conventions in 1949, Canada undertook not only to respect the IHL but to ensure respect for it among other parties to conflicts. This obligation is not conditional on political convenience. It is also consistent with the broader purposes and principles of the UN Charter, which commit states to maintaining international peace and security and resolving disputes in accordance with international law. Recent developments in international law have further clarified its scope. The International Court of Jutice’s July 2024 advisory opinion, along with provisional measures communicated to all member states, reinforces that these obligations extend beyond the parties directly involved in a conflict and bind third states as well. Silence in the face of systematic violations is itself a departure from Canada’s legal commitments.

This Is Not Charity, It Is Strategy

Reversing the erosion of IHL will require sustained multilateral engagement. Canada, given its legal commitments and its values, has both the obligation and the incentive to act. Three areas warrant immediate attention.

Timely and Specific Public Condemnation

Diplomatic ambiguity in the face of clear IHL violations sends permissive signals to parties in conflict and can create perceptions of double standards when similar violations are treated differently depending on the actors involved. Public condemnation is not simply a symbolic gesture; it helps reinforce international norms, supports collective diplomatic action and contributes to accountability efforts. Canada’s response to violations in Ukraine demonstrates how clear and consistent public positions can help mobilize international attention and coordinated action. Canada should issue public statements that specifically identify and condemn violations of humanitarian law and work with like-minded partners to amplify this condemnation through coordinated action. This should applyregardless of the political relationships involved. Consistency is essential to maintaining credibility.

Strategic Investment in Humanitarian Law Compliance

A strong multilateral humanitarian system plays a unique role in negotiating humanitarian access, supporting the protection of civilians and reminding parties to conflict of their legal obligations.  Experience across conflict-affected contexts shows that sustained engagement by civil society actors, humanitarian organizations and multilateral institutions helps preserve the condition under which both humanitarian response and economic activity can continue. Initiatives such as Humanity in War demonstrate growing international recognition that compliance with humanitarian law requires sustained political leadership and collective action. Canada should deepen its financial and diplomatic support for these mechanisms, recognizing that investment in compliance reduces long-term humanitarian costs.

Policy Coherence

Canada’s arms export policies, sanctions frameworks, and trade promotion instruments must be aligned with its IHL obligations. Particularly, arms exports to parties involved in documented violations of international humanitarian law which undermine Canada’s credibility as a principled actor and its commitments under international law. Trade agreements should equally reflect and reinforce these obligations. The European Union, for example, systematically incorporates human rights clauses into its trade and association agreements, recognizing that economic partnerships cannot be fully separated from international legal and human rights commitments.

Looking Ahead

International humanitarian law will not prevent any armed conflict. But it provides the framework within which conflicts can be contained, civilian harm limited, and the conditions for eventual recovery preserved. The infrastructure it protects, including roads, ports, energy systems, health facilities and financial networks, is the same infrastructure that enables humanitarian response, economic activity and long-term development.

The costs of the current trajectory are already visible: rising humanitarian expenditure, shrinking and less predictable export markets and a gradual narrowing of Canada’s influence in the regions where it is seeking to deepen engagement. Addressing these costs requires treating IHL not as a peripheral concern of foreign policy, but as a foundational condition for the stable, rules-based international environment on which Canada’s prosperity and security depend. Consistent support for humanitarian law also reinforces Canada’s reputation as a reliable and principled international partner, strengthening its ability to build partnerships, influence international discussions and advance its broader foreign policy objectives.

Manuella Mutshail Kalong

Policy Officer

Share This Article

Other articles you might like