Limitations of International Law in Modern Warfare: An Analysis of Violations of International Humanitarian Law in the United States–Israel–Iran Conflict

Abstract

This article examines the limitations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the context of modern warfare, with a particular focus on conflicts involving the United States, Israel, and Iran. These conflicts are characterized by asymmetric warfare, urban warfare, and proxy dynamics, which significantly challenge the practical application of legal norms. The findings indicate that although these principles remain normatively robust, their application in practice is highly flexible and, in some cases, strategically manipulated to legitimize the use of force. This is especially evident in civilian-targeting controversies, drone warfare, and targeted killings. Furthermore, the increasing reliance on proxy actors and the ambiguity surrounding the status of participants in armed conflicts contribute to the diffusion and avoidance of legal responsibility. At the institutional level, enforcement mechanisms such as the International Criminal Court (ICC) and the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) are constrained by political dynamics, including veto power and selective enforcement, which undermine their effectiveness. The article argues that while IHL retains its theoretical legitimacy as a normative framework, it fails in practice due to its entanglement with state power and the evolving nature of contemporary warfare. This gap between law and reality results in persistent impunity and weakens the capacity of international law to protect civilians and uphold human dignity.