From Outrage to Engagement: Might Promoting Compliance Succeed Where Condemnation Has Failed? – Lieber Institute West Point

Report on Enhancing International Humanitarian Law Compliance for the Achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: A Crisis of Compliance and its Impact on the 2030 Agenda

A recent analysis of the global humanitarian landscape, informed by discussions at the European Humanitarian Forum (EHF), reveals a profound crisis of respect for International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This systematic non-compliance is a primary driver of escalating humanitarian needs, with over 305 million people requiring assistance and 114 million facing urgent, life-threatening conditions. This situation presents a direct and severe impediment to the realization of the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development, undermining progress across multiple goals.

The prevailing strategy of condemning violations has proven insufficient to alter the conduct of belligerents, leading to stagnation in global peace and security mechanisms. This report argues for a strategic pivot from condemnation to the active promotion of IHL compliance as a more effective means to protect vulnerable populations and create enabling conditions for sustainable development.

Analysis of Current Challenges and Setbacks to Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

The widespread and systematic violation of IHL in contemporary conflicts directly obstructs the achievement of numerous SDGs. The failure to uphold the rule of law in armed conflict creates a cycle of violence and instability that reverses development gains.

• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The open disregard for IHL represents a fundamental failure to “promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.” The paralysis of international security bodies further weakens the institutions designed to maintain peace.
• SDG 1 (No Poverty) & SDG 2 (Zero Hunger): Conflict is a primary driver of poverty and food insecurity. Attacks on civilian infrastructure, agricultural land, and markets destroy livelihoods and disrupt food supplies, making these goals unattainable in conflict zones.
• SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 4 (Quality Education), & SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The deliberate targeting of hospitals, schools, and civilian homes are egregious IHL violations that devastate essential services and community structures, directly contravening the objectives of these goals.
• SDG 5 (Gender Equality): The use of sexual and gender-based violence as a tactic of war is a grave breach of IHL that specifically targets women and girls, undermining efforts to achieve gender equality and empower them.

A Proposed Strategic Pivot: Fostering Compliance to Advance the SDGs

A new approach is required, focusing on building a robust framework for IHL compliance. This involves reimagining advocacy, operationalizing practical measures, and navigating the complexities of the current geopolitical order. This strategy is built on three core pillars.

1. Building a Multi-Stakeholder Case for Compliance (SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals)

Effective advocacy for IHL compliance requires a broader coalition of actors and a more compelling narrative that links compliance with national and regional interests.

1. Engaging New Influencers: Traditional advocacy must be supplemented by engaging overlooked but powerful stakeholders, such as neighboring States. These countries have a vested interest in regional stability due to the significant economic and social costs of conflict, including impacts on their GDP (undermining SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth) and the burden of hosting refugees (related to SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities).
2. Developing an Evidence-Based Narrative: Advocacy should connect IHL compliance with tangible, long-term benefits. It is critical to invest in research and leverage field experience to build a strong empirical case demonstrating how adherence to IHL contributes to:
   • Faster post-conflict recovery.
   • Increased national and regional stability.
   • Long-term peace and sustainable development outcomes.

2. Operationalizing Compliance for Civilian Protection

Beyond advocacy, practical and scalable measures must be implemented to promote compliance during active hostilities, directly contributing to the protection of civilians and the safeguarding of conditions necessary for development.

• Enhancing Military Training: Investment in IHL training for armed forces is a documented method for instilling norms of restraint and influencing conduct during conflict, thereby protecting civilian lives (SDG 3, SDG 16) and infrastructure (SDG 4, SDG 11).
• Researching Compliance Enablers: Further study is needed to identify specific conditions or interventions that foster compliance. Similar to how improved lighting in camps reduces gender-based violence (SDG 5), bespoke interventions could be designed for conflict theaters to better protect civilian populations.
• Strengthening Monitoring and Accountability Mechanisms: The role of fact-finding and investigative bodies, mandated by the UN Human Rights Council and General Assembly, must be evaluated for their deterrent effect. These mechanisms are a key tool for promoting accountability under SDG 16. Lower-cost, scalable alternatives like open-source monitoring should also be explored to broaden their application.

3. Navigating a Fragmented Global Order to Uphold SDG 16

The current advocacy strategy, often characterized by rigid, unified messaging from like-minded States, may be counterproductive in a polarized world. It risks alienating key actors in the Global South who perceive an element of Western hypocrisy or selective application of international law.

A more effective approach may be to foster a broader, more inclusive coalition. This aligns with the principles of SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals) and acknowledges the need to reduce geopolitical inequalities (SDG 10). The objective is to determine if a larger group of States, while not perfectly aligned on all interpretations, can collectively uphold the core tenets of IHL and push back against the most severe violations. This pragmatic approach seeks to build a wider base of support for SDG 16 by allowing for nuance and engaging with States critical of the status quo but willing to uphold the spirit of the law.

Conclusion and Recommendations

To re-strengthen IHL as a normative standard and make meaningful progress on the Sustainable Development Goals in conflict-affected regions, a strategic pivot from outrage to compliance is necessary. This pragmatic approach is not a retreat from values but a retooling of the methods used to defend them. Compliance driven by incentives, deterrence, and perceived self-interest is still a victory for civilians and a step toward creating the stability required for sustainable development.

Key recommendations include:

• Invest in evidence-based research to clearly demonstrate the link between IHL compliance and positive outcomes for peace, recovery, and the SDGs.
• Develop and fund new partnership models (SDG 17) that engage non-traditional but influential actors, particularly neighboring States, in IHL advocacy.
• Support and scale effective monitoring and investigative mechanisms to enhance accountability for violations and strengthen the deterrent power of international law (SDG 16).
• Adopt a more nuanced and inclusive advocacy strategy to build a broader and more resilient global coalition capable of upholding the core principles of IHL in a multipolar world.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: This is the most central SDG to the article. The entire piece revolves around the challenges of upholding International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the failure of global peace and security mechanisms, the need to reduce violence, and the promotion of the rule of law in conflict zones. It directly discusses accountability, justice, and strengthening institutions to prevent violations.
• SDG 5: Gender Equality: The article explicitly mentions the issue of sexual and gender-based violence in conflict. It highlights how certain IHL violations, such as “sexual violence,” can deepen social rifts and refers to practical measures to protect women and girls, such as “improved lighting in areas where women and girls collect water and access latrines reduces their vulnerability to sexual and gender-based violence.”
• SDG 4: Quality Education: The article identifies the “targeting schools” as a specific IHL violation that can prolong conflict. This directly threatens access to safe education, a key component of SDG 4.
• SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities: The article discusses the protection of civilian populations and infrastructure. It mentions the “destruction of places of worship” and the immense humanitarian need (“305 million people require humanitarian assistance”), which relates to making human settlements safe and resilient, especially in crisis situations.
• SDG 8: Decent Work and Economic Growth: The economic consequences of conflict are clearly stated. The article notes that countries “lose an estimated 0.7 percent of GDP every year for each neighbour in conflict,” linking violence and instability directly to negative economic outcomes and development trajectories.
• SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals: The article critically examines the effectiveness of current global partnerships and advocacy strategies. It questions the “common messaging” approach by “likeminded States and organizations” and proposes a new model involving a “broader coalition” and engaging “unlikely influencers” like neighbouring States to achieve common goals, which is the essence of SDG 17.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

1. SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The article’s core focus is on the failure to rein in “unlawful attacks” and the “systematic violations of IHL” that are driving the number of people needing humanitarian assistance higher. The entire discussion is aimed at finding better strategies to reduce violence in conflict.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all. The article is a deep dive into this target, advocating for a pivot from condemning violations of IHL to promoting “compliance.” It discusses the role of “monitoring, fact-finding, and investigative mechanisms” and their connection to “accountability bodies, such as international courts” to uphold the rule of law.
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence. The article provides a concrete example of this target by stating, “it is widely documented that training militaries in IHL during peacetime impacts how soldiers behave during conflict.” This is a direct reference to strengthening national institutions (militaries) through training to prevent violence.

2. SDG 5: Gender Equality

   • Target 5.2: Eliminate all forms of violence against all women and girls in the public and private spheres. The article directly addresses this by citing “sexual violence” as a particularly harmful IHL violation and mentioning practical interventions to reduce the “vulnerability to sexual and gender-based violence” against women and girls in crisis settings.

3. SDG 4: Quality Education

   • Target 4.a: Build and upgrade education facilities that are… safe, non-violent… and effective learning environments for all. The article’s mention of “targeting schools” as a violation that prolongs conflict directly relates to the failure to provide safe learning environments, which this target aims to secure.

4. SDG 11: Sustainable Cities and Communities

   • Target 11.5: Significantly reduce the number of deaths and the number of people affected… caused by disasters… with a focus on protecting the poor and people in vulnerable situations. Armed conflict is a man-made disaster. The article quantifies the scale of this by stating, “More than 305 million people require humanitarian assistance and protection, with 114 million of these in need of urgent, life-saving intervention,” directly aligning with the goal of reducing the number of people affected by crises.

5. SDG 17: Partnerships for the Goals

   • Target 17.16: Enhance the Global Partnership for Sustainable Development, complemented by multi-stakeholder partnerships. The article critiques the current advocacy model and explicitly calls for a different approach to partnership. It suggests moving beyond “likeminded States” to “cultivate a broader coalition” and engage “unlikely influencers” like “neighbouring States” to create more effective, strategic engagement.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

• Number of people requiring humanitarian assistance: The article states that “More than 305 million people require humanitarian assistance and protection.” A reduction in this number would indicate progress in reducing the impact of conflict (relevant to Target 11.5 and 16.1).
• Number of people needing urgent, life-saving intervention: The figure of “114 million” is provided as a subset of those needing assistance. This serves as a more acute indicator of the severity of violence and crises (Target 11.5 and 16.1).
• Economic impact of conflict on neighboring countries: The article provides a specific metric: “Countries on a normal development trajectory lose an estimated 0.7 percent of GDP every year for each neighbour in conflict.” This is a direct indicator of the economic cost of instability (relevant to SDG 8).
• Proportion of refugees hosted by neighboring countries: The statistic that “Border countries also host around 70 percent of the world’s refugees” is an indicator of the disproportionate burden placed on states adjacent to conflicts (relevant to SDG 11 and SDG 16).
• Implementation of IHL training for militaries: The article implies that the extent and effectiveness of “training militaries in IHL” can be measured as an indicator of efforts to promote compliance and prevent violations (Target 16.a).
• Use of monitoring and fact-finding mechanisms: The rise in UN-mandated “monitoring, fact-finding, and investigative mechanisms” is mentioned. The number, scope, and impact of these mechanisms serve as an indicator of the international community’s commitment to accountability (Target 16.3).
• Implementation of protective measures against SGBV: The example of “improved lighting in areas where women and girls collect water and access latrines” is a practical, measurable action that can serve as an indicator for progress in protecting women and girls from violence (Target 5.2).

SDGs, Targets, and Indicators Summary

Source: lieber.westpoint.edu