From Ukraine to Gaza: IHL Compliance as a Tool for Preventing Moral Injury – Just Security

 

Report on International Humanitarian Law Compliance and its Alignment with Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction: IHL, Moral Injury, and the Imperative for Sustainable Development

Compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is a foundational legal obligation in armed conflict. Beyond its legal necessity, adherence to IHL presents significant moral and policy advantages for states. This report examines the strategic value of overt IHL compliance, with a particular focus on its role in mitigating moral injury and advancing core principles of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). Using the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense’s (MoDU) voluntary report on IHL implementation as a case study, this analysis will connect IHL adherence to SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being), SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions), and SDG 17 (Partnerships for the Goals). The report will then analyze the conflict between Israel and Hamas, recommending a similar IHL reporting mechanism as a means to protect combatants from moral injury and reinforce Israel’s commitment to the SDGs.

Case Study: The Ukrainian Ministry of Defense (MoDU) Voluntary IHL Report

Aligning with SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

In December 2024, the MoDU released a voluntary report on its domestic implementation of IHL. This initiative serves as a powerful demonstration of Ukraine’s commitment to building effective, accountable, and transparent institutions, a key target of SDG 16. The report aims to achieve several objectives directly related to this goal:

• It showcases Ukraine’s adherence to the rule of law on an international stage, reinforcing its reliability as a partner in receipt of military aid, thereby strengthening partnerships for sustainable development (SDG 17).
• It establishes a clear moral and legal framework for its armed forces, distinguishing lawful combat actions from criminal acts. This distinction is crucial for maintaining justice and accountability (SDG 16.3) during armed conflict.
• As stated by Ukrainian Minister of Defense Rustem Umerov, the report represents “Ukraine’s devotion to the common values of humanity,” which underpins the vision of a peaceful and inclusive society promoted by SDG 16.

Promoting SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

The MoDU report and supplemental materials explicitly link IHL compliance to the psychological and moral well-being of service members, directly addressing the aims of SDG 3. The connection is established through several points:

• The Ukrainian IHL study package notes that respect for IHL “directly determines the moral self-understanding of servicemen/servicewomen both during armed conflict and in the aftermath,” affecting their mental condition and societal adaptation.
• Lieutenant Colonel Inna Zavorotko acknowledged that IHL serves as a protective tool for soldiers facing the ravages of a lengthy war, mitigating the risk of long-term psychological harm.
• The establishment of a Chaplaincy within the Armed Forces is credited with increasing the moral and ethical values of personnel, providing a support structure that contributes to mental and spiritual well-being (SDG 3.4).

Moral Injury as a Barrier to Sustainable Development

Defining the Challenge to SDG 3 and SDG 16

Moral injury is a significant psychological harm resulting from actions that transgress deeply held moral beliefs. It poses a direct threat to the achievement of sustainable development by undermining both individual health and the stability of institutions.

• Impact on SDG 3 (Good Health and Well-being): Moral injury can lead to severe and lasting symptoms, including guilt, shame, loss of functionality, and an erosion of moral judgment. It affects not only soldiers but also drone pilots, aid workers, and healthcare professionals, representing a broad public health challenge.
• Impact on SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): The condition can make it difficult for individuals to reintegrate into society, hindering the development of peaceful and inclusive communities. Betrayal-based moral injury, which occurs when soldiers feel their leaders have pursued morally transgressive policies, erodes trust in state institutions, contrary to the goals of SDG 16.6 (effective, accountable and transparent institutions).

IHL Compliance as a Protective Measure

Adherence to IHL provides a critical framework that can mitigate the risk of moral injury and thus act as a form of force protection that supports long-term sustainable development.

• IHL establishes clear boundaries that distinguish lawful acts of war from murder, providing a moral structure for combatants. This legal and moral clarity is essential for preserving the psychological health (SDG 3) of those tasked with conducting violence on behalf of the state.
• By embedding IHL into military operations, states can reduce the incidence of moral injury, thereby maintaining the effectiveness of their forces and ensuring their healthy reintegration into society post-conflict, which contributes to the stability envisioned in SDG 16.

Analysis of the Israel-Gaza Conflict Through an SDG Lens

Challenges to SDG 11 and SDG 16

The ongoing conflict between Israel and Hamas has resulted in widespread harm that presents significant setbacks to the Sustainable Development Goals in the region.

• SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities): The conflict has severely impacted Gaza’s civilian population and its physical and social-ecological systems. The deterioration of living conditions and destruction of infrastructure directly undermines the goal of making human settlements safe, resilient, and sustainable.
• SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions): While Israel has historically expressed a commitment to the rule of law, recent events have created challenges. Statements by some government officials that appear contrary to IHL, coupled with the scale of devastation, have raised questions about adherence to international law and risk eroding trust in state institutions.

Recommendations for Israel to Advance IHL and the SDGs

In light of reports of moral injury among Israeli soldiers and ongoing internal debates about the rule of law, Israel should consider producing a voluntary report on its IHL implementation. Such a report would be a timely and strategic measure to reaffirm its commitments to international norms and the SDGs.

1. Strengthen SDG 16: A voluntary report would publicly reiterate Israel’s commitment to the rule of law and accountable governance (SDG 16.6), especially given internal tensions over judicial reforms and the lack of a state commission of inquiry into the conflict’s origins and conduct.
2. Support SDG 3: By clearly articulating its IHL framework and enforcement, the state can provide a stronger moral structure for its soldiers. This can help mitigate the risk of moral injury caused by the conflict’s realities and by official statements that may seem to contradict the justness of their actions, thereby promoting mental well-being (SDG 3.4).
3. Reinforce SDG 17: Demonstrating transparent adherence to international law can bolster Israel’s standing with international partners and protect its service members from potential prosecution in foreign jurisdictions, strengthening the partnerships necessary for global cooperation.
4. Address Betrayal-Based Moral Injury: A public commitment to IHL from the highest levels can counter the potential for betrayal-based moral injury among soldiers who may feel their trust has been undermined by political rhetoric, reinforcing faith in their leadership and institutions (SDG 16).

Conclusion: IHL Reporting as a Strategic Tool for Sustainable Development

Transparent reporting on IHL implementation, as pioneered by Ukraine, is more than a novel exercise in international relations. It is a strategic tool with direct benefits for achieving the Sustainable Development Goals. For states engaged in conflict, such reports offer a pathway to:

• Uphold SDG 16 by reinforcing the rule of law and promoting accountable, transparent institutions.
• Advance SDG 3 by providing a moral framework that protects the mental well-being of combatants and mitigates the lasting harm of moral injury.
• Strengthen SDG 17 by building trust and reliability with international partners.

By following Ukraine’s example, Israel could leverage its stated values of democracy and rule of law as a source of strategic strength, yielding benefits on the battlefield and in its long-term pursuit of a just and sustainable peace.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

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

The article primarily addresses issues related to two Sustainable Development Goals:

• SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

  This is the most central SDG in the article. The entire discussion revolves around the importance of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), the rule of law during armed conflict, and the role of state institutions like the military and judiciary. The article examines how states like Ukraine and Israel engage with legal and moral frameworks for war, the importance of accountability through transparent reporting (like the Ukrainian MoDU’s voluntary report), and the function of justice mechanisms like commissions of inquiry and international courts (ICJ, ICC). It directly connects the strength and transparency of institutions to the conduct of war and the pursuit of justice.

• SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

  The article introduces and extensively discusses the concept of “moral injury,” which it defines as a “distinctive and potentially debilitating type of harm” affecting participants in armed conflict. It links moral injury to mental health conditions like PTSD and describes its symptoms, such as “profound feelings of guilt or shame, loss of functionality.” By focusing on the psychological and moral well-being of soldiers, aid workers, and others impacted by war, and by proposing IHL compliance as a preventative measure (“moral injury prevention as a form of force protection”), the article directly engages with the goal of ensuring good health and promoting well-being.

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

Based on the article’s content, the following specific targets can be identified:

1. Under SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions

   • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere.
     
     The article is set against the backdrop of the “ongoing armed conflict between Hamas… and the state of Israel” and the war in Ukraine. It explicitly mentions the “scale of harm that is undeniable” and the “deaths and injuries” in Gaza, directly relating to the reduction of violence and death rates.
   • Target 16.3: Promote the rule of law at the national and international levels and ensure equal access to justice for all.
     
     This target is central to the article’s argument. The text repeatedly emphasizes compliance with International Humanitarian Law (IHL), which it calls a “bedrock legal obligation.” It discusses Israel’s stated “devotion to the rule of law,” the role of its Supreme Court, and proceedings at the International Court of Justice (ICJ), all of which are elements of promoting the rule of law.
   • Target 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions at all levels.
     
     The article champions the Ukrainian Ministry of Defense’s “first-ever voluntary report on the domestic implementation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)” as a key example of transparency and accountability. It contrasts this with the Israeli government’s refusal to establish a formal “commission of inquiry,” which would have “public trust,” suggesting a need for more accountable institutions.
   • Target 16.a: Strengthen relevant national institutions… to prevent violence and combat terrorism and crime.
     
     The article notes the “creation of a Chaplaincy within the Armed Forces of Ukraine,” which is credited with “increasing the moral and ethical values of Ukrainian forces, particularly with respect to IHL compliance.” This is an example of strengthening a national institution to prevent unlawful violence (war crimes) and uphold a moral framework during conflict.

2. Under SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being

   • Target 3.4: By 2030, reduce by one third premature mortality from non-communicable diseases through prevention and treatment and promote mental health and well-being.
     
     The article’s detailed exploration of “moral injury” directly addresses the promotion of mental health and well-being. It describes moral injury as a condition with “significant and often long-lasting” symptoms that can lead to a “loss of functionality,” affecting not just soldiers but also “aid workers, health care workers, lawyers, and others.” The proposal to use IHL compliance as a preventative tool aligns with this target.

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

Yes, the article mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

1. Indicators for SDG 16 Targets

   • Publication of voluntary reports on IHL compliance: The Ukrainian MoDU’s report is presented as a direct, tangible indicator of institutional transparency and accountability (Target 16.6). The article suggests Israel should produce a similar report.
   • Establishment of independent commissions of inquiry: The article discusses the “widespread public calls for the establishment of such a commission” in Israel and the government’s refusal. The existence or absence of such bodies serves as an indicator of a state’s commitment to accountability (Target 16.6).
   • Adherence to the rule of law and IHL: The article discusses how IHL compliance is a “distinguishing factor” and a measure of an army’s morality. Actions on the battlefield and statements by officials that are “at odds with IHL provisions” are negative indicators (Target 16.3).
   • Number of soldiers refusing to serve: The article mentions the “growing numbers of soldiers refusing to serve” in Israel due to moral and ethical concerns. This can be seen as an indirect indicator of the perceived legitimacy of the conflict and the state of the rule of law (Target 16.3).

2. Indicators for SDG 3 Targets

   • Prevalence of moral injury and PTSD: The article explicitly refers to “reporting from Israel, highlighting moral injury cases amongst Israeli soldiers and civilians.” The number and severity of such cases are a direct indicator of the state of mental well-being in a conflict-affected population (Target 3.4).
   • Establishment of mental and moral support systems: The creation of the “Chaplaincy within the Armed Forces of Ukraine” to affect the “moral condition of a serviceman/servicewoman” is an indicator of institutional efforts to promote mental and psychological well-being (Target 3.4).

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

SDGs, Targets and Indicators	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.1: Reduce all forms of violence and related death rates. 16.3: Promote the rule of law and ensure equal access to justice. 16.6: Develop effective, accountable and transparent institutions. 16.a: Strengthen national institutions to prevent violence.	– Scale of harm, deaths, and injuries in conflict zones (Gaza). – Adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL). – Number of soldiers refusing to serve on moral/legal grounds. – Publication of voluntary government reports on IHL implementation (e.g., Ukraine’s MoDU report). – Establishment of independent commissions of inquiry. – Creation of internal support structures to uphold moral/ethical values (e.g., Ukrainian Chaplaincy).
SDG 3: Good Health and Well-being	3.4: Reduce premature mortality from non-communicable diseases and promote mental health and well-being.	– Reported prevalence of moral injury and PTSD cases among soldiers and civilians. – Existence of preventative measures and support systems for mental well-being (e.g., IHL compliance as a protective framework, military chaplaincies). – Symptoms such as guilt, shame, and loss of functionality in conflict-affected individuals.

Source: justsecurity.org