TRANSFORMASI KARAKTER KONFLIK ASIMETRIS DAN RELEVANSINYA TERHADAP ADAPTASI HUKUM HUMANITER DI LINGKUP OPERASI MILITER MODERN
Keywords:
Asymmetric warfare, international humanitarian law, modern military operations, distinction principle, normative recontextualizationAbstract
The transformation of global conflict patterns reflects a profound departure from conventional warfare toward asymmetrical combat models. This paradigm shift is characterized by the active role of non-state actors, guerrilla-style tactics, the strategic use of civilian spaces as battlegrounds, and the absence of traditional frontlines, thereby generating substantial challenges to the applicability and effectiveness of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Within the scope of modern military operations, such a landscape necessitates normative adaptation of core IHL principles, including distinction, proportionality, and military necessity. This paper seeks to critically examine how the evolving dynamics of asymmetric warfare impact the operationalization of humanitarian law and assess the extent to which these legal principles remain resilient amid the realities of blurred combatant status, covert hostilities, and the deliberate use of civilian populations as shields. Using a qualitative-analytical methodology through literature review, international legal instruments, and empirical case studies, this article emphasizes the imperative of recontextualizing the legal framework to better address the spectrum of contemporary threats. The findings advocate for conceptual refinement and the harmonization of military doctrine with international legal standards to ensure both legitimacy and humanitarian protection in complex modern battlefields.
References
Human Rights Watch. (2015). Gaza: War crimes during 2014 conflict with Israel. Retrieved from https://www.hrw.org
ICRC. (2021). International humanitarian law and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts: Report for the 33rd International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross.
International Committee of the Red Cross. (2008). Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Geneva: ICRC.
International Criminal Court. (1998). Rome statute of the international criminal court. Retrieved from https://www.icc-cpi.int
Mack, A. (1975). Why big nations lose small wars. World Politics, 27(2), 175–200. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009880
Metz, S., & Johnson, D. V. (2001). Asymmetry and U.S. military strategy: Definition, background, and strategic concepts. Carlisle, PA: Strategic Studies Institute, U.S. Army War College.
Roberts, A., & Guelff, R. (Eds.). (2000). Documents on the laws of war (3rd ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Solis, G. D. (2016). The law of armed conflict: International humanitarian law in war (2nd ed.). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sun Tzu. (2009). The art of war (L. Giles, Trans.). New York: Tribeca Books.
United Nations Human Rights Council. (2016). Report of the independent international commission of inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic. Geneva: UNHRC.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 JOURNAL OF LAW AND NATION

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.