Journalists and Civilians in Contemporary Conflicts: Reflections on Vulnerability and the Lack of Protection
As we know all too well, since 1945 numerous genocides have taken place: in Cambodia and Myanmar, in Rwanda and Bosnia, and more recently in Gaza. The memory of the atrocities committed during the Second World War—particularly the Holocaust—pushed the international community to embark on a normative and institutional path aimed at preventing such crimes from recurring.
In the second half of the 1940s, the foundations of modern international human rights law were laid. On the one hand, there were the Nuremberg Trials (1945–46), which marked the first time that political and military leaders were judged by an international tribunal for war crimes, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, principles codified in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal (1945).
In parallel, on the normative plane, the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights by the United Nations General Assembly in Paris on 10 December 1948 represented a founding moment. While not legally binding, the Declaration solemnly proclaimed the universal principles of dignity, freedom, and equality of all human beings, and laid the groundwork for subsequent binding treaties, most notably the two 1966 Covenants: the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR). Together, these instruments form the so-called International Bill of Human Rights.
Further treaties strengthened the protection of fundamental rights, such as the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (1948), the Convention against Torture (1984), and the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, which govern the protection of civilians in armed conflicts and prohibit indiscriminate or direct attacks against non-combatants.
All these measures contributed to the creation of an international rule of law, aimed at limiting state sovereignty when it comes to the protection of fundamental rights. Yet subsequent history shows how often this body of law has been ignored or violated. The genocides in Rwanda (1994) and Bosnia (1995), the massacres in Cambodia in the 1970s, and the grave violations in Myanmar against ethnic minorities stand as evidence of the system’s fragility.
Nevertheless, the international community has made some progress in the field of international criminal justice. After the experience of the ad hoc tribunals for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and Rwanda (ICTR), on 1 July 2002 the International Criminal Court (ICC), established by the Rome Statute (1998), came into operation. It is the first permanent tribunal with the mission of prosecuting individuals accused of genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. The ICC’s existence represents an important recognition of the principle of individual criminal responsibility under international law.
Yet the road remains fraught with obstacles. Many powerful states—including the United States, Russia, China, and India—have not ratified the Rome Statute, limiting the Court’s universal reach. Moreover, the ICC has been accused of selective justice, with most of its cases targeting African states, while crimes committed by more powerful actors have gone largely unpunished.
Tensions also emerged in the new millennium. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, lacking a clear United Nations Security Council mandate and seemingly in violation of Article 2(4) of the UN Charter (which prohibits the use of force except in self-defense or with UN authorization), raised serious doubts about respect for international law by the very Western governments that had promoted universal values of peace and human rights. Such episodes have fueled the perception of “double standards,” undermining the credibility of the entire system.
A more recent example concerns the protection of journalists in armed conflicts, which is explicitly guaranteed under Article 79 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions (1977), recognizing journalists as civilians who must not be targeted. In mid-August, the broadcaster Al Jazeera announced that an Israeli airstrike had killed their correspondent Anas al-Sharif, 28, along with several other journalists in Gaza City: reporter Mohammed Qreiqeh, journalist Mohammed al-Khalidi, and cameramen Momen Aliwa, Ibrahim Zaher, and Mohammed Noufal. The strike allegedly targeted a tent where journalists had taken refuge within the Al Shifa medical complex.
On 31 July, UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan had already warned that the killings of journalists appeared to be “part of a deliberate strategy by Israel to suppress the truth.” Following al-Sharif’s death, Al Jazeera’s Input Manager, Raed Fakih, described him as “brave, dedicated, and honest,” highlighting his integrity and his commitment to reporting on famine and hunger in Gaza despite the personal risks he faced.
The Israeli government openly declared that it had deliberately killed al-Sharif, alleging he was a senior Hamas member, but failed to provide credible evidence. The incident sparked international outrage, though, as is often the case, some Western powers refrained from condemnation.
The crucial point is that journalists are civilians, and deliberately targeting them constitutes a war crime, as clearly stated in Article 8 of the Rome Statute and in the Geneva Conventions. If states begin to retroactively label journalists as “terrorists” to justify their killing, a dangerous precedent is set: the criminalization of those who document violations. Such a logic undermines not only the protection of civilians but also freedom of the press and the right to truth—pillars of international human rights law.
Despite widespread condemnation, military aid and cooperation with Israel have continued, feeding the perception of a Western “conspiracy of silence.” This ambiguity not only weakens international law but risks legitimizing a model in which states can justify blatant violations by branding victims as “enemies” or “terrorists.”
For all its contradictions and practical limits, international human rights law nevertheless remains of fundamental importance. It has introduced universally recognized standards of conduct, providing moral, diplomatic, and legal tools against states and individuals responsible for grave violations. Moreover, it has empowered civil society, NGOs, and movements worldwide in their struggle for fundamental rights.
Ultimately, from 1945 to the present, international human rights law has developed as a dynamic legal and political field: imperfect, often violated, but nonetheless indispensable to upholding the idea that human dignity must be protected beyond state borders. The challenge ahead lies not only in strengthening enforcement mechanisms but also in ensuring their impartial application—so that there are no more “safe zones” for violence and impunity.
Genocides from 1945 to the present
- Cambodia (1975–1979): The Khmer Rouge regime caused the deaths of approximately 2 million people through forced labor, executions, and famine.
- Sources: Human Rights Watch, ushmm.org
- Myanmar (Rohingya): Since 2016, the Burmese armed forces have persecuted and killed thousands of Rohingya Muslims, forcing over a million to flee to Bangladesh.
- Rwanda (1994): In three months, approximately 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus were killed by Hutu militias.
- Bosnia (1995): Bosnian Serb forces massacred over 8,000 Bosniak Muslims in Srebrenica, considered the worst crime in Europe since 1945. Sources: Informazione, Encyclopedia Britannica
- Gaza (2023–2025): According to Human Rights Watch, Israeli authorities have deliberately deprived Gaza’s population of access to water, likely causing thousands of deaths and constituting acts of genocide. Source: Human Rights Watch
- Foundations of International Human Rights Law
- Nuremberg Trials (1945–1946): Major Nazi leaders were tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity, establishing the principle of individual criminal responsibility.
- London Charter (1945): Established the International Military Tribunal, defining crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity.
- Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948): Adopted by the UN General Assembly, it establishes the fundamental rights of every individual.
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (1966): Covers civil and political rights, while the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights addresses other aspects of human rights.
- Genocide Convention (1948): Defines genocide and obliges states to prevent and punish it.
- Convention Against Torture (1984): Prohibits torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment.
- Geneva Conventions (1949) and Additional Protocols: Establish rules for the protection of civilians in armed conflicts.
International Criminal Justice
- International Criminal Court (ICC): Established by the Rome Statute (1998), it is the first permanent tribunal to prosecute international crimes such as genocide and crimes against humanity. Sources: Wikipedia, Human Rights Watch
- Limitations of the ICC: Some states, including the United States, Russia, China, and India, have not ratified the Rome Statute, limiting the Court’s universal effectiveness.
Criticisms and Challenges to the International System
- Double standards: The 2003 invasion of Iraq, without a clear UN Security Council mandate, raised doubts about Western powers’ respect for international law.
- Protection of journalists: Article 79 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions recognizes journalists as civilians to be protected.
Recent Case: Gaza and Journalists
- Killing of Anas al-Sharif: On 17 August 2025, Al Jazeera reported that an Israeli airstrike killed their correspondent Anas al-Sharif in Gaza City. Source: El País
- UN Report: On 31 July, UN Special Rapporteur Irene Khan warned that the killings of journalists appear to be “part of a deliberate strategy by Israel to suppress the truth.”
- Israeli statements: The Israeli government openly declared that it killed al-Sharif, claiming he was a Hamas member, without providing credible evidence.
- War crime allegations: The killing of journalists has been denounced as a war crime, in violation of Article 8 of the Rome Statute and the Geneva Conventions.
