BASELINE STUDY

KNOWLEDGE, ATTITUDES, AND PRACTICES ON LAWS OF WAR

UKRAINE

MAY 2023

“IHL universalizes relations between countries, preserves humanity, and avoids genocide.”

- Weapons Bearer in Eastern Ukraine

Introduction

What makes a fighter respect the laws of war in life or death situations when facing an enemy in combat? Is International Humanitarian Law (IHL) seen as relevant in today’s battlefield and what do fighters in Ukraine think of it? How can we influence combatants to respect the laws of war? To explore these questions and assess the relevance of IHL (or Law of Armed Conflict) in today's battlefield, Geneva Call (GC) commissioned a baseline study in late 2022.

Strengthening compliance with IHL requires a multi-faceted approach that involves a combination of legal, educational, and practical measures the study concludes in a set of recommendations on how to improve overall effectiveness. The recommendations can serve as lessons and practical tips to inform any strategy for strengthening IHL respect and implementation.

Summary

Focusing on the perceptions and attitudes of weapon bearers in Ukraine, we interviewed hundreds of combatants, some of whom had just returned from the battlefield. The study provided unique insight into attitudes and perceptions of IHL during an active international armed conflict.

The study showed that the majority of weapon bearers are not only aware of their duty to protect civilians during conflicts but also show a willingness to engage with and apply International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles. However, despite largely positive perceptions and attitudes, there is a significant gap between general understanding and a firm belief in IHL's effectiveness, as well as comprehensive knowledge of IHL and its applicability

Taking into account the real-time viewpoints captured during an IAC, where reflections on legalistic considerations can naturally become distorted by the realities of war, the baseline results are a strong indicator of WB’s motivations to apply IHL; and, by extension, a strong argument for IHL’s relevance in conflict contexts.

The study's results highlight the difference between merely expressing familiarity with certain International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles and exhibiting a sophisticated understanding of them. This highlights the need for continued efforts to bridge this gap and reinforce the understanding and implementation of IHL in practice. The produced recommendations may be relevant to various actors who aim to attain higher compliance with IHL.

Purpose

International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war, is the body of laws that aim to limit suffering in times of armed conflict. IHL imposes obligations on parties to armed conflict in order to protect those who are not, or who are no longer participating in hostilities and to limit the means and methods of warfare.

Geneva Call’s mission is to bridge the gap between IHL theory and reality on the ground as reflected by the subsequent behaviours from their end users – combatants. The purpose of the baseline study was to understand current knowledge, attitudes and perceptions (KAP) towards key humanitarian norms and the laws of war among Weapons Bearers (WB) and civic actors, inclusive of the following IHL principles:

Distinction
Military necessity
Proportionality
Precaution
Humanity

The study focused mainly on perceptions, attitudes, and practices rather than in-depth knowledge or technical expertise. The survey was not conducted in the format of an examination or a pre-test, but instead aimed to gather a broader understanding of beliefs among combatants and civilian stakeholders.

The primary objective was to create baseline indicators centered on the importance and practicality of IHL in conflict situations for both combatants and civilians. The findings were used to help Geneva Call adapt its programs and tools in Ukraine specifically.

The secondary aim of the study was to draw insights which can strengthen overall efforts to promote an understanding of, and respect for IHL.

Conducting a knowledge, attitudes and perceptions (KAP) study on IHL can not only lead to identifying knowledge gaps, but also assess how individuals view the importance of IHL and its relevance during conflict. This can help inform the development of strategies and interventions to address these violations.

Challenges

The uniqueness of the study – being one of the first to be conducted with combatants during the ongoing armed conflict in Ukraine – presented both opportunities and challenges to the research team. Collecting data with those on the frontline was done in real-time, meaning weapon bearers’ impressions were often directly reflecting their current experiences of active conflict. At the same time, the intensity of an international armed conflict (IAC) can also naturally skew perceptions, particularly towards a negative standpoint, given the real-time associations between witnessing daily atrocities and the theoretical nature of the concept of IHL.

Methodology

Weapon Bearers

A mixed method approach was employed for this study, comprising 196 surveys with weapon bearers, including both closed and open-ended questions to assess attitudes, perceptions, practices, and (to a lesser extent) knowledge of IHL principles

. The sample size of 196 respondents is illustrative rather than representative of all combatants in Ukraine.

In the following graphics, each combatant is represented by a square. Follow them through the different sections of the study. To view their responses to the questions, simply hover your cursor over the darker squares. To focus on a specific participant's journey, click on a square to highlight it.

Aware of their responsibility to protect civilians

Perceptions and Attitudes

There is a widespread awareness of responsibility among WBs to protect civilians in conflict contexts. While 90.31% were aware of this responsibility, 93.37% of respondents felt they had a specific duty to protect civilians during armed combat. 94.9% of respondents reflected this further, as they agreed on the importance of distinguishing between civilians and combatants. There were some justifications against either of these views in the open answers. One example of this was framed through suspicion, as the respondent in question stated: “An enemy can appear as a friend.”

Demonstrate a willingness to engage with and apply IHL

Perceptions and Attitudes

Respondents’ very high willingness to engage with and apply humanitarian norms and IHL was gauged through their attitudes towards learning about and applying the Laws of War during conflict. It must be noted that this is indicative of the divergence between how they feel about IHL, and their current depth of understanding.

Of the 68.37% who showed a willingness to engage in both the learning and application of IHL respectively, most showed a considered understanding of the implications of lawless behaviours in warzones. Reasons varied but many referenced the importance of being human, protecting human life, and to behave in a civilized way despite the pressures of conflict.

There was also a palpable sense among some respondents that embracing humanitarian norms and IHL was an important way to distinguish their own forces from those on the opposing side: “It is an honour to observe the laws, we do not harm civilians, but the enemy, on the contrary, strikes at civilians, thus trying to break them.”

Moreover, open answers also reflected on the post-conflict scenarios for those who refused to enact lawful combat operations: “At the end of every military conflict there is a tribunal, if the rules are violated, then after the end of the war, we will bear responsibility for it.”

The minority who felt otherwise either saw their role as a combatant differently – with their sole focus on defeating the enemy or felt such laws were not workable in reality. “Duty, honour, devotion to your men, yes. But no rules towards the enemy”

While respondents showed a strong willingness to learn and apply humanitarian norms and IHL during times of conflict, it's important to note that there is a gap between their positive attitude towards IHL and their actual level of understanding of it.

Believe in the legitimacy of IHL in regulating violence

Perceptions and Attitudes

When reflecting on IHL’s legitimacy in protecting civilians, respondents’ views were framed through how they perceived its effectiveness

which is distinctly different from IHL’s efficacy

. While previous indicator values denote a strong belief in its importance, it is evident that here the belief in the authority of IHL to actually protect civilians is lacking. This must be caveated by the fact that perceptions of whether IHL serves its fundamental purpose were shaped by daily encounters with the visceral realities of IHL violations, which to many would prove the opposite.

What was expressed positively in theory about IHL differs somewhat when WBs reflected on the reality of war from their first-hand experiences; exemplified by the fact responses were captured often 24 hours of direct engagement in active conflict. In contrast with the other baseline values, 36.73% of WBs believed in the legitimacy of IHL. The majority of these respondents saw proof of its legitimacy through the life-saving actions undertaken as a result, given how they felt it reduced violence, lessen civilian casualties and enabled evacuations to occur. However, there was limited elaboration beyond these points, and the 57.6% who disagreed were sceptical about its effectiveness given the behaviour of many state and non-state actors.

This points to a link being made between the legitimacy and effectiveness. “Over the years we see many attacks by nation states in various countries that are nothing more than terrorism, if this international law was effective then I believe we wouldn’t see this.” This assertion outlines another example of the gap between perception and knowledge: this denotes a common confusion between the law prohibiting use of force in international relations (jus contra bellum) and the law regulating the hostilities (jus in bello).

The overwhelming majority of open answers reflected the lack of belief in IHL’s legitimacy through the prism of combatants in other warring parties violating IHL principles, as opposed to perceiving its effectiveness and therefore legitimacy through the virtue of their own side’s adherence. A combatant with previous experience in warzones was similarly downbeat, claiming: “Currently I am in my third war zone and have never seen anything to be effective in protecting civilians other than military force.”

Furthermore, the majority of respondents who did not see IHL as effective, associated IHL itself with the effectiveness of International Criminal Law(ICL) and accountability mechanisms. Links were made between IHL and the international courts in The Hague being unable to hold states or individuals accountable for violations of IHL.

It is important to make the following distinction: IHL is only able to provide the legal framework to regulate the conduct of armed conflict and protect civilians, it is not able to extend to serving as an accountability framework. It is the accountability mechanisms of ICL which seek to hold individuals accountable for violations of IHL and other serious international crimes. While efforts to promote accountability and enforcement are crucial it is important to continue advocating for prevention through separate strategies.

Able to quote at least one main provision of IHL

Knowledge

While 92.35% of all respondents claimed to have heard of IHL, just over 45.92% were able to quote at least one main provision. Clear connections can be drawn here with the previous value around respondent's awareness of their humanitarian obligations, given the most commonly quoted provision was in relation to protecting/not harming civilians.

Moreover, 71.43% of respondents admitted that IHL principles already influenced their behaviours. While a minority claimed they did not torture prisoners, for example, most respondents, when pressed further found it difficult to explain in detail and instead leant into rhetoric when attempting to clarify their position. Their responses further underscore the inability of weapon bearers to go beyond surface level analyses. While there was clarity of understanding that POWs must not be harmed, there was little-to-no evidence that they had internalised or given deeper thought to what humane treatment entailed on a daily basis.

The answer which came up the most often was the humane treatment of prisoners of war with around 60% of all IHL provisions that were quoted, while the rest mainly consisted of protection of civilians, women and children, protection of cultural heritage, along with the prohibition of mines, as well as banned/chemical/nuclear weapons.

Demonstrate how they incorporate IHL into military operations

Knowledge

Almost 60.2% of respondents were able to give examples of how they would apply IHL, though the majority of these were in theory rather than detailed personal anecdotes The examples given, in line with the majority of IHL provision named previously were focussed on humane treatment of POWs. These responses denote that knowledge is stronger around how to treat hors de combat unarmed combatants in isolated settings; whereas evidence of knowing how to practically apply IHL during armed combat is distinctly lacking and should therefore be prioritised for future programmatic activities.

Overall, the findings emphasise the important differential between expressing a strong awareness of certain IHL principles and demonstrating a nuanced perspective. One example of this was found when comparing the high percentage of those with a willingness to apply IHL and a sense of responsibility to protect with their responses to other more specific questions. For example, when asked whether the principles of IHL still apply during defence from an armed attack, 21.94% of WBs replied “No”. In other words, more generalised attitudes and perceptions of IHL, when broken down into scenarios, can present an internal contradiction among WBs.

As such, the quality of responses points to the need to consider future programmatic activities that not only deepen knowledge on the principles of proportionality, military necessity, and distinction, but also speak to their practical application through scenario based training.

Believe IHL clarifies how to balance necessity and humanity

Knowledge

69.39% of WBs stated that IHL offered a clear guide when it came to balancing between military necessity and humanity. However, this baseline value does not present the full picture, and when weighed against the lack of detail expressed when justifying their answers, suggests a clear area for improvement among the majority.

The notion of a clear guide was also disputed by a couple of respondents, given that what a clear guide may mean in theory does not mean it can be clearly followed in the heat of conflict.

However, confidence does not equate to an in-depth understanding, therefore statements to this effect should be not be taken at face-value but rather scrutinised with WBs, at another time and in a different setting.

For our research on civic actors, press here

Methodology

Civic Actors

A mixed method approach was employed for this study, comprising 52 surveys with civic actors, including both closed and open-ended questions to assess attitudes, perceptions, practices, and (to a lesser extent) knowledge of IHL principles

. The sample size of 52 respondents is illustrative rather than representative of all combatants in Ukraine. The majority of civic actors came from humanitarian backgrounds including NGOs, charitable foundations, CSOs, youth centres and volunteer networks.

Able to quote at least one main provision of IHL

Knowledge

While most civic actors had heard of IHL, and many were able to cite the Geneva Conventions, there was limited knowledge among key informants as to its main provisions. Where knowledge was expressed it was overwhelming centred on the protection of civilians, while a few mentioned protection of civilian buildings and cultural heritage, though only after probing by the research team.

Believe IHL can protect civilians

Knowledge

The majority of civic actors reflected that the impact of IHL was weak, though this assessment was often framed through justice for war crimes, as opposed to impact from a preventive perspective.

One interviewee was cognizant of IHL’s limitations, stating: “It protects to the extent of its possibilities.” while two others were more ambiguous, and suggested that it protects civilians “Theoretically, yes, in practice not so much” explaining that reality was too complex to ascertain its actual impact. Another KII was clear in terms of their language when reflecting on its impact, as they felt it “regulated and promoted protection” but was unable to agree that it actually protected civilians.

In the minority of responses that agreed it could protect civilians, one explained that: “An example could be the partial return of captives from our side.”

Other explanations were vague, and respondents were not able to expand in detail. This reveals a clear gap in understanding of IHL among the majority of interviewees, including those who believe it offers protection. Civic actors' limited belief in IHL’s impact are naturally drawn from experiences that have been shaped by direct conflict.

Who feel weapons bearers are cooperative and protective

Protection

To civic actors interviewed, the military’s primary role is to defend territorial sovereignty with a broad responsibility to protect civilians: “In general, protection consists in territorial integrity and the defense of the population.”

Overall, civilians’ responses reveal limited understanding between duties and rights where armed parties to a conflict are duty-bearers and civilian populations are rights-holders. There is not any clear understanding of the rights civilians hold and accordingly, no clear understanding of the duties of combatants towards the civilian population.

Civilians often lack specific knowledge about their rights during armed conflicts, even though they have a general understanding that they should be protected. This leads to the inability to articulate what protection means, and instead, many cited daily interactions with the military such as engagement at checkpoints. Thus, GC should consider implementing training not only on the principles of IHL, but the kinds of obligations and duties owed to the civilian population as a protected group, and as rights-holders.

A number of civic actors referred to housing military personnel in their homes. Therefore, training that builds knowledge of IHL principles with examples of how these are played out in practice is recommended. For instance, a civilian object turning into a legitimate military target because attacks have been launched from that site, such as a school or private house.

More focus and exploration on interactions between both military and civilian actors is necessary to increase understanding of how protection of civilians should work in practice, and clarity over what actions the military should take when they enter communities.

Recommendations

The overwhelming majority of weapons bearers are not only cognizant of their responsibility to protect civilians during conflict, but also express a willingness to engage and apply IHL principles. However, while perceptions and attitudes were largely positive, there is still a profound distance between these perceptions and attitudes in a general sense, and a certified belief in IHL and its effectiveness, as well as sound knowledge of IHL and its applicability.

While there is not one size fits all approach to engagement strategies when promoting IHL compliance the following recommendations can be utilised across Geneva Call programs and country missions:

To better engage combatants a thorough mapping of their characteristics, sources of authority, beliefs, and traditions should be conducted. Based on this information, tailored arguments and influencing factors can be developed.
Adopt a contextualized approach by considering ethical, cultural, practical, value-based, and socio-economic factors in IHL programming. Humanize the approach by using human stories to better understand the psychology of WBs and inform socialization strategies.
Considering the significant number of young WBs, innovative approaches such as digital/social media or interactive role-playing games could be employed to teach moderation and restraint. Developing a digital app for younger WBs could enhance their engagement with humanitarian norms.
Introduce IHL norms subtly, adapting formal and informal practices depending on the target group. Local culture and customs can be emphasized, while informal socialization from respected Ukrainian and international peers can be used for mixed groups of foreign fighters.
Replace technical terms with values and standards centered on WBs' identity, and address IHL violations from a values perspective rather than legalistic concerns. "IHL as a culture" can be incorporated using both bottom-up and top-down approaches.
Promote IHL culture by encouraging incentives for showing moderation and restraint during armed conflict. Employ IHL- positive WBs as ambassadors for knowledge-sharing and advocacy for compliance.
Conduct in-person trainings to strengthen belief in IHL's effectiveness and legitimacy, clarify its role in armed conflict, and provide guidance on balancing military necessity with humanity.
Facilitate discussions on upholding IHL principles, even when opposition parties do not. Present tangible evidence of IHL's effectiveness from other conflict contexts to boost confidence and legitimacy.

Conclusions

A key element to working towards compliance with the law is ensuring that combatants know the limits set by the laws of war

. The second key element is to ensure an understanding of its practical application and integrate it into their doctrine, training and operations in order to govern behaviour beyond the moment of the training

. However this model positions IHL compliance entirely on rational behaviour. It supposes that if IHL is incorporated in an army/ armed groups internal rules, policies and training then IHL compliance will be ensured.

As becomes evident from the baseline conducted and real-time views on IHL captured- reality is rarely this straightforward

. Both academics and practitioners have gradually come to acknowledge that knowing the law, does not equal complying with the law. Wars are cruel and bloody and it would be unrealistic to expect that merely knowing what Article 4 of the Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War is sufficient to impact those fighting in the trenches. The trend towards behaviour change stems precisely from the increasing realization and acceptance that simply the law, by itself, is not enough.

This is why it is important to move past a purely legalistic lens into alternative strategies when advocating for compliance of international humanitarian law during an active armed conflict. One such alternative approach towards improved IHL compliance is socialisation/norm internalisation

. Simply put, when a fighter is about to shoot a child or civilian, or a commander is about to order the bombing of a maternity ward where ammunition are stored - it is highly unlikely that basic knowledge of IHL would be sufficient to change their decision. In fact it is much more likely the inner-held conviction that it is not what an ‘honourable warrior’ (in various cultures) or “respectable fighter” would be able to impact a difficult decision to be taken in combat

Using Geneva Call’s long standing practice of behaviour change work as well as recommendations the baseline the following conclusions can be drawn:

IHL requires both legal and moral reasoning. The laws of war have always contained rules based on universal ethics, chivalry, religion, and humanity. As such these “soft” factors should not be ignored when trying to influence the behaviour of combatants.
The tension between the rational prescriptive nature of the law and emotional drivers and needs to be addressed head on. Leveraging reasons for compliance beyond the letter of the law is essential to do so. Face to face trainings are one option but not the exclusive and most suitable one for long-term behaviour change. More sophisticated programmatic activities need to be explored.
In order to advance its mission Geneva Call needs to advocate not just for knowledge of the law but improve IHL’s overall image. To be able to do IHL universality needs to be promoted for reasons beyond the letter of the law.
Geneva Call needs to continue exploring how to integrate emotional appeals and drivers into its strategy to both induce positive behaviour change and oppose existing bad patterns of combatant and AGDA behaviour.
Norm internalisation activities need to be informed by the necessary research and closer examination of KAP and sources of motivation for weapon bearers. Thorough examinations allow engagement strategies to be based on evidence and data which should be used to contextualise programmatic approaches.