The Complex Application of International Humanitarian Law in Sri Lanka’s Armed Conflict

When armed conflict erupts, the principles that govern warfare become critical to protecting civilian lives. In Sri Lanka’s decades-long ethnic conflict, the application of International Humanitarian Law faced unique challenges that exposed both the complexities of modern warfare and the difficulties of enforcing humanitarian standards when non-state armed groups are involved. The country’s struggle with implementing IHL during its conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam reveals important lessons about the gap between legal commitments and practical enforcement.

Sri Lanka’s commitment to the Geneva Conventions 🔗

Sri Lanka ratified the Geneva Conventions, which form the cornerstone of International Humanitarian Law. These treaties establish fundamental protections for civilians, wounded combatants, and prisoners during armed conflicts. The country has demonstrated its commitment through various initiatives, including translating the Geneva Conventions into Sinhala and Tamil, and incorporating IHL into military curricula and university programs.

The Sri Lankan government established a National Committee on IHL to promote dissemination and implementation of humanitarian law principles. This inter-ministerial body has worked to strengthen national legislation and ensure adequate implementation of IHL standards. However, the actual application of these principles during active conflict proved far more challenging than institutional commitments might suggest.

The challenge of non-international armed conflict 🔗

Sri Lanka’s conflict was classified as a non-international armed conflict, which creates distinct legal complexities. Unlike international wars between states, NIACs involve a state fighting against non-state armed groups within its own territory. Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions applies to such conflicts, establishing minimum humanitarian standards that all parties must respect.

The presence of the LTTE as a non-state actor complicated IHL enforcement significantly. Both the government and the LTTE were bound by customary international humanitarian law, which obligates all parties regardless of their legal status. Yet the LTTE, designated as a terrorist organization by multiple countries, operated outside traditional state structures, making accountability mechanisms difficult to apply.

Legal obligations of non-state actors 🔗

A critical question emerged: how do humanitarian laws bind armed groups that reject state authority? International law addresses this through two theories. First, non-state actors operating within a state’s territory are bound by that state’s treaty obligations. Second, armed groups exercising territorial control assume state-like responsibilities, including adherence to IHL. Despite these legal frameworks, enforcement remained problematic throughout Sri Lanka’s conflict.

Government counterterrorism measures and legal frameworks 🔗

To address the armed conflict, Sri Lanka enacted various legal measures, most notably the Prevention of Terrorism Act. Originally introduced as temporary legislation in 1979, the PTA became permanent in 1982, granting security forces broad powers to detain suspects for extended periods.

The PTA allows detention for up to 18 months on ministerial orders, with limited judicial oversight and inadequate protections against abuse. Critics have consistently argued that these provisions violate international human rights standards, including protections guaranteed under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.

Treatment of detainees under scrutiny 🔗

The treatment of individuals detained under counterterrorism legislation became a major point of controversy. Reports documented routine torture and ill-treatment of PTA detainees, with minimal judicial oversight and vague definitions of what constitutes terrorism-related offenses. The regulation authorizing reintegration centers for deradicalization further expanded detention powers without adequate legal safeguards.

International human rights organizations have documented cases where individuals were held for years without charge, subjected to coerced confessions, and denied proper legal representation. Even after release, many faced continued surveillance and restrictions that prevented them from resuming normal lives. These practices raised serious questions about Sri Lanka’s compliance with both IHL and human rights law during conflict.

Violations and accountability gaps 🔗

The final phases of the conflict witnessed particularly severe allegations of IHL violations by both parties. The LTTE prevented civilians from fleeing combat zones, used human shields, forcibly recruited children as young as 14, and fired on civilians attempting to escape. These actions violated fundamental principles protecting civilian populations during armed conflict.

Government forces faced accusations of indiscriminate shelling in densely populated areas and attacks on protected sites including hospitals. UN estimates suggested approximately 6,400 civilian deaths occurred from January 2009 onwards, with significantly more wounded. The government’s restrictions on media access and humanitarian organizations made independent verification extremely difficult.

The impunity problem 🔗

Perhaps the most persistent challenge has been the failure to hold individuals accountable for serious violations. Sri Lanka’s history includes numerous commissions of inquiry that documented tens of thousands of complaints, identified alleged perpetrators, and recommended prosecutions. Yet very few cases resulted in actual convictions, and hundreds of security personnel indicted by these commissions returned to active duty without facing consequences.

The UN Human Rights Council has adopted multiple resolutions calling for genuine investigations, but implementation has been limited by political factors and changing government policies. This climate of impunity undermines both justice for victims and the deterrent effect that accountability should provide.

The role of the International Committee of the Red Cross 🔗

Throughout the conflict, the ICRC worked to promote humanitarian standards and provide assistance to affected populations. The organization’s neutral and impartial mandate allowed it to engage with all parties, offering confidential feedback on IHL compliance and facilitating humanitarian access where possible.

The ICRC has continued post-conflict efforts to strengthen IHL implementation through education, training programs, and support for the National IHL Committee. These initiatives address contemporary challenges including cyber warfare, autonomous weapons systems, and the intersection of counterterrorism measures with humanitarian law.

However, the ICRC’s access during active conflict was sometimes restricted, limiting its ability to monitor conditions and provide protection. The organization’s effectiveness depends on cooperation from all parties, which proved inconsistent during the most intense periods of fighting.

Ongoing challenges and reform efforts 🔗

Post-conflict, Sri Lanka continues grappling with IHL implementation challenges. Efforts to reform or replace the Prevention of Terrorism Act have faced setbacks, with proposed legislation still containing problematic provisions. UN experts have expressed concern that draft counter-terrorism bills fail to adequately address expanded definitions of terrorism, lack sufficient judicial oversight, and do not provide adequate protections against torture.

The question of transitional justice remains contentious. Mechanisms to address past violations, provide reparations to victims, and ensure accountability have been delayed by political resistance and competing narratives about the conflict. Families of the disappeared continue seeking answers about missing relatives, while survivors of violence await meaningful acknowledgment and redress.

What do you think? How can countries balance legitimate security concerns with the obligation to respect humanitarian law during internal armed conflicts? What mechanisms might prove most effective in ensuring both state and non-state actors comply with IHL standards when traditional enforcement tools prove inadequate?

References

1. http://www.lankamission.org/index.php/humanitarian-affairs/3581-75-years-of-the-geneva-conventions-global-and-sri-lankan-perspectives
2. https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/resources/documents/feature/2008/ihl-sri-lanka-feature080214.htm
3. https://www.hrw.org/news/2009/04/27/q-accountability-violations-international-humanitarian-law-sri-lanka
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prevention_of_Terrorism_Act_(Sri_Lanka)
5. https://www.hrw.org/news/2024/07/17/sri-lanka-false-terrorism-cases-enable-repression
6. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/B-9-2021-0358_EN.html
7. https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/sri-lanka-conflict-vanni
8. https://link.springer.com/rwe/10.1007/978-981-19-8388-7_138
9. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/sri-lanka-challenges-humanitarian-law
10. https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/10/un-experts-say-sri-lankas-counter-terrorism-bill-fails-heed-their