The Maldives and IHL: Ratifications and the Need for Domestic Incorporation

The Maldives, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean, may have limited military capacity and minimal experience with armed conflict, yet it has demonstrated a notable commitment to international humanitarian law. By ratifying core IHL conventions, the Maldives has joined the global community in accepting fundamental rules that protect people affected by war. However, the country faces a critical gap between international commitment and domestic enforcement, as it lacks comprehensive legislation to implement these treaties within its national legal framework.

Ratification of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols 🔗

The foundation of the Maldives’ engagement with IHL rests on its ratification of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols. The four Geneva Conventions have been ratified by 196 states, making them among the most universally accepted treaties in international law. These conventions establish comprehensive standards for humanitarian treatment during armed conflicts, including protection for wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians.

Beyond the basic conventions, the Maldives has also ratified Additional Protocols I and II of 1977. Additional Protocol I relates to international armed conflicts, while Additional Protocol II addresses non-international armed conflicts. This demonstrates the country’s willingness to accept expanded protections for conflict victims and broader humanitarian obligations, distinguishing it from some larger South Asian nations that have been more cautious about ratifying these protocols.

Commitment to protecting children in conflict 🔗

The Maldives has shown particular commitment to protecting children’s rights through its engagement with international conventions. The country is one of 196 states that have ratified the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which establishes comprehensive protections for children in all circumstances, including during armed conflicts.

In 2019, the government took significant steps to strengthen child protection domestically by ratifying the Child Rights Protection Act, which officially came into force in February 2020. This legislation marks important changes in legal protection for children, including prohibiting marriage for anyone below 18 years of age and establishing mechanisms like a Child Rights Council and Child Rights Ombudsperson.

The Maldives has also engaged with the Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, demonstrating attention to specific issues like the involvement of children in armed conflict and the sale of children. While implementation challenges remain, these ratifications reflect the government’s formal recognition of international standards for protecting children during times of conflict and peace.

The implementation gap: from international commitment to domestic law 🔗

Despite its impressive record of treaty ratifications, the Maldives faces a fundamental challenge shared by many nations: translating international obligations into enforceable domestic legislation. Ratification of IHL treaties represents only the first step in a longer process. For these rules to be truly effective, states must enact domestic legislation, develop regulatory measures, and establish practical mechanisms for implementation.

The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols require states to take specific actions, including prosecuting grave breaches of IHL that constitute war crimes, integrating IHL into military training and doctrine, marking protected objects like cultural heritage sites, and spreading knowledge of humanitarian law among both military personnel and civilians. Without domestic legislation to create criminal penalties for violations, establish jurisdiction over war crimes, and define implementation procedures, these international obligations remain largely aspirational.

For a country with limited conflict experience and a small military force of approximately 2,500 personnel, the urgency of IHL implementation may seem less pressing than for nations engaged in active conflicts. However, effective implementation requires proactive measures taken during peacetime, including comprehensive military training programs and legislative frameworks that can be activated if needed.

The necessity of integrating IHL into military training 🔗

One critical aspect of IHL implementation involves integrating humanitarian law principles into military education and training. IHL training represents one of the few universally accepted mechanisms through which military action can be shaped according to legal requirements. This training must go beyond mere legal instruction to instill values and ethical principles that become part of military culture.

The Maldives National Defence Force maintains the College of Defence and Security Studies, which provides institutional training to military personnel and has been designated as a registered higher education provider. The MNDF has also developed international partnerships for training, with personnel attending military academies and staff colleges in countries including Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, the United Kingdom, and the United States.

However, the extent to which IHL has been systematically integrated into these training programs remains unclear without comprehensive domestic legislation mandating such integration. Effective IHL training requires sustained institutional commitment, dedicated instructors with expertise in humanitarian law, and regular updates to training materials to reflect evolving standards and battlefield realities.

Steps toward effective domestic incorporation 🔗

To bridge the gap between international commitment and domestic implementation, the Maldives would benefit from several concrete measures. First, enacting comprehensive legislation that criminalizes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and establishes clear procedures for investigating and prosecuting war crimes would demonstrate serious commitment to enforcement.

Second, creating a national IHL committee or similar interministerial body could coordinate implementation efforts across different government ministries and agencies. Many states have established such committees to advise governments on implementing and spreading knowledge of IHL, and they serve as focal points for ensuring that international obligations are reflected in national policies and practices.

Third, systematically integrating IHL into military doctrine, training curricula, and operational procedures would ensure that humanitarian law principles become embedded in military culture. This integration should extend beyond basic instruction to include scenario-based training, ethical decision-making exercises, and regular refresher courses that reinforce core principles.

Fourth, developing mechanisms for disseminating IHL knowledge among civilians, including through educational institutions and public awareness campaigns, would help create a broader culture of respect for humanitarian principles. This civilian education component is particularly important in a democracy where public understanding of international obligations can influence policy implementation.

The path forward for the Maldives 🔗

The Maldives has established a strong foundation through its ratification of key IHL instruments, positioning itself favorably within the South Asian region. This formal commitment to international humanitarian principles deserves recognition, particularly for a small nation with limited resources and minimal conflict exposure.

However, the real test of commitment lies in implementation. Without domestic legislation that transforms international obligations into enforceable national law, even the most comprehensive treaty ratifications remain incomplete. The challenge for the Maldives now is to move from formal acceptance to practical implementation, creating legal frameworks and institutional mechanisms that can give life to the humanitarian principles it has embraced.

This implementation process need not be overwhelming. International organizations like the International Committee of the Red Cross offer technical assistance, model legislation, and guidance documents specifically designed to help states implement their IHL obligations. The ICRC’s Advisory Service provides ratification kits, legislative checklists, and expertise that can support countries in developing appropriate domestic frameworks.

The Maldives’ approach to IHL implementation will likely reflect its unique circumstances as a small island nation with limited military capacity. Rather than creating extensive war crimes tribunals or complex prosecution mechanisms that may never be needed, the country might focus on establishing basic legal frameworks, integrating IHL principles into military training, and building awareness among relevant government officials and military personnel.

What do you think? Given the Maldives’ limited conflict experience, should smaller nations like the Maldives prioritize comprehensive IHL implementation, or are basic frameworks sufficient? How can international organizations better support small states in bridging the gap between treaty ratification and domestic implementation?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_humanitarian_law
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
3. https://www.unicef.org/maldives/reports/implementation-handbook-convention-rights-child
4. https://maldives.un.org/en/125393-maldives-ratifies-child-rights-protection-act
5. https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/domestic-law-and-ihl
6. https://www.dcaf.ch/parameters-effective-military-training-international-humanitarian-law
7. http://opiniojuris.org/2020/10/08/training-armed-forces-in-ihl-just-a-matter-of-law/
8. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/national-committees