Maldives: A Signatory to Key IHL Conventions and Protocols

The Maldives may be better known for its pristine beaches and resort islands, but the island nation has quietly demonstrated a strong commitment to international humanitarian law through its participation in key global treaties. Despite having limited military capacity and no recent history of armed conflict, Maldives has ratified several foundational conventions that govern the conduct of warfare and protect civilians during armed conflicts. However, ratification alone tells only part of the story. The real test of any country’s commitment lies in transforming these international obligations into enforceable domestic law.

The foundation: Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols 🔗

Maldives has ratified all four Geneva Conventions of 1949, which form the bedrock of international humanitarian law. These conventions establish fundamental protections for wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians during armed conflicts. By joining these universally accepted treaties, Maldives aligned itself with the global consensus on basic humanitarian principles that must be respected even in times of war.

Beyond the core conventions, Maldives has also ratified both Additional Protocols I and II of 1977. Protocol I extends protections to victims of international armed conflicts, while Protocol II addresses non-international armed conflicts occurring within a country’s borders. These protocols significantly strengthen civilian protections and establish detailed rules about distinguishing between military targets and civilian objects. The Maldives’ ratification of these protocols places it among the majority of nations that have embraced these expanded humanitarian safeguards.

Weapons restrictions: CCW and the Mine Ban Treaty 🔗

The island nation has also engaged with treaties that restrict specific weapons deemed to cause unnecessary suffering. The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, which Maldives has joined, prohibits or restricts weapons that are excessively injurious or have indiscriminate effects. This framework convention covers various protocols addressing non-detectable fragments, landmines and booby traps, incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons, and explosive remnants of war.

Perhaps most notably, Maldives signed the Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines in October 1998 and ratified it on September 7, 2000. This treaty, also known as the Mine Ban Treaty, completely prohibits the use, stockpiling, production, and transfer of anti-personnel landmines. Countries must destroy their stockpiles and clear all mined areas within specified timeframes. As of 2026, Maldives remains among the 162 states parties to this important humanitarian treaty, which has been instrumental in reducing civilian casualties from landmines worldwide.

Why these commitments matter for Maldives 🔗

One might reasonably ask why a peaceful island nation with minimal military infrastructure would prioritize ratifying complex humanitarian law treaties. The answer lies in Maldives’ broader foreign policy approach, which emphasizes multilateral engagement and adherence to international norms. By participating in these treaties, Maldives contributes to strengthening the global legal framework that protects civilians and combatants during conflicts, even if the country itself is unlikely to experience armed conflict on its territory.

These ratifications also reflect Maldives’ commitment to the principle that humanitarian standards should apply universally, regardless of a nation’s size or military capabilities. Small states often have a vested interest in robust international legal frameworks, as these systems can provide protections that military power cannot.

The missing piece: domestic implementation legislation 🔗

Despite Maldives’ commendable record of treaty ratification, a critical gap remains. The country has not yet enacted comprehensive national legislation to incorporate these international commitments into Maldivian law. This absence is significant because international treaties typically require domestic implementation to become fully effective within a country’s legal system.

Most countries operate under what is called a dualist legal system, where international law and domestic law exist as separate spheres. For international humanitarian law treaties to have direct legal effect within Maldives, the country must pass implementing legislation that transforms these international obligations into enforceable national laws. Without such legislation, courts and law enforcement agencies may face challenges in applying treaty provisions, prosecuting violations, or providing remedies to victims.

What domestic implementation involves 🔗

Implementing IHL treaties domestically involves several key steps. First, countries must criminalize serious violations of humanitarian law, particularly grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, which constitute war crimes. This requires defining these crimes in national criminal codes and establishing appropriate penalties. Second, countries need to establish universal jurisdiction over certain serious violations, allowing national courts to prosecute perpetrators regardless of where the crimes occurred or the nationality of the perpetrators or victims.

Implementation also requires integrating humanitarian law principles into military training, doctrine, and operational procedures. Armed forces must understand their obligations under these treaties and receive proper instruction on rules of engagement, treatment of prisoners, and protection of civilians. Additionally, countries should mark protected objects like medical facilities and cultural heritage sites, issue identification cards to military personnel, and establish mechanisms for investigating alleged violations.

Moving forward: strengthening legal frameworks 🔗

For Maldives, the next logical step would be developing comprehensive implementing legislation that addresses these requirements. Many countries have successfully enacted such laws, providing models that Maldives could adapt to its own legal context. The International Committee of the Red Cross provides extensive resources to assist countries in drafting implementation legislation, including model laws, legislative checklists, and examples from other jurisdictions.

Establishing a national committee on international humanitarian law implementation could also prove valuable. Such committees, which exist in over 100 countries, bring together representatives from relevant government ministries, the military, academia, and civil society to coordinate implementation efforts, provide advice to government, and promote knowledge of humanitarian law. This coordinated approach helps ensure that implementation measures are comprehensive and address all aspects of treaty obligations.

The process of domestic implementation would strengthen Maldives’ legal framework in several ways. It would provide clear legal authority for courts to address potential violations, establish accountability mechanisms, and demonstrate the country’s genuine commitment to the humanitarian principles it has endorsed through treaty ratification. Implementation would also enhance Maldives’ standing in the international community as a state that not only accepts international obligations but takes concrete steps to fulfill them.

What do you think? Should countries like Maldives with limited conflict risk prioritize implementing humanitarian law treaties in their domestic legislation? What benefits might comprehensive IHL implementation bring to a peaceful nation’s broader legal and governance framework?

References

1. https://www.icrc.org/en/article/protocols-i-ii-geneva-conventions
2. https://disarmament.unoda.org/en/our-work/conventional-arms/legal-instruments/convention-certain-conventional-weapons
3. https://www.apminebanconvention.org/en/membership
4. https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/domestic-law-and-ihl
5. https://www.icrc.org/en/law-and-policy/national-implementation-ihl-documentation