Evaluating South Asian Countries’ Commitment to IHL Treaties

South Asia, home to nearly two billion people, has experienced its share of conflicts and humanitarian challenges. From protracted civil wars to border disputes, the region’s complex security landscape makes adherence to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) treaties particularly significant. How committed are South Asian countries to the legal frameworks designed to protect civilians and combatants during armed conflict? The answer reveals a region marked by both universal acceptance of core principles and selective engagement with more specific treaty obligations.

Universal acceptance of the Geneva Conventions 🔗

One point of agreement stands out across South Asia: all countries in the region have ratified the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Nepal, Bhutan, and the Maldives are among the 196 states worldwide that have committed to these foundational humanitarian principles. This universal ratification represents regional consensus on the basic rules governing armed conflict, including protections for wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, and civilians caught in hostilities.

The Geneva Conventions establish minimum standards that apply regardless of the nature of the conflict or the parties involved. Their universal acceptance in South Asia demonstrates shared recognition that certain humanitarian boundaries must not be crossed during warfare, even amid deep political disagreements and ongoing security tensions.

The Additional Protocols divide 🔗

Beyond the core Geneva Conventions, however, South Asian commitment becomes more fragmented. The Additional Protocols of 1977, which expand protections for conflict victims and establish clearer rules on the conduct of hostilities, have not achieved the same level of regional acceptance.

India’s selective approach 🔗

As the region’s largest democracy and military power, India has ratified the Geneva Conventions but has not signed or ratified Additional Protocols I and II. This cautious stance reflects concerns that certain provisions might restrict operational flexibility in counter-insurgency operations and ongoing border disputes with Pakistan and China. India’s position balances humanitarian considerations against perceived national security requirements, particularly given its experiences with internal conflicts and cross-border tensions.

Pakistan’s intermediate position 🔗

Pakistan presents an interesting case of evolving engagement. While it signed Additional Protocol I on December 12, 1977, it has never ratified it. Pakistan also has not ratified Additional Protocol II. This position reflects the country’s complex security environment, including internal conflicts in regions like Balochistan and former FATA, as well as its central role in regional security dynamics.

Bangladesh’s progressive commitment 🔗

Bangladesh demonstrates stronger formal commitment to IHL frameworks. The country ratified both Additional Protocols I and II in 1980, shortly after gaining independence. This progressive stance likely reflects Bangladesh’s own experiences emerging from a devastating liberation war in 1971, which left deep scars and a strong appreciation for humanitarian protections during conflict.

Sri Lanka’s complex relationship 🔗

Sri Lanka’s approach has been shaped by its decades-long internal conflict with the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam. While the country has ratified the Geneva Conventions, it has not ratified Additional Protocol II, which specifically addresses non-international armed conflicts. This reluctance may relate to concerns about applying these provisions during internal conflicts. However, Sri Lanka has recently shown renewed commitment to IHL, including acceding to the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention in 2017.

Nepal and Maldives show stronger engagement 🔗

Nepal, following its civil conflict and transition to democracy, has ratified the Geneva Conventions and both Additional Protocols I and II. This reflects the country’s commitment to post-conflict reconciliation and humanitarian principles. The Maldives, despite having limited military capacity and conflict experience, has also ratified the Geneva Conventions and both Additional Protocols, demonstrating alignment with international norms and emphasis on multilateral engagement.

Weapons-specific treaties reveal deeper divisions 🔗

When it comes to treaties restricting specific weapons, South Asian countries show even greater divergence in their commitments.

The landmine question 🔗

The Ottawa Convention banning anti-personnel landmines has divided the region. Bangladesh and Sri Lanka have joined this treaty, but India and Pakistan have refused. Both countries argue that landmines remain necessary for border defense along mountainous frontiers. India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and the United States are among major current or past landmine producers that have refused to join the Ottawa Convention, instead participating in the less restrictive Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons 🔗

The CCW, which regulates but does not ban landmines and other weapons deemed excessively injurious, has attracted broader participation. India has ratified the CCW and several of its protocols, though with reservations on specific provisions. This pattern reflects efforts to balance humanitarian concerns with perceived defense requirements in border regions.

Understanding the regional patterns 🔗

Several clear trends emerge when examining South Asian engagement with IHL treaties. First, universal acceptance of the Geneva Conventions suggests genuine regional consensus on basic humanitarian principles. Second, there is general reluctance toward weapons-specific treaties that might restrict military options, particularly among countries with active border disputes or internal security challenges.

A country’s conflict history strongly correlates with its approach to IHL treaties. Nations that have experienced protracted internal conflicts often display more complex positions on Additional Protocols and specialized conventions. Countries also weigh the operational implications of treaty commitments against their specific security environments, leading to selective ratification patterns.

The gap between treaty ratification and actual implementation presents ongoing challenges. Even countries that have ratified extensive IHL instruments face difficulties translating these commitments into practice due to limited resources, technical capacity constraints, and competing national priorities.

Moving toward stronger commitment 🔗

Despite mixed ratification records, positive developments are occurring. Several South Asian countries have established National IHL Committees to promote implementation and dissemination of humanitarian law principles. Military training programs increasingly incorporate IHL education, particularly important given the region’s significant contributions to UN peacekeeping missions. Civil society organizations and the International Committee of the Red Cross continue working to strengthen awareness and compliance.

The regional landscape of IHL treaty adherence reflects both shared values and divergent security concerns. While all South Asian countries accept the fundamental Geneva Conventions, their approaches to Additional Protocols and weapons treaties vary considerably based on national experiences, security environments, and strategic calculations. This mixed commitment creates both challenges and opportunities for strengthening humanitarian protections during armed conflict in a region that continues to face significant security challenges.

What do you think? How can South Asian countries be encouraged to strengthen their commitment to Additional Protocols while addressing legitimate security concerns? What role should regional organizations play in promoting broader IHL treaty adherence across South Asia?

References

1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions
2. https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions_and_their_additional_protocols
3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_II_to_the_Geneva_Conventions
5. https://rcrcconference.org/pledge/towards-a-universal-culture-of-compliance-with-international-humanitarian-law/
6. https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/CCW