Collateral Legitimacy

Human Shields, Asymmetrical Warfare, and the Crisis of International Humanitarian Law

Abstract

The purpose of this paper is to investigate how contemporary asymmetrical warfare — particularly urban combat involving non-state actors, algorithmic targeting technologies, and the contested figure of the human shield — has generated a profound crisis for International Humanitarian Law (IHL). How do these developments in asymmetrical warfare shape, undermine, and transform the protection of civilians in modern conflict? Using a qualitative, interpretive methodology, the paper analyzes legal scholarship, political theory, and empirical sources including the 2009 Goldstone Report and studies of the Israeli Defense Forces’ media strategy to argue that while asymmetrical conflict does intensify the practical and military difficulties of upholding IHL, it does not diminish the legal or ethical obligations. Instead, the human-shield rhetoric, proportionality assessments, and algorithmic targeting often function as post-hoc legitimations that obscure state responsibility for predictable civilian harm, heightening the need for a reaffirmation of civilian immunity and a reorientation toward what Roznai and Rubinstein describe as “proportionate proportionality.” The findings demonstrate that upholding IHL in asymmetrical warfare is therefore not merely a legal expectation but a political and moral imperative essential to preserving humanitarian principles and the legitimacy of state power.