This analysis demonstrates the challenges of enforcing IHL in non-international conflicts, highlighting Boko Haram's actions and legal implications.
The evolution of armed conflict in the twenty-first century has made it difficult to differentiate between international and internal warfare. This poses significant challenges to the application and enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). This paper critically examines the struggle to implement IHL in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs), and accentuates on the Boko Haram insurgency in Nigeria. The paper adopts a doctrinal analysis of legal instruments, case law, and institutional reports, to interrogate the extent to which this armed group meets the threshold of a NIAC under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II. Additionally, it has been supported by domestic laws such as the 1999 Constitution (as amended) and Terrorism (Prevention) (Amendment) Act, 2013. It was shown that the actions of this armed group has amounted to several crimes which are recognized internationally such as war crimes, crimes against humanity and several breaches of International Humanitarian Law. The violations of human rights and humanitarian law by their actions, which impinges on the international humanitarian laws which is the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Convention. This has led to the recognition of this conflicts to describe as one of non-international character. The study further explores the legal, political, and institutional barriers that hinder effective compliance and enforcement of IHL norms by both state and non-state actors. The findings reveal that IHL’s practical application in Nigeria remains constrained by state sovereignty concerns, lack of accountability mechanisms, and the ideological intransigence of insurgent groups. The study argues that these challenges reflect a broader tension between law and reality in modern internal conflicts. It concludes by recommending legal reforms, enhanced IHL training for security forces, and greater humanitarian engagement with non-state actors to ensure better protection of civilians and adherence to humanitarian norms.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Obasohan et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: