The main mission is to analyse the question that point out whether there is adequacy in existing legal instruments, such as Geneva Conventions and Customary International Law, in approaching the harm to civilians in the era of new tactics. The study as a whole hypothesizes that gaps that exist in enforcing, accountability and adaptability limit how those protections exist and are put into action. Using a qualitative approach, the research includes legal analysis, case studies from recent crises (i.e. Syria, Ukraine, Yemen) and experts interviews with legal academics, humanitarian works and military advisors. It is thanks to these practices that the possibility of establishing a comparative analysis of the way civilian protection norms are interpreted and applied in the light of different options of conflict of a specific nature is opened. The paper concludes with legal as well as policy proposals of enhancing legal protection of the civilian in conflict zones during modern times, which include: A clearer definition of what new challenges are contravening civilians, capacity enhancement, and international cooperation.
Ullah et al. (Tue,) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: