In international criminal law, war crimes do not refer solely to crude violence on the battlefield; rather, they denote a multi-layered criminal law regime that defines the limits within which civilians, the wounded, prisoners of war, medical personnel, and protected civilian infrastructure must be protected during armed conflict. Article 5 of the Rome Statute limits the jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court to genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression, while Article 8 regulates war crimes in detail. The same framework also demonstrates that war crimes are addressed under different sub-categories in both international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts.
This issue is as practical as it is theoretical. In relation to war crimes, the question is not merely whether there has been “a very serious violation”; it also requires an assessment of whether the incident occurred in the context of an armed conflict, the legal status of the targeted person or object, whether the principles of proportionality and distinction were observed, how the individual criminal responsibility of the perpetrator may be established, and to what extent a particular court has jurisdiction. Furthermore, the International Criminal Court is not an unlimited tribunal that replaces domestic jurisdictions; under the principle of complementarity, the primary burden remains on states, and the Court, in practice, depends on state cooperation, particularly in relation to arrest and surrender processes.
What Are International Crimes?
The core crimes of international criminal law are grouped under four headings: genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and the crime of aggression. These are acts that concern the international community as a whole and, by reason of their gravity, are distinct from ordinary criminal law violations. One of the most important points is that responsibility for these crimes is attributed not to states, but to individuals. In other words, international criminal law establishes a system of individual criminal responsibility targeting commanders, political decision-makers, direct perpetrators and accomplices, and, in certain circumstances, those responsible within the chain of command.
The key feature distinguishing war crimes from other international crimes is that they must be linked to the context of an armed conflict. While crimes against humanity require a widespread or systematic attack directed against a civilian population, war crimes are centered on violations of the law of armed conflict. Whereas genocide is characterized by the intent to destroy a particular group, war crimes place greater emphasis on prohibited acts against protected persons and objects, as well as prohibited methods and means of warfare. For this reason, the same incident may, in some cases, give rise simultaneously to allegations of war crimes, crimes against humanity, and, under certain conditions, genocide; the legal characterization depends on the context of the event.
In practice, this distinction is of major importance. The mechanisms available to victims, the evidentiary strategy, debates on universal jurisdiction, international remedies, and even the language of public advocacy may vary depending on the category into which the crime falls. Accordingly, the assessment of war crimes is not merely an ethical or political issue, but a highly technical matter of legal classification.
War Crimes in International Criminal Law
Article 8 of the Rome Statute regulates war crimes as one of the most comprehensive and technically detailed offences within the system of the International Criminal Court. The provision states that the Court’s jurisdiction may be triggered particularly where war crimes are committed as part of a plan or policy or on a large scale; it also preserves separate lists of prohibited acts for international armed conflicts and for armed conflicts not of an international character. In this respect, Article 8 may be regarded as the criminal law codification of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Hague Law, the Additional Protocols, and customary international law.
However, not every unlawful act committed during war automatically amounts to a war crime. First, there must be a situation that legally qualifies as an “armed conflict”; second, a nexus must be established between the act and the conflict; and finally, it must be determined whether the attack was directed against civilians or military objectives, and whether the method used complied with the rules of distinction and proportionality. The principle of distinction, which constitutes a cornerstone of international humanitarian law, requires a constant distinction between civilians and combatants, and between civilian objects and military objectives. The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
The Concept of Armed Conflict
To understand war crimes, it is first necessary to properly establish the concept of “armed conflict.” International humanitarian law does not require a formal declaration of war or that the parties officially use the word “war”; the legal assessment is based on the factual situation. According to the ICRC’s current assessment, the applicability of the law depends not on formal declarations, but on the factual existence of hostilities. Therefore, the legal character of a conflict is determined, independently of political rhetoric, on the basis of the intensity of the events and the structure of the parties involved.
An international armed conflict arises, in the classical sense, through the resort to armed force between states. Under the established Tadić approach, as reflected by the ICRC, this occurs through the “resort to armed force between states.” By contrast, a non-international armed conflict is defined as protracted armed violence, exceeding a certain threshold of intensity, occurring either between governmental forces and organized armed groups or between such groups themselves. Two thresholds are decisive here: organization and intensity. Not every internal disturbance, public demonstration, or short-lived violent incident falls within this category.
Once the law of armed conflict becomes applicable, the protection regime likewise comes into operation. This regime protects persons who have never taken part, or who are no longer taking part, in hostilities. ICRC materials clearly emphasize that civilians, medical personnel, humanitarian workers, the wounded, the sick, shipwrecked persons, prisoners of war, and other detained persons are all protected. Common Article 3 likewise requires humane treatment for persons not actively participating in hostilities and for those who are hors de combat. This framework makes the question not only “who was struck?” but also, centrally, “what was that person’s legal status within the conflict?”
The contemporary importance of these concepts is evident. The United Nations Human Rights Monitoring Mission in Ukraine has confirmed that 2025 was the deadliest year for civilians in Ukraine since 2022, with 2,514 civilians killed and 12,142 injured. With regard to Gaza, UN mechanisms have made serious war crime assessments concerning attacks on educational, religious, and cultural sites, as well as the widespread destruction of civilian infrastructure. In the context of Iran, Human Rights Watch stated that an attack on a primary school dated 28 February 2026 should be investigated as a war crime. These examples demonstrate that the law of war crimes is not abstract, but remains a live and contested field today.
War Crimes Under the Statute
The Rome Statute does not regulate war crimes as a single monolithic block; rather, it classifies them into four main groups. This structure is intended to clarify which norms apply depending on whether the conflict is international or non-international in character. The Statute adopts a restrictive approach, meaning that acts recognized as war crimes are set out under specific categories in Article 8. At the same time, this structure demonstrates that modern war law is not limited to killing and wounding; obstruction of humanitarian relief, the use of child soldiers, attacks against cultural property, sexual violence, and starvation are among the many forms of conduct that may also constitute war crimes.
Grave Breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions
This category constitutes the classical regime of “grave breaches” and essentially covers the most serious acts committed against protected persons and property in the context of international armed conflicts. In the ICRC’s comparative framework, such violations include wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, biological experiments, wilfully causing great suffering or serious bodily injury, extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity, compelling prisoners of war to serve in the forces of a hostile power, depriving a person of the rights to fair and regular trial, unlawful deportation or transfer, and the taking of hostages.
The importance of this heading derives from the fact that it forms the most traditional sphere of protection under the law of war. In particular, acts such as ill-treatment of prisoners, torture during interrogation, forced transfers in occupied territories, and the extra-judicial detention of protected persons are assessed within this category. Here, it is not sufficient that the attack be merely “serious”; the victim must also enjoy a status protected under Geneva law. For this reason, concepts such as prisoner of war, protected civilian, resident of occupied territory, or person placed hors de combat play a decisive role in establishing criminal responsibility.
Other Serious Violations of the Laws and Customs Applicable in International Armed Conflict
This second category goes beyond the grave breaches regime and covers other serious violations of customary and treaty law applicable in international armed conflicts. Within this framework, war crimes include intentionally directing attacks against civilians or the civilian population, targeting civilian objects that are not military objectives, attacking humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping personnel, launching disproportionate attacks known to cause excessive civilian harm, bombarding undefended towns and settlements, killing soldiers who have surrendered, resorting to perfidious methods of warfare, transferring population into occupied territory, attacking protected buildings such as hospitals and historical monuments, pillage, the use of poison, asphyxiating gases, outrages upon personal dignity, sexual violence, the use of human shields, starvation of civilians, and the use of children under the age of fifteen in armed forces or in hostilities.
In contemporary debates, this is often the most visible category. Modern conflicts frequently revolve around legal disputes such as: “Was the target military or civilian?”, “Was a hospital or school being used for military purposes?”, “Was the obstruction of humanitarian assistance used as a method of warfare?”, and “Was the expected civilian harm excessive?” In UN statements regarding Gaza in 2025 and 2026, the destruction of civilian infrastructure, obstruction of humanitarian aid, and forced displacement emerged as legal controversies directly connected to this category. Likewise, the international call for investigation into the school attack in Iran is also to be understood through the lens of attacks against civilian objects and the principle of proportionality.
Serious Violations of Common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions in Armed Conflicts Not of an International Character
In non-international armed conflicts, the backbone of the minimum humanitarian protection regime is Common Article 3. This provision prohibits violence against persons who are not, or are no longer, actively participating in hostilities, and the Rome Statute elevates such violations to the level of war crimes. According to ICRC sources, these core prohibitions include violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment, and torture; outrages upon personal dignity, including humiliating and degrading treatment; the taking of hostages; and the passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without judgment by a regularly constituted court.
This heading is particularly important in the context of civil wars, protracted conflicts between states and organized armed groups, and multi-actor internal security crises. The rationale is straightforward: a conflict may not be between states, but that does not mean that anything may be done to persons who are outside the fighting. Common Article 3 establishes a minimum sphere of humanitarian guarantees, functioning almost as a “mini-convention.” That said, not every act of internal violence triggers this protection regime; it applies not to isolated and sporadic incidents, but to conflicts that reach a sufficient threshold of organization and intensity.
Other Serious Violations of the Laws and Customs Applicable in Armed Conflicts Not of an International Character
Article 8(2)(e) of the Rome Statute sets out a broader list of offences for internal conflicts. Under this provision, intentionally directing attacks against civilians, attacking medical units and medical transport, targeting humanitarian assistance or peacekeeping personnel, attacking religious and cultural buildings and hospitals, pillage, rape and other forms of sexual violence, using children under the age of fifteen in armed groups, forcibly displacing civilians without military necessity or civilian security grounds, treacherously killing or wounding, declaring that no quarter will be given, conducting medical or scientific experiments, unnecessarily destroying enemy property, using poison or asphyxiating gases, and certain categories of ammunition may constitute war crimes under this heading.
This category carries particular significance today. A substantial portion of contemporary conflicts do not take the form of classical interstate wars; rather, they arise in hybrid environments where states, proxy forces, organized armed groups, and cross-border operations intersect. Accordingly, it is first necessary to determine the type of conflict within which a particular incident occurred. If the nature of the conflict is incorrectly identified, then the applicable offence, the evidentiary standard, and even the legal basis for recourse to international mechanisms may all be misconceived. For this reason, in war crimes cases, the first step is often not the act itself, but the classification of the conflict.
Assessment and Conclusion
In international criminal law, war crimes are not merely the label attached to grave humanitarian tragedies; they also constitute a highly technical body of legal norms. Whether a particular act qualifies as a war crime depends on a combined assessment of the type of conflict, the status of the victim, the nature of the target, the method of warfare employed, the principles of proportionality and distinction, and the structure of the available evidence. For this reason, sound legal analysis in the field of war crimes requires not only knowledge of international legal instruments, but also the ability to classify the factual matrix correctly, identify the appropriate procedural avenues, and accurately establish the relationship between domestic and international jurisdictions. The complementary nature of the ICC and its enforcement regime, which depends heavily on state cooperation, makes this technical analysis even more important.
As Bektaş Law Office, we believe that in cases involving international criminal law, migration and asylum law, human rights, and transnational dimensions of criminal responsibility, a meticulous approach is essential in terms of legal characterization, jurisdictional analysis, available remedies, evidentiary strategy, and case management. In highly sensitive matters such as war crimes, as well as in the field of migration and asylum law arising from the consequences of such crimes, the correct legal framework is often as important as the outcome itself. For that reason, obtaining expert legal assessment tailored to the specific facts of the case is of critical importance both for the protection of victims’ rights and for ensuring legal certainty for individuals facing allegations.
