1. Introduction

Daily reports from Gaza, Sudan, DRC and other conflict zones bring harrowing images and allegations of civilian harm, destruction of infrastructure, and apparent breaches of the laws of war—yet clarity over what is actually unfolding often lags behind the headlines. A critical window exists before formal accountability mechanisms—such as courts or international fact-finding bodies—are engaged. It is in this early phase that the media often assume a central role in identifying, assessing, and publicly communicating potential violations of IHL.

1. The Discretion & Verification Problem in IHL

There is often a stark gap between what IHL actually prohibits and what the public perceives as unlawful. For many, an attack on a hospital or school appears self-evidently criminal. Yet IHL is structured, with specific legal thresholds and conditions, in a way that may limit such straightforward conclusions.

This complexity stems from three main elements:

• First, in the conduct of hostilities, the harm caused may be less important than the intent and perception of the attacker. Crucially, only the attacking party usually holds key intelligence, targeting rationale, and real-time assessments—making it hard for third parties to judge legality.
• Second, individuals and objects normally protected under IHL—such as civilians or hospitals—can lose that protection if used for military purposes, a nuance often at odds with public expectations.

 

• Third, IHL permits honest mistakes: if civilians are harmed despite reasonable precautions and no deliberate targeting, it may not amount to a violation. While identifying patterns of conduct can cast doubt on such claims, this remains a grey area.

Therefore, verifying IHL violations given these inherent structures is difficult. However, this difficulty should not be confused with impossibility, and furthermore it is not for any independent actor to establish a clear violation unequivocally, merely to draw attention to concerning conduct.  This is especially important in the immediate aftermath of an attack, as this information, such as what the media can speak to can garner attention that could trigger an international fact-finding mechanism, or even the interest of courts, such as the international criminal court.

The Unique Role of the Media

Admission of misconduct rarely occurs without compelling external evidence. The media plays a crucial role in exposing and drawing attention to potential violations of IHL. On-the-ground reporting often provides the first warnings of unlawful conduct.

Journalists are uniquely positioned to amplify the voices of civilians, survivors, and local witnesses—testimonies that might otherwise be lost amid conflict. These stories offer vital human context and challenge official narratives that seek to obscure or justify contested actions.

Independent media do more than bear witness—they can exert pressure, nationally, regionally and internationally. Investigative reporting has triggered formal inquiries, sanctions, and global outrage. From the My Lai massacre in Vietnam, to Abu Ghraib in Iraq, to atrocities in Bucha, Ukraine, journalism has consistently played a pivotal role in exposing abuses and prompting accountability.

This function is especially vital when warring parties claim that civilian sites—like hospitals or schools—were used for military purposes. Often, only the media demands proof, testing the credibility of such justifications. Without this scrutiny, vague references to “command centres”, or “acting in a suspicious manner” risk becoming blanket defences for unlawful attacks. A recent example involved the Palestinian Red Crescent workers (link): initial reports implied aid workers were acting suspiciously, perhaps even in a threatening manner, driving without lights etc. Only later did bodycam footage from one of the victims surface, discrediting that claim. Without it, international attention—and any official response—would likely have been far more limited.

The Risks and Limitations

Despite its essential role, and in fact because of its significance, reporting on IHL violations has become increasingly dangerous. Journalists in conflict zones are frequently targeted, censored, harassed, or killed—sometimes deliberately, to silence scrutiny.

Access remains a major challenge. Governments and armed groups may restrict entry or closely control reporters’ movements. Some journalists are embedded with military units and subject to oversight, limiting independence. Others—especially local fixers and freelancers—face severe risks with little protection or support.

Beyond physical dangers, reporters operate in a hostile information landscape. Disinformation campaigns—often state-sponsored—aim to discredit legitimate journalism, erode trust, and delegitimize verified stories. Online harassment and smear tactics further isolate those trying to report the truth.

The courage of war correspondents and local fixers is profound—but so are the dangers they face. They operate at the intersection of violence, politics, and truth, often without adequate protection, recognition, or recourse when things go wrong.

1. Conclusion: A Call to Defend and Empower the Media

In an age where the rules of war are obscured by confusion, propaganda, and chaos, independent media remains a fragile but essential line of defence against impunity. Journalists cannot stop the violence, but they can expose its consequences—challenging official narratives, surfacing buried truths, and laying the groundwork for accountability.

If we are serious about upholding IHL, we must also be serious about protecting those who reveal its violations. That means more than rhetorical support; it requires tangible investment in journalist safety, legal protections for press freedom, and international solidarity with those who risk everything to report from the frontlines.

Because without witnesses, war crimes too easily become rumours. And without the truth, justice fades into silence.

***

Stephen Wilkinson is the Director of the Stockholm based IHL Centre. The IHL Centre is a leading, independent group of legal experts in international humanitarian law. Their team of legal experts provides rapid, free, legal and policy advice to stakeholders on the laws of armed conflict. We provide support to media, states, humanitarian service providers, UN mechanisms, independent investigative bodies as well as local civil society groups

The Centre is in the final stages of the development of the Stockholm Manual, the first international guide to making assessments of IHL compliance. Whilst the primary purpose of the manual is to support humanitarian advocacy, it is expected that this tool will provide media with important technical guidance.

(for media: If the Stockholm Manual or the Advisory Service on IHL is of interest please contact info@ihlcentre.org)