War Crimes

Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in 1997, is the most comprehensive codification of war crimes in international law. It states: “2. For…

Last updated October 7, 2026 by the International Legal Forum

Definition Hijacking Further reading

The Definition

Definition in international law

Article 8 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in 1997, is the most comprehensive codification of war crimes in international law. It states:

“2. For the purpose of this Statute, ‘war crimes’ means:

(a) Grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or property protected under the provisions of the relevant Geneva Convention:

(i) Willful killing;

(ii) Torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments;

(iii) Wilfully causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or health;

(iv) Extensive destruction and appropriation of property, not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly;

(v) Compelling a prisoner of war or other protected person to serve in the forces of a hostile Power”

The 1949 Geneva Conventions further seek to govern lawful conduct during war and elaborate on the specificity of crimes that would constitute war crimes. Key to understanding what constitutes a war crime is the concept “willfully” acting in a way that violates the laws of war. These “grave breaches” include, but are not limited to, “wilful killing; torture or inhuman treatment, including biological experiments; wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health.”

In addition, the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions further details the laws of war and laws of armed conflict, and what acts fall outside “legal warfare" and would constitute a war crime.

Background

The legal basis for “war crimes” was established in the wake of the Nazis systematic murder of six million Jews during the Holocaust, when the Nuremberg Trials sought to hold the perpetrators of the violations of the laws of war accountable for their crimes. Following these trials, the 1949 Geneva Convention was adopted, defining grave breaches of international law, such as “wilful killing, torture or inhuman treatment, wilfully causing great suffering or serious injury, unlawful deportation or confinement, the taking of hostages, and extensive destruction of property not justified by military necessity.” In 1998, the Rome Statute further defined war crimes in international law.

Widely Accepted Examples of War Crimes

Cases that meet the term's legal threshold.

Ituri, Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC)

Several charges of war crimes have been brought in response to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. One landmark case arising from the conflict in the Ituri region led to the conviction of Thomas Lubanga, President of the Union of Congolese Patriots and Commander-in-Chief of the FPLC military wing. Between 2002 and 2003, the FPLC recruited children to fight opposing militias. On conviction, Lubanga was deemed to have an “overall coordinating role” in “enlisting and conscripting children under the age of 15 years and using them to participate actively in hostilities.” In 2012, Thomas Lubanga was convicted of war crimes and sentenced to 14 years imprisonment. Lubanga’s subordinate, Bosco Ntaganda, Deputy Chief of Staff and commander of operations of the FPLC, was convicted of war crimes and crimes against humanity. Specifically, in 2019, the ICC listed Ntaganda's “13 counts of war crimes (murder and attempted murder; attacking civilians; rape; sexual slavery of civilians; pillaging; displacement of civilians; attacking protected objects; destroying the adversary's property; and rape, sexual slavery, enlistment and conscription of children under the age of fifteen years and using them to participate actively in hostilities).” Ituri is not an isolated case; regions throughout the DRC share similar experiences of armed conflict, resulting in numerous allegations of war crimes.

Mali, West Africa

In 2012, radical Islamist armed groups, including al-Qaeda, Ansar Dine, and the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO/MOJWA), violently took over Mali. The result led the Government of Mali to withdraw as these Islamic groups imposed strict sharia law. An eyewitness for the International Criminal Court (ICC) recounts, “The Islamists said that it was their sharia that would be implemented and not Malian sharia.” Evidence demonstrates that violent means such as torture, arbitrary arrest, abductions, and forced confinement were used to impose sharia law. Women were forced into marriages, and many faced sexual violence. Another witness testified before the ICC, stating that she was forcibly married and told, “If I refused, they would kill me, and they would kill my parents.” In 2016, Ahmad Al Faqi Al Mahdi, an Ansar Dine member and head of the Hesbah Morality Brigade, was convicted of war crimes for his role in the destruction of protected religious and historic buildings. In 2024, Al Hassan Ag Abdoul Aziz Ag Mohamed Ag Mahmoud “Al Hassan,” a senior member of the Islamic police under Ansar Dine and al-Qaeda, was convicted of war crimes by the ICC, including “torture; cruel treatment; mutilation; outrages upon personal dignity; sentencing without due process; persecution on religious grounds; and other inhumane acts.” In 2017, the ICC issued an arrest warrant for Iyad Ag Ghaly, but he is “currently at large.”

Hijacking

How the term is weaponized

Today, despite the clear legal definition of “war crimes” and how this differs from legitimate acts of war, there is a growing trend to label legitimate military activities as war crimes. At the same time, vast resources are focused on specific countries, while failing to hold grave human rights violators accountable.

Human Rights Watch

Aimed at Israel

For more than a decade, Human Rights Watch (HRW) has perpetuated claims of Israel being guilty of “war crimes,” including as early as 2009.

NGO Monitor refutes these allegations, arguing:

International Law Requires a Proportionality Analysis: In the context of the 2023 Israel-Hamas war, NGO Monitor’s Legal Advisor Anne Herzberg argues that NGOs like HRW “falsely accused Israel of committing war crimes for targeting Hamas installations where civilians might be killed, without doing any military necessity or proportionality analysis as required by international law." Proportionality is embedded into the laws of armed conflict and requires military leaders to balance, “incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof” with what “would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” Accordingly, Herzberg notes that NGOs allege Israel has committed war crimes without weighing Israel’s legitimate military objective, explaining understanding the proportionality of an attack “is subjective and based upon the information known to military actors prior to an attack.” Simply put, to accurately make a proportionality analysis required under international law, HRW would have to be aware of classified military information.
Not Every Civilian Death is a War Crime: In 2024, HRW claimed that, “Scores of Israeli airstrikes in Gaza since October 7 have caused thousands of civilian casualties, underscoring the greater risk of unlawful attacks.” NGO Monitor explains that, “Many NGOs … highlighted the number of Palestinian casualties … even though … proportionality is not ‘measured after the fact by looking at actual civilian casualties.’” NGO Monitor argues, “International law does not prohibit killing of civilians if they are not the target, even as such deaths are tragic and upsetting. Also known as 'collateral damage,' civilian casualties do not mean that a particular strike was illegal." NGO Monitor further explains that “under international law, the harm to civilians should be proportionate to the expected military advantage from the attack,” stating that an attack is “disproportionate” if it causes damage or loss of civilian life “which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.”
The IDF's Targets are Terrorists: Israel's military targets are not civilians, they are Hamas terrorists and other members of terrorist organizations and the infrastructure that supports them. The IDF also goes to extensive lengths to protect civilians in conflict. Colonel Richard Kemp explains to the UN Human Rights Council that, “the Israeli Defense Forces did more to safeguard the rights of civilians in a combat zone than any other army in the history of warfare.” For example, the IDF disseminated a statement which outlined their military objectives, stating “Israel's goal of removing Hamas's military capabilities and securing the release of the hostages is proportionate to the threat, and the force that Israel is using is the only feasible means available to neutralize the ongoing attacks and imminent threat of additional attacks." Anne Herzberg adds, “Israel has evacuated parts of its civilian population... in order to abide by the law requiring the separating of combatants from civilians." CNN reports that Israel dropped leaflets to warn Gazan civilians to evacuate. The warning reads, “evacuate your residence immediately… Everyone who finds themselves near the terrorists or their buildings expose their lives to danger. Every house used by terrorist organizations will be targeted. Respecting the instructions of the IDF will prevent you, the civilians, being exposed to harm.”
Targeting Military Objectives, Not Civilian Infrastructure: In 2023, HRW argued that, “The Israeli military's repeated, apparently unlawful attacks on medical facilities, personnel, and transport are further destroying the Gaza Strip's healthcare system and should be investigated as war crimes." However, Anne Herzberg explains that, "Hospitals have been a particularly favored location for Hamas to embed fighters, store weapons, engage in combat, and torture political adversaries. This infrastructure capture by Hamas not only endangered civilians seeking medical treatment, but placed at risk all of those working at the hospitals regardless of their affiliation to Hamas." Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 52(2), permits “total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization” of “objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action” and “offers a definite military advantage." In commentary, the International Committee of the Red Cross explains, “a school or a hotel is a civilian object, but if they are used to accommodate troops or headquarters staff, they become military objectives." Hamas embeds its military operations in civilian infrastructure, including schools and hospitals, causing these buildings to lose their protected status and become legitimate military targets.
Narrowing Legal Terms: NGO Monitor’s report on HRW explains that a common tactic employed is the “Artificial narrowing of legal terms, which frame Israeli guilt from the beginning, and erasure of the wider context of Palestinian attacks and legitimate self-defense (Razing Rafah, Gaza Beach, Lebanon, and Gaza War reports).”
HRW's Failure in Dealing with Israeli Victims of Human Rights Violations: NGO Monitor states, “Nineteen year old Gilad Shalit was kidnapped in a June 2006 cross-border raid from Gaza. Since then he has been held incommunicado, with no access to the Red Cross, and in clear violation of international law. In the three years since Shalit’s kidnapping (as of June 2009), HRW dedicated only one press statement.” Yet, NGO Monitor explains that, “In sharp contrast, between April 2007 and June 2009 HRW issued four statements or public letters calling for Israel to allow Shawan Jabarin, general director of NGO Al-Haq, to travel abroad. Jabarin has been denied travel visas by both Israel and Jordan because of his role, according to the Israeli Supreme Court, as a ‘senior activist’ in the PFLP terrorist organization.”

Mayor of New York City Zohran Mamdani

Aimed at Benjamin Netanyahu

Evidence: On July 21, 2026, the Mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani, disseminated a YouTube video, “Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal.” He calls on the US federal government to “join the ICC” and execute a warrant for Benjamin Netanyahu’s war crimes. Mamdani states,“I agree with the ICC that Benjamin Netanyahu should be arrested and tried for his crimes, as I do for anyone else charged by the ICC” and “I want to be equally clear: Benjamin Netanyahu is not welcome in New York City, nor is any other war criminal at large.” However:

The Legal Consequences of Hamas's Use of Hospitals: Mamdani claims Benjamin Netanyahu is a war criminal and responsible “for the targeting of neonatal hospitals and maternity care centers.” In addition to long-standing evidence that Hamas conducts military operations from hospitals in Gaza, rendering civilian hospitals as legitimate military objectives, the IDF released a statement warning, “The IDF has credible intelligence proving that Hamas continues to use the Shifa Hospital for military purposes. We demand that all military activities within the hospital cease immediately. If Hamas will not do so within 12 hours, Israel will be within its rights under international law to counter these activities."
Israel Continues to Support Palestinian Civilians in Gaza: Mamdani argues that Israel is “denying newborns even the chance to live.” However, this statement does not account for the consistent life-saving opportunities provided by the State of Israel, including “coordinates the transfer of aid... medical supplies, food and water (incubators, baby food...).” In 2024, 50 incubators were distributed to hospitals in Gaza from Israel, and Israel continuously supplies fuel to these hospitals. Palestinian children with complex medical conditions have received medical support in Israel throughout the war. The constant supplying of medical services and frequent aid deliveries suggest that Israel is going to great lengths to support civilians among an enemy population.
“Journalists”: Mamdani argues that Benjamin Netanyahu is responsible for “the gunning down of hundreds of aid workers and journalists.” His statement ignores the fact that Israel was not targeting journalists but members of terrorist organizations. NGO Monitor reports, “Following the publication of official Hamas and PIJ obituaries identifying individuals previously listed as journalists as combatants, CPJ announced a review of its database.” Subsequently, “CPJ has removed eight names from its Killed database because they were later established to have been Hamas or PIJ combatants.” For example, “journalist” Hamza al-Dahdouh, had a “previous role as a deputy commander in the Zeitun Battalion's Rocket Array.” Under international law, members of armed groups may be lawfully targeted regardless of them concurrently being “journalists.” The International Committee of the Red Cross explains, “Some journalists and media personnel may, in fact, be members of a State's armed forces. In international armed conflicts, they are not considered civilians and may therefore be lawfully targeted.”
No Legal Basis for Enforcing the ICC Warrant: An article published in Reuters analyzes Mamdami's lack of jurisdiction to enforce an ICC warrant, providing that Alex Whiting, a professor at Harvard Law states, that the “United States is not a member of the ICC, there is no mechanism under U.S. law to enforce the Hague-based court's arrest warrants” The article further elaborates that, “a 2002 U.S. law called the American Service-Members Protection Act specifically prohibits the U.S. from extraditing anyone, regardless of their nationality, to the ICC, said Whiting. Sitting heads of government like Netanyahu are also generally immune from arrest and prosecution in U.S. courts, and representatives of U.N. member states have legal immunity while transiting to and from a U.N. meeting, said Rebecca Ingber, a professor at Cardozo Law School and former U.S. State Department lawyer.”
Political Stunt: Without legal jurisdiction, Mamdani’s statement is nothing more than a calculated political stunt. Danny Danon, Israel’sAmbassador to the UN, argued, “Instead of serving all New Yorkers, he chooses to spread Hamas propaganda.” The Simon Wiesenthal Center explains that Mamdani uses “the prestige of his office to legitimize rhetoric that further isolates the Jewish state and deepens division here at home. That is a profound misuse of the office entrusted to him by all New Yorkers… After acknowledging that New York City has no independent legal authority to execute the International Criminal Court’s arrest warrant, the mayor nevertheless chose to transform that legal reality into a televised political spectacle.”

Argentina

Aimed at the United Kingdom

In 1982, through ongoing hostility off the coast of the Falkland Islands, a British submarine disarmed and sank the Argentine cruiser ARA General Belgrano. In response to the strike, in 2005, a proposed resolution before the Argentine Chamber of Deputies, requested "the Executive Branch of the Nation, through the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, International Trade and Worship and other competent bodies, to initiate the pertinent political and legal actions, at the international level, to make effective the responsibility that corresponds to Mrs. Margaret Thatcher as a war criminal, by virtue of the massacre that cost the lives of 323 Argentinians, caused by the attack and subsequent sinking of the cruiser General Belgrano, on May 2, 1982, an act that represented a violation of international law, especially the Hague Convention of 1907."

In May 2012, during the 30th anniversary of the General Belgrano's sinking, Argentine President Cristina Fernández de Kirchner argued, "The Foreign Ministry should file a claim for a war crime... The attack outside the exclusion zone... was a war crime."

Despite these claims, scholars assert:

The Total Exclusion Zone: A Misunderstood Basis for Alleging War Crimes: Lord Hatch of Lusby, British MP, addressed the House of Lords to explain that commentators frequently assert, “the captain of the Belgrano was entitled to believe on 2nd May 1982 that his ship was safe from attack outside the Falklands Exclusion Zone.” Christopher Michaelsen emphasizes that the Total Exclusion Zone is “designed to warn neutral shipping and aircraft to avoid an area of hostilities and to facilitate military operations.” Lord Hatch’s declaration highlights the main arguments advanced by critics of the attack: that Belgrano's location outside the Total Exclusion Zone rendered it immune from attack. However, this interpretation misconstrues the legal function of an exclusion zone. The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea explains that “the establishment of an exclusion zone does not alter the basic rules of the law of armed conflict.” Accordingly, the Belgrano's location outside the Falklands TEZ did not automatically render the attack unlawful or confer legal protection from attack.
The Belgrano as a Lawful Military Object: On April 24, 1982 one month before the sinking, the Permanent Representative of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the the President of the United Nations Security Council wrote a letter expressing, "Her Majesty's Government now wishes to make clear that any approach on the part of Argentine warships, including submarines, naval auxiliaries, or military aircraft which could amount to a threat to interfere with the mission of the British forces in the South Atlantic, will encounter the appropriate response." Captain Héctor Bonzo, commanding officer of the Belgrano, explains, "It was an act of war. The acts of those who are at war, like the submarine's attack, are not a crime ... The crime is the war. We were on the front line and suffered the consequences." The United Kingdom frequently stated that warships outside the TEZ were not immune to attack and would be considered military targets.
The Belgrano Was A Legitimate Military Targett: The United Kingdom was not indiscriminately targeting the Belgrano; rather, it had a legitimate military objective to disable the vessel. A. J. Coates explains that, “Readily and understandably, the destruction of the General Belgrano came to be regarded as a military necessity, and its preservation as a dereliction of duty.” The Belgrano was heavily armed and posed a threat to British naval forces. Coates argues, “It was not just the specific threat posed by the General Belgrano that gave cause for concern, but the overall threat posed to the task force by the deployment of Argentine warships and their aircraft around the Falklands.”