The idea that violations of international humanitarian law can shorten wars is challenged in a new study

In a new article in the International Review of the Red Cross, Nobuo Hayashi argues that violating international humanitarian law (IHL) with the aim of hastening peace or saving lives is both unlawful and misleading.

“The central conclusion is that international humanitarian law does not allow military forces to disregard its rules, even if this might appear to lead to shorter wars or fewer casualties”, says Nobuo Hayashi, Associate Professor in International Law at the Swedish Defence University.

He supports his position with three main arguments. Firstly, there is no empirical evidence for the belief that harsher fighting always leads to quicker surrender. History often shows the opposite – brutality can instead strengthen the will to resist and prolong the conflict.

Secondly, states or military actors who resort to excessive violence have no moral right to sacrifice their opponents in the name of the “greater good”.

“When the aggressor blames the victim for refusing to give in, it wrongly absolves itself of responsibility and justifies cruelty under the pretence of benefiting humanity”, he says.

The third argument is that although IHL ultimately aims to reduce human suffering, the law contains absolute prohibitions that apply regardless of the circumstances.

“These rules cannot be set aside on utilitarian grounds. Neither promises of faster peace nor fewer deaths can override the legal and ethical obligations established by IHL”, says Nobuo Hayashi.

Legal research with an interdisciplinary approach

The article is grounded in legal scholarship and draws on established methods of international law, such as the analysis of state practice, judicial rulings and scholarly writings. It also incorporates insights from military history and moral philosophy. Particular attention is given to act utilitarianism, an ethical theory in which actions are judged on the basis of their consequences in the specific situation, rather than by following general rules.

“By examining both historical examples and theoretical arguments, I show why selective non-compliance with IHL cannot be justified”, says Nobuo Hayashi.

Parallels to Trump’s approach to conflict management

Although the article was written before Donald J. Trump returned to the White House in January 2025, Hayashi argues that the reasoning is highly relevant to the new administration’s approach to conflict management.

“What Trump describes as “peace” resembles what John Stuart Mill called “tyranny”, in which weaker states are pressured into submission without fighting – something that risks emboldening aggressors”, he says.

On this view, attempts to end the war in Ukraine by pressuring Volodymyr Zelenskyy to capitulate risk strengthening Vladimir Putin and signaling to China that similar strategies may be tolerated in a potential conflict over Taiwan.

“Allowing violations of IHL on utilitarian grounds would only reinforce this trajectory, normalizing a ‘strongman peace’ that undermines both justice and security”, Hayashi says.

Relevance for both academia and society

Although the article is primarily aimed at scholars in law, history and moral philosophy, its message is broader. The central questions – whether brutality can shorten wars, whether it can be justified in order to save lives, and whether IHL can be stretched in the name of the greater good – regularly arise in public debate, in policy discussions and in everyday conversations.

“I hope this work will contribute to scholarly debate on military ethics and international law, but also give policymakers and commentators a clearer understanding of what is at stake when IHL comes under pressure”, says Nobuo Hayashi.