In every armed conflict, observers first ask who fired the first shot. For international law, however, the vital question is how the warring parties must behave once the violence begins.
In a world where nations face constant threats and non-state armed groups drive many conflicts, balancing national security and human rights is a major challenge for the international legal system.
Over recent decades, armed groups worldwide have launched military campaigns in the name of resistance, self-determination, or self-defense. In response, governments view these actions as direct threats to state sovereignty, territorial integrity, and public safety. Both sides scramble to justify their actions legally. Yet, international law—not political spin—determines actual legitimacy.
The post-WWII legal order rests heavily on the prohibition of the use of force and respect for sovereign borders. The architects of the UN Charter knew that unstable borders and unchecked violence would plunge the globe back into catastrophic war. Therefore, preserving territorial integrity is a foundational pillar of global stability, not just a political preference.
Under this framework, states carry the primary duty to protect citizens and maintain public order. The modern state holds a monopoly on the legitimate use of force to prevent lawless vigilante violence and cycles of revenge. When a government fails to protect the lives, property, and safety of its citizens, it loses its core legitimacy.
However, a state’s security mandate is not a blank check. International legal instruments and human rights treaties demand that all security operations respect the rule of law. Necessity, proportionality, and accountability form the three benchmarks to judge any use of force. Violating this framework erodes public trust and leads to severe rights abuses.
A major point of legal friction is when non-state armed groups claim a right to “self-defense.” Article 51 of the UN Charter explicitly restricts self-defense to sovereign states facing an armed attack. Most legal experts agree that armed groups cannot directly claim this right under the Charter’s standard interpretation.
Even alternative legal views that grant non-state actors a highly restricted right to self-defense impose extreme conditions. These include immediate necessity, strict proportionality, and absolute compliance with international humanitarian law, particularly civilian protection. Self-defense can never justify prolonged military campaigns or operations that expand the conflict zone and endanger innocent lives.
Observers often frame national security and human rights as opposing forces, claiming one must be sacrificed for the other. However, global experience proves they are deeply interconnected. A society without security loses access to education, economic investment, and development. Conversely, security built on systemic abuse, oppression, and impunity is inherently fragile.
The main victims of armed conflict are almost always those who had no part in starting it. Children lose their education, families face forced displacement, economic engines stall, and deep psychological trauma lingers for generations. This is why international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions demand that all parties protect civilians and limit the scope of violence, even in the heat of battle.
History across Asia, Africa, Europe, and Latin America shows that long-term armed conflicts rarely lead to lasting peace. Lasting stability comes from a combination of political reforms, economic development, job creation, and social inclusion—not just military actions. True security grows when citizens see the law applied equally and feel they have a voice in their country’s future.
Ultimately, human rights lose their meaning unless we hold every combatant to the same standard. Just as states must remain accountable under the law, non-state armed groups must answer for violations of international law. No political goal or ideology justifies stripping away human dignity.
National security and human rights are two pillars of a stable global order. A society that lacks safety cannot develop, while a state that tramples on human rights will eventually face instability. Eighty years of international legal history confirm that security only lasts when built on the rule of law, and the law only holds weight when it protects human dignity without discrimination.
