Honour is a principle that requires a certain degree of fairness and mutual respect among adversaries. The parties to the conflict must accept that their right to take means of mutual violation is not unlimited, they must refrain from exploiting the opponent`s respect for the law by falsely claiming the protection of the law, and they must recognize that they are members of a common profession that fights not out of personal hostility but on behalf of their respective States. [21] There are certain aspects that IHL does not regulate. For example, it does not prohibit the use of force per se, nor does it prohibit the purpose of a conflict, nor does it protect all persons affected by armed conflict, in particular combatants who are directly involved in hostilities and who may legitimately be killed. The two fundamental issues in the investigation of an armed conflict were addressed. The first is: What is the status of conflict? Which law of armed conflict/international humanitarian law (LOAC/IHL), if any, applies to the conflict under consideration? This issue is not always as easy or as clean to solve as one would like. The second question: What is the individual status of the parties to the conflict? What can they do legally, what should they not do and what rights and guarantees are they entitled to if they are captured? While the second issue is generally easier to resolve, it also has grey areas, especially in a “war on terror.” Ambiguity and complete lack of clarity are characteristics of all types of law, but not only of LOAC/IHL. Interpretations of international humanitarian law change over time, which also affects martial law. Martial law differs from other legal bodies – such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent for a conflict – which may impose additional legal limits on war or justification. At the end of a conflict, those who have committed or ordered a violation of martial law, particularly atrocities, may be held individually responsible for war crimes through judicial proceedings. Nations that have signed the Geneva Conventions are also required to seek out and punish anyone who has committed or ordered certain “grave violations” of the laws of war. (Third Geneva Convention, Articles 129 and 130.) IHL is both simple and complex in terms of its objectives that underpin the principles and challenges associated with it: military necessity, with distinction, proportionality, humanity (sometimes called unnecessary suffering) and honour (sometimes called chivalry) are the five most frequently cited principles of international humanitarian law that govern the legal use of force in armed conflict.
To make things as simple as possible, these rules can be summarized into four rules: do not attack non-combatants, attack combatants only by legal means, treat people in your power humanely, and protect victims. At the same time, the law of armed conflict is complex, because it only applies in certain situations, these situations are not always easily definable concretely and depending on the situation, a single act can be legal or illegal, not only illegal, but a criminal offense or neither legal nor illegal! (David, 2002, pp. 921-922). As this almost formal study of LOAC/IHL suggests, we are studying the construction of a LOAC/IHL matrix: conflict, individual and event. We review the conflict for its applicable law, and then examine the participants to determine their place in the conflict. Finally, we look at a specific event that attendees are involved in. In order to fulfill the above objectives, the laws of war impose substantial limits on the lawful exercise of power by a participant in war. In general, laws require the warring parties to refrain from using force that is not reasonably necessary for military purposes and that the warring parties engage in hostilities taking into account the principles of humanity and chivalry. Martial law is binding not only on States as such, but also on individuals and, in particular, on members of their armed forces.