The weakness of international law in protecting conflict zone journalism

The commitment to the protection of journalists is an established and core aspect of humanitarian law. International obligations to safeguard on-the-ground reportage underscore the important deliverance of personal, direct testimonies that expose human rights violations through journalism. Yet, despite the general acceptance of international humanitarian laws, little cooperative action has been taken to ensure that journalists are protected from politically motivated violence and  persecution.

Recent impunity over the murder of journalists in areas of conflict such as Sudan and Gaza  has raised questions on whether international law enforcement has done enough to protect journalists from being victims of political violence[1]. A general trend has emerged: despite repeated UN declarations reaffirming journalist protections, frontline reporting has become increasingly more deadly. As conflict journalists are increasingly portrayed as active opponents by aggressive states- it is only appropriate to question the validity of international humanitarian law when undermined by powerful nations.

The creation of the current international status for journalists was a decades-long process, starting with the recognition of their role as non-combating members in the armed forces in the 1949 Geneva Conventions[2]. Initially, journalists were given protection as prisoners of war and required to carry an identity card, which significantly limited their independence[3]. It was not until 1970 that the United Nations began drafting a specialised status for journalists in conflict regions[4]. This led to the revisions of the Geneva Conventions in 1977, with the formation of Article 79, declaring that journalists should be treated the same as civilians under international law and thus cannot be targeted in conflict zones[5]. Further resolutions were created in the 21st century, with the United Nations playing a vital role in emphasising the protection of journalists; Resolution 1738 (2006)[6] by the United Nations Security Council reiterated the international commitment to the aforementioned humanitarian laws, and Resolution 2222 (2015)[7] condemned the ongoing impunity for crimes against journalists. These efforts to create further binding resolutions in the 21st century demonstrate the evolving nature of journalist protection and its dynamism in modern history. 

Yet, despite their secured ‘protected status’, holding nations in violation of journalists’ rights to account is difficult due to the paramount standing of national sovereignty – a common gap in the enforcement of international law. Even if a violation is declared, repercussions for the murder of journalists have rarely taken effect. Take the example of a notable recent case: the United States of America’s sanctions of Saudi Arabia after the murder of Washington Post journalist Jamal Khashoggi in 2018.[8] Despite sanctioning some Saudi nationals and the U.S. Congress’s attempt to cut off weapons sales to the country, Saudi Arabia suffers no significant consequences for the assassination, attributed to crown prince Mohhamed bin Salman by Turkish authorities and U.S. intelligence agencies. 

The gravity of harm posed to journalists has only worsened in the last thirty years, with 971 journalists dying violent deaths between 1992 and 2013.[9] One of the many reasons for this is the shifting politicisation of journalists’ roles in conflict zones. States party to the conflict attempt to paint journalists as combatants instead of neutral observers, thereby attempting to renounce the acts of war and violence attributed to them. This has made conflict-zone journalism an increasingly lethal profession: as of November 2025 the number of journalists murdered in conflict zones globally stands at 113 – with 44 being in Gaza.[10]  Only 13  of these cases have been confirmed as murder,  with the Israeli government claiming that key advocates for Palestinian rights were in coalescence with Hamas, despite the legally protected status that journalists have[11]. The clash between the legally protected status of journalists and Israel’s politicised claims of journalistic intent demonstrates the tension between politics and law that drives international discourse. On the 10th of August, six Palestinian journalists were killed in an Israeli strike, consequently UN Secretary-General António Guterres demanded an independent and impartial investigation and reminded that journalists “must be respected and protected”.[12] On September 1st,  200 news media outlets participated in a media blackout in response to the deaths of journalists in Gaza. However, despite this global condemnation from political leaders and media organisations, meaningful action in the form of criminalisation has yet to be coordinated, further emphasizing the difficulties to actualise these  clearly laid out principles in international law. Israel’s impunity is underpinned by  its powerful international status thanks to its close allyship with the United States, displaying the weak structures of international law in place to protect journalists.

The treatment of Gazan journalists is not an exception but rather a consistent international pattern. The Sudan war has been a disaster for local journalism; reporters on the ground are frequently targeted by paramilitary group Rapid Support Forces.[13] The lack of discussion about the attack against journalism in Sudan is endemic of the sparse global incentive to act on the persecution of local journalists in conflict zones deemed politically distant and insignificant internationally. Yet despite the contrast between a highly documented conflict in Gaza and a neglected conflict in Sudan, it is indisputable that both suffer from the ineffectiveness of international law in protecting conflict-zone journalists. 

The limited international response to the murder and prosecution of journalists is not happening in a vacuum – it is a precedent of the declining right to freedom of expression, a telling result of accelerating crackdowns to free speech in the past decade.  Research conducted by Reporters without Borders has concluded that freedom of expression in 2025 has fallen into the category of ‘difficult situation’- a new all-time low in their research since 2002.[14]

With current global instability in today's world, the role of journalists during conflicts is vital to safeguarding the free flow of information against the crackdowns on freedom of expression. Yet simultaneously, the profession has become increasingly lethal under the current globalised world order. The lives of  journalists have become disposable in the larger context of global politics, allowing states to further manipulate the dissemination of facts and villanise the presence of journalists in current conflict areas. 

 The international community must not remain idle in the face of humanitarian disaster, as the silencing of journalists limits the fundamental right to truth in a world desperate to hear it.