Propaganda in Armed Conflict: Legal Boundaries and Their Impact

In what experts call the most profound crisis since the signing of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, international humanitarian law (IHL) faces widespread violations by parties in nearly all armed conflicts. The gravity extends beyond the violations themselves to how parties respond to accusations—often through denial, misrepresentation, or even glorification of their actions.

This propaganda problem, while not new in warfare, has gained unprecedented reach and impact through modern technology, including artificial intelligence. As false denials spread more widely and rapidly, they create a dangerous cycle: accountability diminishes, leading to more violations and further denials.

The ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict provides a stark illustration of how propaganda intersects with international law. While international law doesn’t prohibit propaganda outright, it establishes clear boundaries through IHL, international human rights law (IHRL), and international criminal law (ICL).

Under Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, all parties must “respect and ensure respect” for IHL. Propaganda undermining these protections violates this fundamental obligation. Both Ukrainian and Russian forces have been criticized for breaching specific provisions, such as when both sides distributed images and interviews of prisoners of war—a violation of the protection against “insults and public curiosity” guaranteed under Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention.

Certain forms of propaganda face explicit prohibition. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) prohibits “propaganda for war” in Article 20. Russia’s false allegations of genocide in Ukraine before its February 2022 invasion exemplify this prohibited conduct, forming part of Ukraine’s case against Russia at the International Court of Justice.

In more severe cases, propaganda can trigger individual criminal responsibility. Direct incitement to genocide, as outlined in Article III(c) of the 1948 Genocide Convention, represents one such threshold. Propaganda has also been used as evidence in war crimes investigations, as seen in the arrest warrant against the Russian President and Commissioner for Children’s Rights regarding the forced transfer of Ukrainian children.

False denials and accusations represent particularly problematic forms of propaganda. When parties falsely deny violations or falsely accuse opponents, they undermine the obligation to act in good faith—a cornerstone principle in international law. Russia’s characterization of its invasion as “de-nazifying” Ukraine, accompanied by dehumanizing rhetoric equating “Ukrainian” with “Nazi” in state media, exemplifies such harmful propaganda.

Despite extensive documentation of civilian harm by international bodies including the UN Commission of Inquiry and the European Court of Human Rights, Russian authorities have conducted few investigations into potential IHL violations. This failure to ensure accountability contributes to impunity and may constitute indirect approval of violations.

Freedom of expression plays a critical role in countering harmful propaganda. The right to seek, receive, and share information—described by the UN Special Rapporteur as a “survival right”—becomes especially vital during armed conflict. Enabling an environment where journalists and citizens can freely document and share information helps societies assess whether parties are upholding their IHL obligations.

Yet journalists face increasing danger in conflict zones, with rising fatalities reported since 2023. This trend reflects the broader crisis of compliance with IHL’s core protection obligations. Journalists serve an essential function by providing information that allows the public, other states, and international organizations to evaluate compliance with humanitarian law.

Addressing harmful propaganda requires careful balance. Measures against disinformation must avoid violating the very international norms they aim to protect. Excessive restrictions on information flow can perpetuate problems and risk further escalation, as seen in propaganda regarding weapons of mass destruction.

As the Russia-Ukraine conflict continues, understanding the legal framework governing propaganda becomes increasingly important to address its harmful effects and reinforce respect for international humanitarian law during armed conflicts.