The Right to Life in War: Redefining the Relationship Between Human Rights Law and the Conduct of Warfare by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR)

Why the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has reshaped the understanding of the right to life in the context of Russia’s war against Ukraine? This paper addresses that question by focusing on the ECtHR’s landmark judgment in Ukraine and the Netherlands v. Russia published in July 2025 related to Russia’s crimes against civilian population from 2014 to September 2022. Although Russia no longer recognises the ECtHR’s authority, the ECtHR retains jurisdiction over violations committed up to 16 September 2022, covering both the long-term occupation of Ukrainian territories from 2014 and the newly occupied parts of Ukraine during early phase of the full-scale invasion in 2022. This judgment marks a significant moment in the broader “humanisation” of armed conflict, as it redefines the relationship between human rights law and the conduct of warfare by rejecting the idea that the realities of war suspend or dilute states’ obligations to protect civilian life. The ECtHR’s approach gives renewed legal visibility to civilian victims of wartime violence, including those affected by large-scale and indirect harm. I argue that such victim-centred reading of the right to life enhances opportunities for victims to bring claims and seek recognition of violations and as a result might transform the scope and content of the right to life in contemporary armed conflict. My paper contributes to the discussion on transitional justice by explaining why the recent ECtHR’s judgment translates abstract legal principles into concrete standards of investigation, proof, and accountability. That judgment is arguably ground-breaking for victims of Russia’s war against Ukraine, and for victims of other armed conflicts in general, by strengthening the role of human rights law as a tool for documenting harm, attributing responsibility, and sustaining claims to justice beyond the battlefield. This paper combines doctrinal examination of the judgment with comparative case-law analysis, drawing on earlier ECtHR rulings on armed conflict, especially Georgia v. Russia (II), to assess the broader implications of this shift.