Legislative Frameworks For Institutional Peace: Embedding International Humanitarian Law And Conflict Management Into Public Policy

A PAPER PRESENTED BY PROFESSOR ABIODUN AMUDA-KANNIKE SAN, FCArb, FCE, LFWLS, FCIAP, FIIHP, ACTI, ACSP, JP; AG DIRECTOR, DEPARTMENT OF LEGISLATIVE SUPPORT SERVICES (DLSS) OF THE NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR LEGISLATIVE AND DEMOCRATIC STUDIES (NILDS) ABUJA, AND PIONEER DEAN, FACULTY OF LAW, KWARA STATE UNIVERSITY MALETE VIA ILORIN, AT THE WEBINAR ON INVEST IN PEACE FOR EVERYONE, EVERYWHERE, EVERYDAY, ORGANIZED BY INTERNATIONAL LAW ASSOCIATION (ILA), NIGERIAN BRANCH IN COLLABORATION WITH THE INSTITUTE OF GLOBAL PEACE AND CONFLICT MANAGEMENT WHICH TOOK PLACE VIA ZOOM AND YOUTUBE ON 21ST SEPTEMBER, 2026.

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the legal and institutional framework for institutional peace in Nigeria, arguing that sustainable peace requires a legislative framework which integrates conflict prevention and management with the domestic implementation and enforcement of international humanitarian law (IHL). The paper adopts a doctrinal research methodology, drawing upon the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, domestic statutes including the Geneva Conventions Act and the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, international and regional instruments, case law, and scholarly literature on peace and conflict studies. The paper finds that although Nigeria possesses a substantial body of legislation relevant to peace and security, the framework is fragmented, incomplete in its domestication of IHL obligations, lacks a comprehensive war crimes framework, and suffers from inadequate institutional coordination, federal-state coordination difficulties, and weaknesses in early-warning and preventive mechanisms. The paper recommends the enactment of a Comprehensive Institutional Peace and Conflict Management Act, a Comprehensive IHL Implementation Act, and a dedicated War Crimes Act, alongside the establishment of a National Peace and Security Coordination Council, a Joint Conflict Early Warning and Response Centre, and a statutory Early Warning and Early Response Framework.

Key Words: Institutional Peace; Conflict Management; International Humanitarian Law; Legislative Framework; Domestic Implementation; Nigeria.

1. INTRODUCTION

Peace is not merely the absence of armed violence. In a modern constitutional State, institutional peace encompasses the existence of stable, legitimate and accountable institutions capable of managing competing interests, resolving grievances and maintaining public order without resorting to violence or arbitrary exercise of power.[1] It is therefore closely connected with the rule of law, respect for human rights, effective dispute-resolution mechanisms and the capacity of public institutions to prevent conflicts from escalating into violence. The United Nations recognises the rule of law as an important component of sustaining peace and emphasises the need for coherence between political, security, development, human rights and justice institutions in building durable peace.[2] This understanding is particularly significant for States such as Nigeria, where institutional effectiveness and the management of social, political, communal and security-related conflicts remain central to national stability.

The relationship between law and peace is consequently more profound than the use of law merely as an instrument for punishing conduct after conflict has occurred. A properly designed legislative framework can perform a preventive function by establishing institutions, allocating responsibilities, creating channels for peaceful settlement of disputes, protecting vulnerable persons and communities, and prescribing sanctions for conduct capable of undermining peace.[3] Conflict management scholarship similarly recognises that effective responses to conflict require more than the suppression of violence; they encompass prevention, management, resolution and, increasingly, transformation of the underlying conditions that generate violent disputes.[4] Legislation is therefore capable of providing the institutional architecture within which these processes can operate in a predictable, legitimate and sustainable manner.

International humanitarian law (IHL) is principally concerned with regulating the conduct of parties during armed conflict and limiting the effects of hostilities, particularly through the protection of persons who are not, or are no longer, participating directly in hostilities.[5] Its central instruments include the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, together with customary international humanitarian law. The importance of IHL to institutional peace arises from the fact that armed conflict frequently places extraordinary pressure on governmental institutions, security agencies, judicial systems and mechanisms for the protection of civilians. The effectiveness of IHL therefore depends not merely upon international commitments but also upon domestic legislation, institutional capacity, training, investigation and accountability.[6]

The Nigerian legal order already recognises the importance of international law and peaceful settlement of disputes. Section 19 of the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 identifies, among Nigeria’s foreign-policy objectives, the promotion of international cooperation for the consolidation of universal peace and mutual respect among nations, respect for international law and treaty obligations, and the settlement of international disputes through negotiation, mediation, conciliation, arbitration and adjudication.[7] More specifically, section 12 of the Constitution establishes the constitutional framework through which treaties entered into by Nigeria acquire the force of law domestically: an international treaty does not have the force of law in Nigeria until it has been enacted into law by the National Assembly.[8] This constitutional position makes legislative action particularly important to the domestic implementation of international legal obligations, including obligations relevant to humanitarian protection and conflict management.

Nigeria has also enacted legislation giving domestic effect to important aspects of IHL. The Geneva Conventions Act, for example, was enacted to give effect in Nigeria to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and contains provisions dealing with grave breaches, punishment, legal proceedings and the protection of the emblems associated with the Conventions.[9] The legislation demonstrates that the domestic legislative framework is not entirely detached from international humanitarian norms. Nevertheless, the existence of implementing legislation does not necessarily establish a comprehensive system for the prevention and management of conflict. The contemporary conflict environment has expanded beyond the traditional paradigm of interstate warfare to include non-international armed conflicts, terrorism, communal violence and other complex forms of organised violence, thereby creating continuing demands for effective domestic implementation of humanitarian norms and stronger institutional mechanisms for prevention and accountability.[10]

At the continental level, the African Union has also developed a substantial institutional and normative framework for conflict prevention, management and resolution. The African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA), established pursuant to the African Union’s peace and security framework, incorporates mechanisms including the Peace and Security Council, the Continental Early Warning System, the Panel of the Wise, the African Standby Force and the Peace Fund.[11] The Peace and Security Council is specifically mandated to prevent, manage and resolve conflicts, while the continental early-warning and mediation mechanisms are designed to facilitate timely responses before disputes develop into full-scale crises.[12] These mechanisms demonstrate that modern peacebuilding increasingly depends upon institutionalised prevention and response rather than reliance on improvised measures after violence has already erupted.

The central argument of this paper is therefore that institutional peace requires a legislative framework which integrates conflict prevention and management with the domestic implementation and enforcement of applicable international humanitarian norms. Such a framework should not be understood as creating an artificial merger between IHL and conflict-management law. Rather, it should recognise their complementary functions: conflict-management mechanisms seek to prevent, contain and resolve disputes, while IHL establishes minimum humanitarian restraints when armed conflict occurs. The former addresses the prevention and management of conflict; the latter establishes rules for the protection of human dignity during conflict. Together, when appropriately embedded in domestic institutions and supported by effective legislation, they can strengthen the legal foundations of peace.

The paper consequently examines whether Nigeria’s existing constitutional, statutory and institutional framework sufficiently integrates these two dimensions. It considers the extent to which international humanitarian obligations have been domesticated, the adequacy of existing mechanisms for conflict prevention and management, the institutional responsibilities of the legislature, executive, judiciary and security agencies, and the principal gaps that may weaken effective implementation. It also draws upon relevant African and international experiences to identify legislative and institutional practices capable of strengthening Nigeria’s peace architecture.

2. CONCEPTUAL CLARIFICATION: INSTITUTIONAL PEACE, CONFLICT MANAGEMENT AND INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
4. • Institutional Peace

The expression institutional peace does not have a single universally accepted legal definition. It is closely related to the broader concept of positive peace. Johan Galtung famously distinguished between negative peace, understood principally as the absence of direct violence, and positive peace, which involves the removal or transformation of structural conditions that produce violence and injustice.[13] This distinction provides a useful analytical foundation for the present paper. If peace is understood merely as the absence of armed confrontation, legislative intervention may focus primarily on criminalisation and coercive enforcement. If, however, peace is understood as the existence of institutions capable of addressing grievances fairly and preventing structural and direct violence, the legislative agenda becomes considerably broader.

In the context of this paper, however, it refers to a condition in which public institutions possess the legal authority, institutional capacity and procedural mechanisms necessary to manage competing interests and disputes peacefully, lawfully and predictably, while maintaining public confidence and protecting fundamental rights. Institutional peace therefore extends beyond the cessation of physical violence. It includes the stability of constitutional institutions, respect for the rule of law, peaceful resolution of disputes, effective accountability and the ability of institutions to withstand political, social and security pressures without themselves becoming sources or instruments of conflict.

• Conflict Management

Conflict management refers broadly to the processes, institutions and strategies employed to prevent disputes from escalating into destructive violence, contain existing conflicts and create conditions for their peaceful resolution or transformation.[14] It should be distinguished from conflict suppression. Suppression may temporarily prevent the visible manifestation of conflict through coercive measures, without addressing the underlying causes. Conflict management, by contrast, recognises that disagreements are an inevitable feature of social and political life and seeks to ensure that they are channelled through lawful and peaceful mechanisms.

The literature on conflict resolution has progressively moved from a narrow emphasis on terminating violence towards approaches that address the causes, relationships and structures underlying conflicts. Ramsbotham, Woodhouse and Miall, for example, distinguish among conflict prevention, management, resolution and transformation, while recognising that the boundaries between these approaches may overlap in practice.[15] Conflict prevention seeks to stop disputes from developing into violent confrontations; conflict management seeks to contain and control violence where prevention has failed; conflict resolution addresses the underlying interests and causes of conflict; while conflict transformation seeks deeper changes in relationships and structures that sustain conflict.

For the purposes of legislative design, these distinctions are significant. A comprehensive statutory framework should not merely empower government agencies to respond after violence has occurred. It should establish mechanisms for early warning, dialogue, mediation, negotiation, reconciliation, peacebuilding and institutional coordination. Such mechanisms can enable the State to intervene at different stages of the conflict cycle. Legislation can also prescribe the responsibilities of public institutions in identifying emerging threats and establish procedures for cooperation between federal, state and local authorities.

Conflict management must, however, operate within the rule of law. Measures adopted in the name of maintaining peace cannot themselves become sources of injustice or violations of fundamental rights.[16] A legislative framework that gives security institutions excessively broad or inadequately supervised powers may suppress immediate disturbances while creating grievances capable of generating further conflict. Sustainable institutional peace therefore requires a balance between legitimate security objectives and the protection of rights, due process and humanitarian standards.

• International Humanitarian Law

International humanitarian law occupies a different conceptual field. It is the body of international law applicable during armed conflict which seeks, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of hostilities and protect persons who are not, or are no longer, directly participating in hostilities.[17] The principal treaty foundations of contemporary IHL are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, supplemented by customary international humanitarian law and other relevant international instruments.

A fundamental distinction must be drawn between IHL and the broader body of international law governing the resort to force. IHL does not ordinarily determine whether a State was legally entitled to commence hostilities. Rather, it regulates how parties must conduct themselves once an armed conflict exists. This distinction is commonly expressed through the concepts of jus ad bellum and jus in bello. IHL belongs principally to the latter category.[18] The distinction is important to this paper because the objective of embedding IHL within domestic legislation is not to authorise or legitimise armed conflict, but to ensure that where armed conflict occurs, the conduct of State and non-State actors is subjected to legally enforceable humanitarian restraints.

IHL also operates according to the factual existence and legal classification of an armed conflict rather than simply the political declaration of a government. Contemporary IHL distinguishes principally between international armed conflicts and non-international armed conflicts. The latter category is particularly relevant to Nigeria because contemporary internal conflicts may involve government forces and organised non-State armed groups. The legal classification of a situation determines the applicable body of IHL rules, although common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions establishes fundamental humanitarian protections in non-international armed conflicts.[19] Among the fundamental principles governing the conduct of hostilities are distinction, proportionality and precaution. The principle of distinction requires parties to distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. Proportionality prohibits attacks expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The precautionary principle requires parties to take feasible measures to avoid or minimise harm to civilians and civilian objects.[20] These principles illustrate why domestic implementation is essential: international rules cannot achieve their protective purpose if the relevant institutions lack the legislation, training, investigative mechanisms and accountability structures necessary to operationalise them.

• The Relationship between Institutional Peace, Conflict Management and IHL

Although institutional peace, conflict management and IHL are conceptually distinct, they are closely interconnected. Conflict management is principally concerned with preventing, containing and resolving disputes, whereas IHL applies once an armed conflict reaches the threshold at which its rules become applicable. Institutional peace provides the broader environment within which both functions can operate effectively. The three concepts may therefore be viewed as occupying different stages or dimensions of the broader peace architecture. For Nigeria, the conceptual relationship has particular importance. A legislative framework for institutional peace should operate before, during and after conflict. Before conflict, legislation should provide mechanisms for early warning, dialogue, mediation and institutional coordination. During armed conflict, domestic law should ensure compliance with applicable IHL standards and protect civilians and other persons affected by hostilities. After conflict, legislation should facilitate accountability, rehabilitation, reconciliation, reconstruction and institutional reform. This integrated approach moves beyond the traditional distinction between security legislation and humanitarian legislation and recognises that durable peace requires a continuum of legal and institutional responses.

The central implication is that IHL should not be treated as an isolated body of international rules applicable only to military operations. Its effective implementation forms part of a broader national peace architecture. Domestic legislation can translate international obligations into institutional duties by establishing offences, investigative procedures, prosecutorial mechanisms, training obligations, reporting requirements and institutional responsibilities. Equally, conflict-management legislation can provide the preventive infrastructure necessary to address disputes before they cross the threshold into armed violence.

3. THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN LEGISLATION, INSTITUTIONAL STABILITY AND PEACE

The connection between law and peace is particularly evident in the rule-of-law principle. The United Nations defines the rule of law as a system in which all persons and institutions, including the State itself, are accountable to publicly promulgated laws that are equally enforced and independently adjudicated. It further associates the rule of law with legal certainty, separation of powers, accountability, procedural transparency and the prevention of serious human-rights violations.[21] These principles are directly relevant to institutional peace because institutions that exercise arbitrary or unchecked power can become sources of conflict rather than instruments for resolving it. Conversely, institutions operating within clear legal boundaries are more likely to command legitimacy and public confidence.

• Legislation as an Instrument of Institutional Stability

Legislation contributes to institutional stability first by defining the competence of public institutions. In a constitutional democracy, governmental institutions cannot legitimately exercise unlimited powers. Their jurisdiction must derive from the Constitution or legislation and must remain subject to appropriate legal and judicial controls. In Nigeria, this principle is particularly important because the Constitution distributes legislative, executive and judicial powers among different organs of government.[22] The legislative power vested in the National Assembly under section 4, the executive powers under section 5 and judicial powers under section 6 collectively provide a constitutional framework designed to prevent excessive concentration of public authority. The significance of this arrangement for institutional peace is considerable. Institutional conflict may emerge where governmental bodies disagree over jurisdiction, where one institution exceeds its constitutional authority or where political actors attempt to weaken institutions responsible for accountability. A clear legislative framework reduces such uncertainty by defining institutional mandates and procedures. Where the law is ambiguous, poorly drafted or inconsistently enforced, disputes over institutional competence may themselves become destabilising.

• Legislation and the Prevention of Institutional Conflict

An important contribution of legislation to institutional peace lies in its preventive capacity. Conflict prevention is generally more effective when institutions possess clearly defined mechanisms for identifying grievances and resolving disputes before they become violent.[23] Legislation can establish early-warning systems, mediation bodies, commissions of inquiry, independent regulatory institutions and other mechanisms through which potential conflicts can be addressed. The African Peace and Security Architecture provides an instructive example. The African Union’s Peace and Security Council is designed as a standing decision-making organ for the prevention, management and resolution of conflicts, supported by mechanisms including the Continental Early Warning System and the Panel of the Wise.[24] The African Union expressly recognises early warning and preventive diplomacy as important components of its conflict-prevention architecture.[25] The Nigerian legislative environment can benefit from the same preventive logic. Rather than concentrating primarily on the coercive management of violence after its occurrence, legislation should provide institutions with the authority and resources to identify emerging tensions, facilitate dialogue and intervene through lawful preventive measures. This is particularly relevant where conflicts have predictable or recurring causes, such as disputes over land and natural resources, communal boundaries, political competition, electoral disagreements and perceived marginalisation.

An effective legislative framework should therefore establish clear triggers for preventive intervention. It should identify which institution is responsible for monitoring emerging conflicts, which institution may initiate mediation, how affected communities may access the mechanism, and how recommendations arising from mediation or early-warning processes are to be implemented. Without such provisions, preventive mechanisms may remain dependent upon administrative discretion and may be activated only after a conflict has become sufficiently serious to attract political attention.

• Legislation, Legitimacy and Public Confidence

Institutional peace also depends upon legitimacy. Citizens are more likely to accept governmental decisions, judicial outcomes and security measures when they perceive institutions as lawful, impartial and accountable. Legislation can strengthen this legitimacy by making governmental procedures transparent and by[26] providing avenues for review and redress. The legitimacy function of legislation is particularly important in conflict-affected environments. Where citizens believe that institutions systematically favour particular groups or that grievances cannot be addressed through lawful processes, confidence in peaceful mechanisms may diminish. The resulting loss of institutional legitimacy can create conditions in which individuals or groups turn to extra-legal methods of resolving disputes. This is why access to justice and accountability are integral elements of peace. The United Nations observes that strong justice institutions and accountable police and law-enforcement agencies are critical to restoring peace and security, particularly in post-conflict situations, because they facilitate accountability, peaceful dispute resolution, restoration of trust and social cohesion.[27] Legislation should therefore not merely establish institutions but ensure that those institutions are accessible to the persons and communities whose disputes they are expected to manage.

• Legislative Restraints on the Exercise of Coercive Power

The relationship between legislation and institutional peace is particularly important in relation to security institutions. The State necessarily possesses coercive powers to protect public order and national security. However, when those powers are exercised without adequate legal restraints, they may generate precisely the grievances that produce conflict. This is especially relevant during internal security operations and armed conflict. Security institutions must be able to respond effectively to threats, but their powers should be exercised within constitutional, statutory, human-rights and applicable humanitarian limits. The United Nations accordingly emphasises that, during armed conflict, States should incorporate relevant international obligations into national legislation, establish functioning institutions and internal controls, provide education concerning applicable norms and ensure criminal enforcement of serious violations.[28]

The legislative framework should therefore establish clear rules concerning the powers of security agencies, operational accountability, investigation of alleged abuses and remedies for victims. Parliamentary and judicial oversight can provide additional safeguards. Such mechanisms do not necessarily weaken national security. Properly designed oversight can enhance the legitimacy of security institutions by demonstrating that the exercise of coercive power remains subject to law.

• Legislation as a Bridge between International Norms and Domestic Institutions

The relationship between legislation and peace becomes even more significant where international obligations are involved. International treaties may establish standards concerning human rights, humanitarian protection, conflict prevention and accountability, but their practical implementation frequently depends upon domestic institutions.

Nigeria’s constitutional framework recognises this reality. Section 12 of the Constitution provides that treaties entered into by the Federal Government do not have the force of law in Nigeria until enacted into law by the National Assembly.[29] This provision makes the legislature an important bridge between Nigeria’s international commitments and its domestic legal order.

In the field of IHL, this function is illustrated by the Geneva Conventions Act, which gives domestic legal effect to Nigeria’s obligations under the Geneva Conventions and provides for the punishment of certain grave breaches.[30] The legislative framework thereby transforms international humanitarian obligations into domestic legal rules capable of being applied through Nigerian institutions.

The principle extends beyond IHL. Where Nigeria undertakes international obligations concerning conflict prevention, human rights or accountability, legislative implementation can establish the institutions and procedures required to make those commitments effective. The quality of that implementation is therefore central to the credibility of Nigeria’s international commitments and to the protection of persons within its jurisdiction.

• The Need for an Integrated Legislative Framework

The preceding analysis demonstrates that legislation contributes to institutional peace through several interconnected functions including establishing institutions; defining powers; preventing disputes; regulating coercive authority; protecting rights; facilitating access to justice; implementing international obligations; and providing accountability. The effectiveness of legislation therefore depends upon the coherence of the overall legal architecture rather than the existence of isolated statutes. An integrated legislative framework should consequently connect preventive mechanisms with conflict-management institutions and humanitarian protection mechanisms. Early-warning institutions should be able to communicate with mediation bodies; mediation mechanisms should have clear links with governmental decision-makers; security agencies should understand their humanitarian obligations; courts should be capable of providing effective remedies; and legislative bodies should exercise meaningful oversight.

The need for such integration is increasingly recognised internationally. The United Nations emphasises that sustaining peace requires coherence among political, security, development, human-rights and rule-of-law activities.[31] Similarly, the African Union’s institutional architecture seeks greater synergy between the African Governance Architecture and the African Peace and Security Architecture.[32] These approaches support the central proposition that institutional peace is not produced by one statute or one institution but by a coordinated legal and institutional ecosystem. For Nigeria, the implication is that legislative reform should move beyond reactive law-making. The objective should be to construct a preventive, rights-based and accountable legal framework in which conflict management and humanitarian protection are embedded within ordinary institutional processes. Such a framework would help ensure that the State’s response to conflict is lawful, coordinated and predictable, while also providing affected persons with meaningful avenues for protection and redress.

4. INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW AND THE LEGAL ARCHITECTURE OF PEACE

International humanitarian law (IHL) constitutes an essential component of the contemporary international legal order governing armed conflict. Its principal objective is to limit the human suffering occasioned by armed conflict by regulating the conduct of hostilities and protecting persons who are not, or are no longer, participating directly in hostilities.[33] Although IHL does not ordinarily prevent the occurrence of armed conflict in the first place, its rules establish minimum standards of humanity which must be respected once an armed conflict exists. Consequently, IHL forms an important part of the legal architecture through which States seek to preserve human dignity, limit the consequences of violence and create conditions conducive to the restoration of peace.[34]

The connection between IHL and peace is therefore both direct and indirect. Directly, IHL seeks to reduce the intensity and human cost of armed violence. Indirectly, compliance with humanitarian rules can reduce grievances, protect civilian populations, preserve essential institutions and facilitate post-conflict reconciliation. Conversely, widespread violations of IHL may deepen resentment, perpetuate cycles of retaliation and make negotiated peace substantially more difficult. The effective implementation of IHL should therefore be understood as part of a broader legal strategy for conflict management and sustainable peace.

• The Normative Foundations of International Humanitarian Law

The principal treaty foundations of contemporary IHL are the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005. The four Geneva Conventions respectively address the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field; wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea; prisoners of war; and the protection of civilians during wartime.[35] Their common provisions establish fundamental humanitarian obligations, while common Article 3 provides minimum protections in non-international armed conflicts.

The development of IHL predates the Geneva Conventions. The Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907 established important rules concerning the means and methods of warfare, while subsequent treaties addressed particular weapons and humanitarian concerns. The Geneva regime nevertheless represents the central foundation of modern humanitarian protection. Together with customary international law, these instruments have created a comprehensive body of rules regulating the treatment of persons affected by armed conflict.

The fundamental character of these rules is reflected in the International Court of Justice’s decision in Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America),[36] where the Court recognised the fundamental principles of humanitarian law as reflecting elementary considerations of humanity. The decision remains important because it demonstrates that the protection afforded by humanitarian law is not dependent exclusively upon treaty participation; significant elements of IHL also form part of customary international law. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has played a central role in the development, promotion and dissemination of IHL. Its mandate under the Geneva Conventions and its role as guardian and promoter of IHL make it an important institutional actor in the humanitarian legal architecture.[37] The ICRC’s work includes promoting knowledge and implementation of humanitarian rules, visiting detainees, facilitating humanitarian assistance and supporting States in incorporating IHL obligations into domestic legal systems.

• Distinguishing International Humanitarian Law from the Law Governing the Use of Force

A proper understanding of IHL requires a distinction between the legality of resorting to armed force and the rules governing conduct during armed conflict. The former is traditionally described as jus ad bellum, while the latter is jus in bello, or IHL.[38] The distinction is fundamental. IHL applies regardless of which party is considered legally responsible for commencing an armed conflict. A party cannot justify violations of humanitarian law merely by asserting that it is fighting a just cause, nor can the unlawful resort to force by one party release its opponent from compliance with IHL. This principle is crucial to humanitarian protection because it ensures that civilians and other protected persons do not lose their legal protections merely because the circumstances surrounding the conflict are politically contested.

The separation also has implications for national legislation. Domestic legislation implementing IHL should not be designed merely as an instrument for legitimising governmental military operations. Rather, it should establish objective rules applicable to State forces and, where legally appropriate, provide for the prosecution of individuals responsible for serious violations. The objective should be compliance with humanitarian standards rather than political validation of military conduct.

• Classification of Armed Conflicts

The applicability of particular IHL rules depends significantly upon the classification of the conflict. Contemporary IHL distinguishes principally between international armed conflicts (IACs) and non-international armed conflicts (NIACs).[39] An international armed conflict generally arises where there is resort to armed force between two or more States. By contrast, a non-international armed conflict concerns protracted armed violence between governmental authorities and organised armed groups, or between such groups within a State, provided that the relevant threshold of organisation and intensity is satisfied.[40] This distinction is highly relevant to Nigeria because many contemporary security challenges have occurred within Nigerian territory and have involved governmental security forces and organised non-State armed groups. The legal classification of a particular situation must, however, be determined according to the factual circumstances and applicable IHL criteria rather than simply by the political terminology employed by government or armed groups.

Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions provides a minimum humanitarian regime applicable to certain non-international armed conflicts. It requires persons taking no active part in hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and persons placed hors de combat, to be treated humanely and prohibits specified forms of violence and degrading treatment.[41] Additional Protocol II further develops the protection applicable to certain non-international armed conflicts, particularly with respect to the protection of civilians and persons affected by internal armed violence.[42] Its application, however, is subject to the conditions prescribed by the Protocol. The existence of common Article 3 and, where applicable, Additional Protocol II illustrates that international humanitarian law is not confined to traditional interstate warfare.

• Fundamental Principles Governing the Conduct of Hostilities

The legal architecture of IHL is built upon several fundamental principles. Among the most important are distinction, proportionality and precaution. The principle of distinction requires parties to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.[43] Civilians may not be directly targeted merely because they are located within an area affected by hostilities. Civilian objects likewise enjoy protection unless and for such time as they become military objectives under the applicable rules. The principle of proportionality addresses incidental civilian harm. An attack is prohibited where it may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.[44] The rule is particularly important in contemporary conflicts, where military operations frequently occur in or around populated areas.

The precautionary principle requires parties to take feasible precautions in the planning and conduct of military operations to minimise civilian harm.[45] Commanders and other persons responsible for attacks must therefore take reasonable steps to verify targets, select appropriate means and methods of attack and, where circumstances permit, provide effective advance warnings. These principles have significant domestic legislative implications. A national legal framework implementing IHL must ensure that members of the armed forces and other relevant security personnel receive adequate training concerning these rules. It should also establish mechanisms for investigating allegations that the rules have been violated and provide appropriate sanctions where violations amount to criminal offences.

• Domestic Implementation of International Humanitarian Law

The effectiveness of IHL depends significantly upon domestic implementation. International treaties may establish obligations, but compliance requires domestic institutions capable of translating those obligations into operational rules. The ICRC identifies a number of national measures necessary for effective implementation of IHL, including legislation, administrative measures, military instructions, dissemination and training, identification and protection of protected persons and objects, and mechanisms for investigating and repressing serious violations.[46] This demonstrates that implementation is broader than treaty ratification.

Nigeria’s constitutional framework is particularly significant in this respect. Section 12(1) of the Constitution provides that no treaty between the Federation and another country shall have the force of law to the extent that it has not been enacted into law by the National Assembly.[47] Consequently, legislative domestication is central to the implementation of treaty-based IHL obligations. Nigeria has enacted the Geneva Conventions Act, which gives domestic effect to the four Geneva Conventions and establishes offences and penalties relating to grave breaches and other matters addressed by the Conventions.[48] This represents an important foundation for the domestic enforcement of IHL. Nevertheless, the changing character of armed conflict and the emergence of increasingly complex internal security situations raise questions concerning whether the existing framework is sufficiently comprehensive. Domestic implementation should ideally extend beyond criminal sanctions. It should encompass military manuals and operational directives, education and training, investigation procedures, command responsibility, protection of humanitarian personnel, safeguards for detainees and mechanisms for cooperation among military, police, prosecutorial and judicial authorities.

• The Role of National Legislatures in Embedding IHL

National legislatures occupy a pivotal position in the domestic implementation of humanitarian law. Their role is not limited to enacting legislation after international treaties have been ratified. Legislatures can proactively examine the compatibility of existing domestic laws with IHL, identify gaps and establish mechanisms for continuing implementation. This legislative function is especially important where armed conflicts occur within a State’s territory. Domestic institutions remain the first line of protection for civilians. International mechanisms are generally complementary and cannot substitute for a functioning national legal system.

• IHL Compliance as a Component of Conflict Management

The embedding of IHL within a national conflict-management framework offers an important strategic advantage. Conflict management is often discussed principally in terms of mediation, negotiation and settlement. Yet the humanitarian conduct of parties during conflict can directly affect the prospects for successful settlement. Where parties respect humanitarian rules, civilian casualties and displacement may be reduced, humanitarian access may be facilitated and the social conditions necessary for negotiation may be preserved. Conversely, systematic attacks against civilians, unlawful detention, torture or destruction of civilian infrastructure can intensify grievances and make reconciliation considerably more difficult.

IHL compliance should therefore be regarded as a conflict-management measure as well as a humanitarian obligation. This does not alter the legal character of IHL, but it recognises its practical contribution to creating conditions under which conflict can eventually be brought to an end.

• Post-Conflict Accountability, Reconciliation and Sustainable Peace

The relationship between IHL and peace does not end when armed hostilities cease. Post-conflict societies must address the consequences of violence, including deaths, displacement, destruction of property, trauma, institutional breakdown and mistrust between communities.[49] Accountability for serious violations can contribute to rebuilding confidence in public institutions, provided that it is administered fairly and without discrimination. This is where IHL intersects with transitional justice. Transitional justice encompasses judicial and non-judicial measures, including prosecutions, truth-seeking, reparations, institutional reform and other mechanisms designed to address legacies of widespread human-rights violations and conflict.[50] The precise combination of measures required will depend upon the circumstances of each conflict.

A legislative framework for institutional peace should therefore provide mechanisms capable of continuing beyond the cessation of hostilities. It should address investigation and prosecution of serious violations, protection of victims and witnesses, reparations where appropriate, institutional reform and mechanisms for reconciliation. Without such measures, formal cessation of hostilities may produce only negative peace while leaving underlying grievances unresolved.

5. NIGERIA’S CONSTITUTIONAL AND LEGAL FRAMEWORK FOR INSTITUTIONAL PEACE

Nigeria’s legal framework for institutional peace is founded principally upon the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), supplemented by legislation dealing with national security, humanitarian protection, human rights, criminal justice, dispute resolution and the maintenance of public order. The Constitution is particularly significant because it establishes the foundational relationship between the State, its institutions and the people. It declares the Constitution supreme and binding on all authorities and persons throughout the Federation, thereby placing governmental power within a legal framework rather than leaving the maintenance of peace to executive discretion.[51]

The constitutional architecture is complemented by a considerable body of legislation directed at particular dimensions of conflict prevention, public security and humanitarian protection. These include the Geneva Conventions Act, the Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, the Armed Forces Act, the Police Act 2020, the Nigerian Human Rights Commission Act 1995 (as amended), the Administration of Criminal Justice Act 2015 and legislation establishing institutions concerned with mediation, reconciliation and peacebuilding. The principal challenge, however, is not necessarily the absence of legislation but the fragmentation, coordination and implementation of the existing legal framework.

• Constitutional Foundations of Institutional Peace

The constitutional foundation of institutional peace begins with the fundamental character of Nigeria as a constitutional democracy. Section 14(1) of the Constitution provides that the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall be a State based on the principles of democracy and social justice. Section 14(2)(b) further declares that the security and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose of government.[52] This provision is particularly relevant to the present inquiry because it establishes security and welfare not merely as policy preferences but as constitutional objectives of government. Section 17 further provides that the State social order shall be founded on ideals of freedom, equality and justice, while subsection (2) requires that human dignity be maintained and enhanced and that governmental actions be directed towards ensuring equal opportunity.[53] The provision is important because institutional peace cannot be reduced to physical security. It must also encompass the conditions of equality, justice and dignity that enable citizens to participate meaningfully in the constitutional order.

Although the provisions in Chapter II of the Constitution are non-justiciable under section 6(6)(c), they nevertheless establish important constitutional values against which legislation and public policy concerning peace and institutional stability should be assessed.

• Constitutional Protection of Fundamental Rights

The fundamental-rights provisions in Chapter IV constitute another important foundation of institutional peace. The rights to life, dignity of the human person, personal liberty, fair hearing, privacy, freedom of thought, conscience and religion, freedom of expression and peaceful assembly and association provide constitutional safeguards against arbitrary governmental action.[54] These rights are particularly important in conflict-sensitive environments. The State may legitimately impose certain restrictions in the interests of public safety and national security, but such restrictions must operate within constitutional limits. Section 45 permits laws derogating from specified rights in circumstances reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or for protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons.[55] The constitutional structure therefore attempts to reconcile security requirements with individual rights.

This balance is critical to institutional peace. Excessive restriction of rights in the name of security may generate grievances and undermine institutional legitimacy, while inadequate security measures may permit violence to spread. The legislative task is consequently to establish rules capable of protecting both public security and individual liberty.

The constitutional protection of human dignity under section 34 is particularly relevant to the implementation of IHL. Torture and cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment are prohibited, subject to the constitutional framework. The protection complements humanitarian rules governing the treatment of persons affected by armed conflict, particularly persons who are hors de combat, detainees and other protected persons.

• Constitutional Framework for Peaceful Resolution of Disputes

The judiciary constitutes a central element of Nigeria’s institutional peace architecture. Section 6 vests judicial powers in the courts established for the Federation and the States, while section 36 guarantees fair hearing in the determination of civil rights and obligations and criminal responsibility.[56] These provisions ensure that disputes can be channelled through formal legal processes rather than resolved through self-help or violence. The importance of judicial dispute resolution is particularly evident in a federation. Conflicts may arise between different levels of government, public institutions, political actors, corporations, communities and individuals. Courts provide a constitutionally recognised mechanism for resolving such disputes according to law.

The effectiveness of this constitutional mechanism depends, however, on judicial independence, access to justice and enforcement of judgments. Institutional peace is weakened where litigants cannot obtain timely judicial remedies or where governmental institutions fail to comply with judicial decisions. Legislative and administrative measures aimed at improving judicial effectiveness are therefore indirectly important to conflict prevention.

• The Geneva Conventions Act

The Geneva Conventions Act, Cap G3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, represents the principal Nigerian statute expressly giving domestic effect to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949.[57] The Act was originally enacted as the Geneva Conventions Act 1960 and provides for the implementation of Nigeria’s obligations concerning the Conventions. The Act is significant because it moves IHL from the level of international obligation into the sphere of domestic criminal and procedural law. It identifies grave breaches of the Conventions and provides for their punishment. It also contains provisions relating to legal proceedings involving protected persons and regulates the use of the Red Cross and other protected emblems.[58] The Act consequently provides an important legal basis for accountability for serious violations of IHL. Its existence demonstrates that Nigeria recognised the importance of domestic humanitarian legislation at an early stage of its post-independence legal development.

Nevertheless, the age and limited scope of the legislation raise questions concerning its adequacy in addressing the contemporary humanitarian exigencies. The Act principally implements the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. The contemporary framework of IHL, however, includes subsequent treaty developments, customary international law and rules relevant to non-international armed conflicts. The legislative framework should therefore be examined periodically to determine whether it adequately reflects the contemporary scope of Nigeria’s humanitarian obligations.

• The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022

The Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022 constitutes another major component of Nigeria’s contemporary security legislation. The Act repealed the Terrorism (Prevention) Act 2011 and established what it describes as an effective, unified and comprehensive legal, regulatory and institutional framework for the detection, prevention, prohibition, prosecution and punishment of terrorism and terrorism financing.[59] The legislation is significant to institutional peace because terrorism can destabilise governmental institutions, threaten civilian populations, disrupt economic activity and undermine public confidence in the State. The Act provides a statutory framework for addressing terrorism-related conduct and establishes offences and institutional responsibilities relevant to counter-terrorism.

The relationship between counter-terrorism law and IHL is particularly important where counter-terrorism operations occur in circumstances amounting to armed conflict. The existence of terrorism legislation does not displace applicable IHL. Rather, the relevant legal regimes may operate concurrently, subject to their respective fields of application. Nigerian legislation should therefore ensure that counter-terrorism operations are conducted consistently with applicable humanitarian and human-rights obligations.

7. LEGISLATIVE MECHANISMS FOR CONFLICT PREVENTION AND MANAGEMENT

The principal purpose of a legislative framework for institutional peace should not be confined to responding to conflict after violence has occurred. An effective legal order must also create mechanisms capable of identifying sources of tension, preventing disputes from escalating, facilitating peaceful settlement and establishing institutional procedures for managing conflicts when prevention fails. Legislation therefore occupies a central position in the transition from an essentially reactive approach to conflict management towards a preventive and institutionally embedded peace architecture.[60] Conflict prevention is particularly important in a plural and constitutionally decentralised State such as Nigeria. Differences relating to ethnicity, religion, political competition, access to land and natural resources, communal boundaries, indigene-settler relations, economic inequality and competition for political power can become sources of instability when they are not effectively managed through legitimate institutions. The objective of legislation should consequently be to provide predictable mechanisms through which competing interests can be accommodated before disagreement develops into violence.[61]

International humanitarian law complements this preventive framework but does not itself constitute a comprehensive conflict-prevention system. IHL generally becomes applicable once the requisite threshold for an armed conflict has been met. Conflict prevention, by contrast, seeks to prevent disputes from reaching that threshold in the first place. The legislative framework must therefore combine constitutional governance, democratic accountability, mediation, alternative dispute resolution, early warning, human rights protection and humanitarian safeguards. This integrated approach is necessary if legislation is to contribute meaningfully to institutional peace.

• Legislative Regulation of Conflict Prevention

The first legislative mechanism for conflict prevention is the establishment of institutions and procedures that provide peaceful alternatives to violence. The Constitution itself provides a foundational framework by recognising the security and welfare of the people as the primary purpose of government and by establishing democratic institutions through which political authority is exercised.[62] The constitutional commitment to democracy, social justice, national integration and equal opportunity provides an important normative foundation for preventing conflicts arising from exclusion or arbitrary exercise of public power.

Legislation should build upon these constitutional principles by creating accessible mechanisms through which grievances can be raised and resolved. Courts, administrative tribunals, human rights institutions, electoral bodies, mediation institutions and traditional dispute-resolution mechanisms can all perform preventive functions when their procedures are credible and accessible.

The effectiveness of these institutions depends substantially upon public confidence. Where citizens believe that legal institutions are incapable of addressing grievances, there is a greater risk that individuals or communities will resort to self-help. Legislative policy should therefore focus not merely on establishing institutions but also on ensuring their independence, accessibility, adequate funding and procedural effectiveness.

• Early Warning and Early Response Mechanisms

A modern conflict-management framework should incorporate legislative mechanisms for early identification of threats to peace. Conflict rarely emerges without warning. Political exclusion, inflammatory speech, communal mobilisation, displacement, hate propaganda, attacks on particular communities, proliferation of armed groups and deterioration in relations between competing groups may provide indicators of impending violence. Early-warning systems seek to identify such indicators and facilitate timely intervention. The African Union has developed continental peace and security mechanisms that emphasise conflict prevention, including the Continental Early Warning System and the Panel of the Wise.[63] The Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union expressly recognises conflict prevention and anticipatory action as important components of the continental peace and security architecture.[64]

Nigeria’s domestic legal framework can strengthen this approach by providing a clear statutory basis for coordination among institutions responsible for collecting, analysing and responding to conflict indicators. Such a framework should define institutional responsibilities, establish information-sharing mechanisms and provide procedures for escalating credible warnings to the appropriate authorities. Early warning should, however, be accompanied by early response. Information without institutional capacity to act does little to prevent conflict. A legislative framework should therefore connect early-warning information with concrete response options, including mediation, deployment of preventive security measures, humanitarian assistance, community dialogue and, where appropriate, judicial or administrative intervention.

• Mediation, Negotiation and Alternative Dispute Resolution

Mediation and other forms of alternative dispute resolution constitute important legislative tools for conflict management. Courts remain indispensable to the rule of law, but not every conflict is best resolved through adversarial litigation. Community disputes, commercial disputes, land conflicts, family disputes and certain political or institutional disagreements may be more effectively addressed through negotiated settlement. Nigeria has increasingly recognised the importance of alternative dispute resolution through legislation and institutional development. The Arbitration and Mediation Act 2023 provides a contemporary statutory framework for arbitration and mediation in Nigeria.[65] Although principally concerned with civil and commercial disputes, the broader legislative recognition of mediation demonstrates the value of consensual mechanisms for resolving disputes outside conventional adjudication.

For institutional peace, the concept should be extended beyond commercial dispute resolution. Legislation could support mediation structures capable of addressing communal, inter-group and institutional disputes before they escalate. Such mechanisms should be designed to complement rather than replace the formal justice system. Their legitimacy would depend upon fairness, voluntariness where appropriate, respect for fundamental rights and the availability of judicial oversight.

Traditional institutions can also play a role in conflict management, particularly at the community level. Nigeria’s diverse customary structures have historically provided mechanisms for reconciliation and settlement of disputes. Their integration into a contemporary conflict-management framework should, however, be accompanied by appropriate safeguards to ensure consistency with constitutional rights and statutory law.[66]

7.4 Legislative Protection of Fundamental Rights

Conflict prevention cannot be separated from human rights protection. Persistent violations of fundamental rights may themselves become sources of instability, particularly where individuals or communities perceive State institutions as discriminatory, arbitrary or inaccessible. The constitutional protection of rights to life, dignity, personal liberty, fair hearing, freedom of expression, peaceful assembly and association, freedom of movement and freedom from discrimination therefore constitutes an important preventive mechanism.[67]

The Constitution also provides limitations and derogation mechanisms in circumstances prescribed by law. Section 45 permits certain restrictions on specified rights where such restrictions are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society in the interests of defence, public safety, public order, public morality or public health, or for protecting the rights and freedoms of other persons.[68] The legislative challenge is to ensure that security measures do not become instruments of arbitrary repression. This is particularly relevant in counter-insurgency and counter-terrorism operations. Excessive or unlawful use of force, arbitrary detention, collective punishment, discrimination or destruction of civilian property may intensify grievances and contribute to further conflict. Legislative frameworks should therefore require security institutions to operate within clearly defined legal limits and establish effective mechanisms for accountability where those limits are violated.

• Electoral Legislation and Political Conflict Prevention

Electoral competition constitutes another important area in which legislation can contribute to institutional peace. In democratic societies, political competition should provide a peaceful mechanism for competing interests to obtain governmental authority. When electoral institutions are perceived as biased, ineffective or incapable of resolving disputes, political competition may become a catalyst for violence.

Nigeria’s Electoral Act 2022 provides the principal statutory framework governing federal elections and important aspects of electoral administration.[69] The legislation contains provisions concerning electoral processes, political parties, election officials, accreditation, transmission and collation of results, electoral offences and dispute-related procedures. The credibility of these mechanisms has direct implications for political stability.

• Parliamentary Oversight and Accountability

The legislature itself is an important conflict-management institution. Through legislation, budgeting, oversight and representation, the National Assembly can influence the policies and institutional practices that affect national peace and security. Parliamentary oversight is particularly important in relation to security and emergency powers. Extensive security powers without effective oversight can create conditions for abuse, while insufficient oversight may permit institutional failures to continue unchecked. The Constitution’s separation of powers provides the basis for legislative scrutiny of executive action.[70]

The National Assembly can also contribute to conflict prevention by requiring relevant ministries, departments and agencies to report on conflict trends, internally displaced persons, humanitarian conditions, security operations and implementation of peacebuilding programmes. Legislative committees can conduct inquiries into recurring conflicts and use their findings to propose legal or institutional reforms. Budgetary oversight is equally important. Peacebuilding institutions cannot function effectively where they are chronically underfunded. Legislative appropriation should therefore be informed by evidence concerning the resources required for early warning, mediation, judicial administration, humanitarian response, security-sector accountability and post-conflict reconstruction.

• Post-Conflict Justice and Reconciliation

Conflict management does not end when active violence stops. Sustainable peace requires mechanisms for addressing the consequences of conflict. These may include criminal accountability, truth-seeking, reparations, reconciliation, institutional reform and reconstruction. The United Nations has recognised transitional justice as an important component of restoring the rule of law and addressing serious violations in conflict and post-conflict societies.[71]

Nigeria’s legislative framework should therefore provide mechanisms capable of addressing both individual accountability and collective reconciliation. Prosecution of serious violations is necessary to combat impunity, but criminal justice alone may not resolve the underlying grievances that generated conflict.

Legislation may establish truth and reconciliation commissions, reparations programmes, special investigative mechanisms or other transitional justice institutions where circumstances justify them. Such mechanisms should complement, rather than automatically replace, ordinary criminal justice for serious international crimes.

The integration of transitional justice into legislative policy is particularly important because institutional peace requires confidence that past violations will not simply be forgotten. A credible legal response to past abuses can contribute to deterrence, acknowledgement of victims and restoration of trust in public institutions.

6. GAPS AND CHALLENGES IN THE EXISTING LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK

The preceding analysis demonstrates that Nigeria possesses a substantial body of constitutional, statutory and institutional provisions relevant to the maintenance of peace and the regulation of armed conflict. The Constitution establishes the foundational principles of security, national integration, fundamental rights, separation of powers and peaceful governance. Statutes such as the Geneva Conventions Act, Armed Forces Act, Police Act 2020, Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, National Human Rights Commission Act and Electoral Act 2022 provide additional components of the legal framework. Nigeria is also a party to major international and regional instruments concerned with humanitarian protection, human rights, conflict prevention and peace and security.

The existence of these instruments, however, does not necessarily amount to a coherent legislative architecture for institutional peace. The principal challenge lies in the relationship between the different components of the framework and the extent to which they are implemented in practice. A legal system may contain numerous laws addressing different aspects of conflict while still lacking a comprehensive mechanism for preventing conflict, protecting civilians, prosecuting violations and restoring institutional confidence. Nigeria’s framework therefore requires examination not only in terms of the laws that exist but also in terms of the gaps, inconsistencies and institutional limitations that affect their effectiveness.

• Fragmentation of the Legal Framework

One of the principal challenges is fragmentation. The legal framework relevant to institutional peace is distributed across the Constitution, criminal legislation, security legislation, electoral legislation, human rights legislation, humanitarian legislation and international instruments. These laws were enacted at different periods and for different purposes. They do not always operate as components of a single, integrated conflict-management framework. The Geneva Conventions Act illustrates this difficulty. Although it provides an important domestic basis for implementing aspects of the Geneva Conventions, it does not constitute a comprehensive codification of contemporary IHL. Other relevant rules may instead be located in the Armed Forces Act, criminal legislation, constitutional provisions, judicial decisions and Nigeria’s international commitments.

Fragmentation can create uncertainty concerning the applicable legal regime. A particular incident occurring during a security operation may raise questions under constitutional law, criminal law, counter-terrorism law, military law, human rights law and IHL simultaneously. Where the relationship between these regimes is not sufficiently clear, investigators, prosecutors, military personnel and courts may encounter difficulties in identifying the appropriate legal rules.

• Incomplete Domestic Implementation of IHL

A second major challenge concerns the constitutional distinction between international obligation and domestic enforceability. Nigeria’s ratification of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols establishes international obligations, but section 12(1) of the Constitution requires treaties to be enacted domestically before they acquire the force of law in Nigeria.[72]

The resulting implementation question is particularly significant for the Additional Protocols. Although Nigeria has ratified Additional Protocols I and II, the Geneva Conventions Act remains the principal dedicated domestic legislation. There is therefore a strong case for reviewing whether the full range of relevant obligations contained in the Protocols has been adequately translated into domestic law.

This issue should not be reduced to the formal incorporation of treaty provisions. Effective implementation requires legislation establishing offences where necessary, identifying responsible institutions, prescribing procedures, protecting victims and witnesses, regulating investigations and providing appropriate remedies. Without these mechanisms, international obligations may remain insufficiently connected to domestic enforcement.

• Absence of a Comprehensive Domestic War Crimes Framework

A related challenge is the absence of a single comprehensive Nigerian legislative framework dealing expressly with war crimes and other serious violations of IHL. The Geneva Conventions Act addresses grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, but the contemporary law of armed conflict encompasses a broader range of prohibited conduct. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, for example, identifies genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes and aggression as crimes within the jurisdiction of the Court.[73] Its provisions on war crimes encompass serious violations of the Geneva Conventions as well as other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts.

The absence of a comprehensive domestic framework can produce difficulties in classification and prosecution. Conduct may constitute a serious violation of IHL but may not correspond neatly to an existing domestic criminal offence. This creates the possibility of gaps in accountability. A modern implementing statute could address this problem by defining relevant war crimes in accordance with Nigeria’s international obligations and applicable customary international law. It should also establish appropriate penalties, modes of responsibility and jurisdictional rules.

• Inadequate Institutional Coordination

Nigeria’s peace and security architecture involves numerous institutions, including the National Assembly, Presidency, armed forces, police, intelligence and security agencies, courts, prosecutors, the National Human Rights Commission, humanitarian institutions and state-level authorities. The multiplicity of institutions creates potential for overlap and gaps. Conflict prevention frequently requires information to move rapidly between institutions. An early warning identified by a local or community institution may need to reach security authorities, humanitarian agencies and political decision-makers. Similarly, evidence of human rights or IHL violations may need to move from monitoring institutions to investigators, prosecutors and courts.

Where there are no clear statutory coordination mechanisms, institutional responses may become delayed or inconsistent. The problem may be particularly acute in conflicts involving both federal and state authorities.

• Federal-State Coordination

Nigeria’s federal structure creates another significant challenge. The Constitution distributes legislative and executive responsibilities between the Federation and the States. Although the Federal Government retains primary responsibility for defence and several aspects of national security, state governments exercise substantial responsibilities relating to public order, administration, local governance and social services.

Many conflicts, however, occur at the community level. Communal disputes, land conflicts, political violence and local resource disputes may therefore require both federal and state intervention. Effective institutional peace requires coordination between these levels of government. The challenge is that differences in institutional capacity, funding and policy priorities may produce uneven responses. A federal conflict-management policy may not be implemented uniformly across the States. Likewise, local conflict-resolution structures may operate without sufficient coordination with federal security and humanitarian institutions.

• Weaknesses in Conflict Early-Warning and Preventive Mechanisms

Another important challenge is the gap between the availability of conflict information and the ability of institutions to act upon it. Nigeria possesses governmental and non-governmental structures capable of collecting information about security and social conditions, but the effectiveness of early warning depends upon timely analysis and response. An effective legislative framework should establish a clear chain from early warning to early action. It should identify which institution receives warnings, the circumstances requiring intervention, the measures that may be adopted and the authority responsible for initiating those measures.

The framework should also incorporate local knowledge. National institutions may overlook emerging community-level tensions that traditional leaders, civil society organisations and local organisations can identify at an earlier stage. A decentralised early-warning system connected to national institutions would therefore provide broader coverage.

7. Recommendations Addressing the Six Challenges Identified in Section 6
   • Fragmentation of the Legal Framework

Enact a Comprehensive Institutional Peace and Conflict Management Act to consolidate and harmonise all legislation relating to conflict prevention, management, resolution, and peacebuilding into a single coherent framework. Conduct a legislative audit through the Nigerian Law Reform Commission to identify inconsistencies and gaps, and develop a National Peace Architecture Policy Framework to guide legislative and administrative action across all levels of government.

• • Incomplete Domestic Implementation of IHL

Enact a Comprehensive IHL Implementation Act incorporating all obligations under the Geneva Conventions, Additional Protocols I and II, and other relevant instruments, and explicitly domesticate Additional Protocols I and II in accordance with section 12(1) of the Constitution. Establish a Standing Legislative Committee on IHL Implementation and develop a National IHL Implementation Strategy addressing legislation, training, investigation procedures, and institutional cooperation.

• Absence of a Comprehensive Domestic War Crimes Framework

Enact a dedicated War Crimes Act defining war crimes in accordance with the Rome Statute, customary international law, and Nigeria’s international obligations, with clear jurisdictional rules and modes of responsibility. Establish a specialised War Crimes Investigation and Prosecution Unit, include robust victim and witness protection provisions, and ensure complementarity with the International Criminal Court.

• Inadequate Institutional Coordination

Establish a statutory National Peace and Security Coordination Council chaired by the President or Vice-President to coordinate conflict prevention and management across all levels of government. Define clear statutory coordination mechanisms and information-sharing protocols, establish a Joint Conflict Early Warning and Response Centre, and strengthen the National Human Rights Commission’s coordination role.

• Federal-State Coordination

Develop a National Framework for Federal-State Conflict Management Coordination in collaboration with the Nigeria Governors’ Forum, clearly defining roles and responsibilities of federal and state governments. Establish State-Level Peace and Security Councils, provide federal technical and financial support to states, and strengthen local government and community-level conflict resolution mechanisms with appropriate constitutional safeguards.

• Weaknesses in Conflict Early-Warning and Preventive Mechanisms

Enact a statutory Early Warning and Early Response Framework establishing clear triggers for preventive intervention and identifying institutional responsibilities for monitoring and response. Establish a decentralised early warning system incorporating local knowledge, develop clear response protocols connecting warnings to concrete actions, and provide adequate funding through evidence-based legislative appropriation.

Presenter’s Email: amudakannikeabiodun@gmail.com , Presenter’s Telephone No: 08033256756

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. PRIMARY SOURCES
2. Constitution

1. Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended).
2. Statutes
3. Armed Forces Act, Cap A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
4. Electoral Act 2022.
5. Geneva Conventions Act, Cap G3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.
6. National Human Rights Commission Act 1995 (as amended).
7. Nigeria: Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022.
8. International Instruments
9. African Union, Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union 2002.
10. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field 1949.
11. Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea 1949.
12. Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949.
13. Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949.
14. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) 1977.
15. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) 1977.
16. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998.
17. Cases
18. Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14.
19. SECONDARY SOURCES
20. Books
21. Dinstein Y, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (6th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017).
22. Ramsbotham O, Woodhouse T and Miall H, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (4th edn, Polity Press 2016).
23. Sassòli M, International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019).
24. Solis GD, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press 2021).
25. Journal Articles
26. Adie EI, ‘Conflict, Conflict Resolution and Conflict Management: A Literature Review’ Advance Journal of Management and Social Sciences (2025) 9(3).
27. Angelova P, ‘Conflict Prevention and Resolution: Key Approaches’ Business & Management Compass (2025) 69(3) 48-55.
28. Arvamovic D, ‘Peace and the Rule of Law: A Brief Theoretical Overview’ Nauka bezdednost policija (2022) 27(2) 95-105.
29. Brown CT and Okogbule NS, ‘Peace-Building and Conflict Management in Communities through Law: A Panacea for National Development’ Journal of Jurisprudence, International Law and Contemporary Legal Issues (2023) 17(2) 87.
30. Chalisey KC, ‘Relevance of International Humanitarian Law in International Relations: National and International Contexts’ Nepal Council of World Affairs Journal (2024) 55(1) 53-59.
31. Droege C, ‘International Humanitarian Law and Peace: A Brief Overview’ International Review of the Red Cross (2025) 106(927) 989-1001.
32. Galtung J, ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’ Journal of Peace Research (1969) 6(3) 183-184.
33. Reports and Policy Documents
34. African Union, African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) (African Union Commission 2021).
35. International Committee of the Red Cross, The ICRC: Its Mission and Work (ICRC 2019).
36. International Committee of the Red Cross, National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Factsheet (ICRC).
37. United Nations Security Council, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, UN Doc S/2004/616 (23 August 2004).

 

1. Online Sources
2. African Union, ‘The Peace & Security Council’ https://www.au.int/en/psc accessed 15 September 2026.
3. African Union, ‘Conflict Resolution, Peace & Security’ https://www.au.int/en/programs/conflict-resolution-peace-security accessed 15 September 2026.
4. African Union, ‘About the African Governance Architecture’ https://www.au.int/en/aga/about accessed 15 September 2026.
5. United Nations, ‘Rule of Law and Peace and Security’ https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/en/rule-of-law-and-peace-and-security accessed 15 September 2026.
6. United Nations, ‘What is the Rule of Law’ https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/en/what-is-the-rule-of-law accessed 15 September 2026.

 

[1] Weinrib J, ‘The modern constitutional state. In: Dimensions of Dignity: The Theory and Practice of Modern Constitutional Law. Cambridge Studies in Constitutional Law (Cambridge University Press 2016 137-1760).

[2] United Nations, ‘Rule of Law and Peace and Security’ <https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/en/rule-of-law-and-peace-and-security> accessed 15 September 2026 at 5:29PM.

[3] D Arvamovic, ‘Peace and the Rule of Law: A Brief Theoretical Overview’ Nauka bezdednost policija (2022) (27) (2) 95 – 105.

[4] O Ramsbotham, T Woodhouse and H Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (4th edn, Polity Press 2016).

[5] GD Solis, The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (3rd edn, Cambridge University Press 2021).

[6] KC Chalisey, ‘Relevance of International Humanitarian Law in International Relations: National and International Contexts’ Nepal Council of World Affairs Journal (2024) (55) (01) 53 – 59.

[7] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, s 19.

[8] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, s 12(1).

[9] Geneva Conventions Act, CAP G3 Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, ss 1–11.

[10] Solis (n 5)

[11] African Union, African Peace and Security Architecture (APSA) (African Union Commission 2021).

[12] Protocol Relating to the Establishment of the Peace and Security Council of the African Union 2002, arts 2, 6, 11 and 12; African Union, ‘The Peace & Security Council’.

[13] Johan Galtung, ‘Violence, Peace, and Peace Research’ Journal of Peace Research (1969) (6) (3) 183–184.

[14] EI Adie, ‘Conflict, Conflict Resolution and Conflict Management: A Literature Review’ Advance Journal of Management and Social Sciences (2025) (9) (3).

[15] Oliver Ramsbotham, Tom Woodhouse and Hugh Miall, Contemporary Conflict Resolution: The Prevention, Management and Transformation of Deadly Conflicts (4th edn, Polity Press 2016).

[16] CT Brown, and NS Okogbule, ‘Peace-Building and Conflict Management in Communities through Law: A Panacea for National Development’ Journal of Jurisprudence, International Law and Contemporary Legal Issues (2023) (17) (2) 87.

[17] International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘What is International Humanitarian Law?’ (2022).

[18] Marco Sassòli, International Humanitarian Law: Rules, Controversies, and Solutions to Problems Arising in Warfare (Edward Elgar Publishing 2019).

[19] Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, common arts 2 and 3; International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘How is “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law?’ (2024).

[20] rotocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) 1977, arts 48, 51 and 57; International Committee of the Red Cross, ‘Conduct of Hostilities and Protection of Civilians’.

[21] United Nations, ‘What is the Rule of Law’ <https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/en/what-is-the-rule-of-law> accessed 15 September 2026 at 5:49PM.

[22] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, ss 4–6.

[23] P Angelova, ‘Çonflict Prevention and Resolution: Key Approaches’ Business & Management Compass (2025) (69) (3) 48 – 55.

[24] African Union, ‘The Peace & Security Council’ <https://www.au.int/en/psc> accessed 15 September 2026 at 6:03PM.

[25] African Union, ‘Conflict Resolution, Peace & Security’ <https://www.au.int/en/programs/conflict-resolution-peace-security> accessed 15 September 2026 at 6:12PM.

[26] M Irvita, and A Asriani, ‘Transparency and Accountability in the Justice System

[27] United Nations, ‘Rule of Law and Peace and Security’, United Nations and the Rule of Law <https://www.un.org/ruleoflaw/en/rule-of-law-and-peace-and-security> accessed 15 September 2026.

[28] ibid.

[29] ibid, s 12(1).

[30] Geneva Conventions Act, Cap G3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, ss 1–11.

[31] United Nations, ‘Rule of Law and Peace and Security’,

[32] African Union, ‘About the African Governance Architecture’ <https://www.au.int/en/aga/about> accessed 15 September 2026 at 6:29PM.

[33] International Committee of the Red Cross, What is International Humanitarian Law? (ICRC 2004).

[34] C Droege, ‘International Humanitarian Law and Peace: A Brief Overview’ International Review of the Red Cross (2025) (106) (927) 989 – 1001.

[35] Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field 1949; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea 1949; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War 1949; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949.

[36] Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v United States of America) (Merits) [1986] ICJ Rep 14, 114–115.

[37] Geneva Conventions 1949, common arts 9/9/9/10; International Committee of the Red Cross, The ICRC: Its Mission and Work (ICRC 2019).

[38] Yoram Dinstein, War, Aggression and Self-Defence (6th edn, Cambridge University Press 2017) 4–7.

[39] Geneva Conventions 1949, common arts 2 and 3.

[40] International Committee of the Red Cross, How is the Term “Armed Conflict” Defined in International Humanitarian Law? (ICRC Opinion Paper, March 2008).

[41] Geneva Conventions 1949, common art 3.

[42] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II) 1977.

[43] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I) 1977, art 48.

[44] ibid, art 51(5)(b).

[45] ibid, art 57.

[46] International Committee of the Red Cross, National Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Factsheet (ICRC).

[47] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 12(1).

[48] Geneva Conventions Act, Cap G3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, ss 1–11.

[49] AH Alidemaj, A Maliqi, J Doone, and V Bytyci, ‘Compliance with International Humanitarian Law and Peacebuilding in Post-Conflict Kosovo’ Hasnuddin Law Review (2025) (11) 93).

[50] United Nations Security Council, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice Conin Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, UN Doc S/2004/616 (23 August 2004).

[51] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, s 1(1)–(3).

[52] ibid, s 14(1)–(2).

[53] ibid, s 17(1)–(2).

[54] ibid, ss 33–42.

[55] ibid, s 45.

[56] ibid, ss 6 and 36.

[57] Geneva Conventions Act, Cap G3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004. The Act expressly provides for giving effect in Nigeria to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949.

[58] Geneva Conventions Act, Cap G3, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004, ss 3–11.

[59] Terrorism (Prevention and Prohibition) Act 2022, s 1.

[60] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, ss 4–6.

[61] ibid, s 4 and Second and Third Schedules.

[62] ibid, s 12(1).

[63] ibid, ss 5, 215, 217 and 305.

[64] ibid, s 218(1).

[65] ibid, ss 6 and 36.

[66] ibid, s 217(2).

[67] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts 1977 (Additional Protocol I), arts 48, 51 and 57; Geneva Conventions 1949, common art 3.

[68] Armed Forces Act, Cap A20, Laws of the Federation of Nigeria 2004.

[69] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, s 214

[70] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999, ss 4–6.

[71] United Nations Security Council, The Rule of Law and Transitional Justice in Conflict and Post-Conflict Societies, UN Doc S/2004/616 (23 August 2004).

[72] Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria 1999 (as amended), s 12(1).

[73] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court 1998, arts 5 and 8.