Abstract
The classification of armed conflicts under international humanitarian law (IHL) carries critical legal and humanitarian consequences, particularly regarding the applicability of the Geneva Conventions, the status of combatants, and the protection of civilians. Despite the rise of hybrid and asymmetric warfare, conflict typologies—namely, international armed conflict (IAC) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC)—are often treated as binary. This research addresses a significant gap by comparatively analyzing the armed conflicts in Palestine and Ukraine, both of which challenge existing classifications due to the involvement of non-state actors, foreign interventions, and varying degrees of territorial occupation and control. The study employs a doctrinal legal method, drawing on core international humanitarian law (IHL) instruments (e.g., the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols), key jurisprudence (Tadić, Nicaragua), and scholarly contributions. It integrates a comparative structure to highlight how variables such as actor typology, command structure, external support, and regional political dynamics influence conflict categorization. Findings show that both cases illustrate legal ambiguities: Ukraine presents a dominant International Armed Conflict (IAC) with Non-International Armed Conflict (NIAC) traits in eastern regions, while the Israel-Palestine conflict oscillates between NIAC and IAC criteria depending on the framing and territorial context. This analysis also reveals the strategic manipulation of legal categories by state and non-state actors, emphasizing that classification is not a purely legal determination but a politically loaded act with implications for accountability, legitimacy, and the regulation of force. Ultimately, the study argues that the binary IAC/NIAC framework struggles to reflect the complexity of modern warfare, underscoring the need for more adaptable and context-sensitive legal interpretations.