IntroductionThe purpose of this essay is to examine the question of legal force under international humanitarian law (IHL). It begins by providing the reader with an overview of international law. It explains how the majority of international laws are based on the consent of the nation in order to respect sovereignty. The next section focuses on armed conflict and war. A distinction is made between these two terms. The idea of ​​self-defense is considered an almost universally accepted reason for engaging in lawful armed conflict. Next comes the longest essay which deals with the laws of war. The laws of war are part of public international law concerned with acceptable justifications for armed conflict. The wide range of these laws and the activities they cover are explained, including declarations of war, treatment of prisoners of war, military necessity, and the banning of certain types of weapons. The general principles of the laws of war are discussed as proportionality, distinction, and military necessity. The principle of distinction is to determine whether an individual is a civilian or a combatant. This helps determine whether the use of armed force is lawful or not based on the proportionality of actions and military necessity. The last section before the conclusion covers violations of the laws of war, which constitute war crimes. International lawInternational law consists of rules accepted as applicable between countries. This law constitutes a framework for organizing stable international relations. This type of law is different from state-based legal systems. The law applies primarily to a country unlike a sin...... middle of paper ......l threat or violation. Any action involving the lawful use of force should only be taken in cases of military necessity. For example, the bombing of a civilian food production factory would generally be considered disproportionate and not a military necessity. However, if it turned out that the project also produced munitions for use in military weapons, then its destruction would be justified due to military necessity. This could also be true if the factory produced food used by military troops. This article found that the use of force can be lawful if it responds to military necessity, the action is proportional to the situation, and civilians do not suffer undue suffering. . Regarding unjustified suffering, this also applies to military personnel who should not be subjected to harsh treatment beyond that necessary to achieve military objectives..