International Humanitarian Law and Philosophy of War Law implies order and restraint and may act to discourage war, whereas war means the lack of both. Efforts to manage war are as old as war itself. Nations usually have worked to limit the conduct of war with legal codes from the traditional occasions. Advocates of such efforts think that getting war inside the bounds of rational rules may in some way "humanize" war and control its brutalities. History reveals us that the introduction of an intricate legal regime has preceded apace using the growing savagery and destructiveness of contemporary war. Additionally, it props up view that ancient wars were lawless coupled with legal codes with humanitarian provisions like the modern laws and regulations of war. Nonetheless, the 2 World Wars lacked options that come with humanitarian law. They saw what the law states subverted towards the dictates of fight, reduced to some propaganda battlefield where belligerents organized attacks and counterattacks. Ultimately, what the law states unsuccessful to safeguard civilians from horrifying new weapons and tactics. Both World Wars exhibited the inadequacy from the existing laws and regulations of war to avoid the frequent commission of wartime atrocities. ( Adam Leitman Bailey ) Today, Worldwide humanitarian law (IHL) supplies a among laws and regulations managing the turn to pressure (jus ad bellum) and laws and regulations controlling wartime conduct (jus in bello). Jus in bello is further split into 'the humanitarian laws' (the Geneva laws and regulations), which safeguard specific classes of war victims for example prisoners of war and 'the laws and regulations of war' (the Hague laws and regulations), which regulate the general means and techniques of war. It's significant, the Geneva laws and regulations offered the interests from the more effective nations.