In 1952, Sir Hersch Lauterpacht, then the Whewell Professor of International Law at the University of Cambridge, famously suggested that ‘‘if international law is the vanishing point of law, the law of war is at the vanishing point of international law’’. The renowned scholar, who later served on the International Court of Justice, was merely echoing Cicero’s famous dictum, inter arma leges silent—in war the law is silent. Sadly, similar cynicism continues to animate discourse on the law of armed conflict. Although Lauterpacht’s grim assertion might well have seemed accurate in the aftermath of the Second World War’s horrific carnage, subsequent history has proven him wrong. Today, the laws of armed conflict are enforced in domestic courts, international ad hoc tribunals and the International Criminal Court, while the International Court of Justice appears increasingly comfortable dealing with use of force issues. A globalized media focuses attention on purported violations of the law of armed conflict, a robust network of non-governmental organizations exists to monitor hostilities and advocate on behalf of its victims, and governments are increasingly sensitized to the value of compliance with this body of law. True, law of armed conflict violations continue to occur; any hope of their demise in the foreseeable future is naïve. Nevertheless, in the twenty-first century, law exerts an influence on the behaviour of States and its military forces to an unprecedented degree