itsnowornever

You are not wrong. Critics say that international law is mostly enforced by victor's justice. The Nuremberg tribunals are a famous example of victor's justice. Not to say that Nazis didn't deserve to be prosecuted, but rather very few crimes of the Allies were ever properly adjudicated. Today, most ICC prosecutions occur in Africa, whereas politically powerful nations on the UNSC are often criticized for being "above the law".

But the response to that is, it takes time, and International law is a work in progress. Racism didn't end with emancipation, or end of Jim Crow, or the civil rights act, but each of those things gave us progress. We have been able to hold State leaders accountable for crimes against civilians (e.g. Charles Taylor), we've indicted sitting Presidents (e.g. Omar al-Bashir) for crimes committed against his own people. This is a monumental development of international law in the context of human history. Proponents of IHL point to this, and other progress we've made in the last century, and conclude that it's a worthwhile effort. Is some enforcement better than no enforcement? What do you think?

EDIT: Hijacking my own top comment to share this free fundamentals of IHL online lecture from the DC Bar/Red Cross if anyone wants to learn more. (Add to cart, it's free). It's a few hours long, but it gives you everything you need to know to have a basic grasp of IHL.

Sanctions and seizing property does touch on international law in general, but not IHL, which only governs the conduct of hostilities in an armed conflict. I don't have any expertise in law related to international seizures or sanctions. Maybe someone else can chime in?

There's a legal principle called "superior/command responsibility", which holds commanders, or even political leaders responsible for crimes committed by their military. This has historical precedence. One of the most famous example being Charles Taylor, the President of Liberia, was convicted of Crimes against humanity by an international tribunal for crimes connected with his involvement in the civil war in Sierra Leon.

Ultimately though, its a very political question. IHL accountability often runs up against issues of sovereignty. In that international law is only as powerful as the political will of the community of nations, because there is no "global police force" to force sovereign nations to comply. Critics of the ICC often complain that prosecutions are solely against the "global south", African nations for example, while western nations are seldom subject to the same enforcement.

You are partially right. Civilian casualties are not automatically war crimes. Theoretically, there is an acceptable/legal level of collateral damage.

What I do want to point out is that family members who live with combatants are not legitimate targets. You cannot target civilians who are not directly participating in hostilities. Those family members may be collateral damage in an otherwise legal strike, but that strike technically targeted the combatant, not the family members.

Another example is civilians working in an arms factory. The factory is a legitimate target, because its building weapons, but the civilians inside are not. The factory CAN be targeted, and the civilians would just be collateral damage. What I mean by the civilians are not targets is that, as they leave work and go home, they cannot be targeted. In fact, IHL may require the belligerent to wait until evening, when the factory is empty of people, to attack it, precisely to avoid collateral damage.

Got interested in it in law school, got lucky with my first job. Now I serve as a JAG (military lawyer), and so naturally, we have opportunities to learn and practice IHL.

EDIT: If you are a law student, check out the Jean Pictet Competition, or Clara Barton competition, which are moot court competitions about IHL, and a great way to get in to the field.