The observation that international humanitarian law (IHL) does not need more rules, but rather better enforcement mechanisms has become somewhat of a universally accepted mantra, as well as a call for action. Indeed, the last quarter of a century has witnessed considerable progress in the strengthening of IHL enforcement procedures: new international criminal courts with jurisdiction over certain IHL issues have been established; universal and other forms of criminal jurisdiction have been exercised by a growing number of states during and in the aftermath of numerous armed conflicts; and military lawyering has been expanded in scope and deepened in reach in many national militaries. In addition, it has become widely-accepted that international human rights law (IHRL) continues to apply in situation of armed conflict, at least with regard to persons situated under the effective control of the relevant states. As a result, IHRL courts and committees have increasingly asserted their authority over armed conflicts.