Martial law is considered distinct from other legal entities – such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent in a conflict – which may provide additional legal limits to the conduct or justification of war. Interpretations of international humanitarian law change over time, which also affects the laws of war. The rules of war, or international humanitarian law as it is officially called, have many global norms that determine what can and cannot be possible during an armed conflict. The main raison d`être of international humanitarian law (IHL) is to maintain mortality in armed conflict, save lives and reduce poverty. To achieve this, IHL manages the way wars are fought by adapting two angles: weakening the enemy and limiting torment. The norms of war are universal. The Geneva Conventions (which form the core of IHL) have been endorsed by each of the 196 States. Few global agreements have this level of sponsorship. International humanitarian law is a set of rules aimed at limiting the impact of armed conflict.
It protects persons who are not or no longer taking part in hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. The distinction is a principle of international humanitarian law that governs the lawful use of force in armed conflict, according to which warring parties must distinguish between combatants and civilians. [a]  Modern martial law, in particular Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, prohibits attacking persons who parachute from an aircraft in distress, regardless of the area over which they are. Once they land in an enemy-controlled area, they must be given the opportunity to surrender before being attacked, unless it is obvious that they are performing an enemy act or attempting to escape. This prohibition does not apply to the dropping of airborne troops, special forces, commandos, spies, saboteurs, liaison officers and intelligence officers. Therefore, these parachute descenders are legitimate targets and can therefore be attacked even if their aircraft is in distress. It has often been said that creating laws for something as anarchic as war seems to be a lesson in absurdity. But based on the respect for customary international law by the warring parties over the centuries, it was thought that the codification of martial law would be beneficial. [ref.
needed] War is the ultimate game changer. It leads to a rupture of relations between States. This may include disruption of their legal relations as defined in the Treaties (and may even affect those with third countries). Many wars have radically realigned the underlying foundations of treaties so that their original raison d`être can no longer be maintained, leading to their amendment or even termination. History also provides examples, as recent as the conflicts of the twentieth century, of States that went to war to free themselves from the yoke of costly treaties. However, the resulting abolition was not always the automatic consequence of the outbreak of war. Some treaties continue to apply during armed conflict because of their purpose, as in the case of treaties aimed specifically at regulating the conduct of belligerents, such as the Geneva Conventions of 1949, or at guaranteeing the rights of neutrals in the event of war. In the Indian subcontinent, the Mahabharata describes a discussion among brother leaders about what constitutes acceptable behavior on a battlefield, an early example of the rule of proportionality: Editor`s note “Time does not heal all trauma” is a very relevant statement from the United Nations Children`s Fund given the negative impact of war on the psychological and emotional well-being of children. This article explains the impact of war not only on those who are directly involved in the war, but also on those who are not involved in the war.
It also explains the legal provisions relating to war at the international level and their main features. The author concludes by stating that war has not only negative economic but also psychological effects.