Reflections from the Field #1
Conflict zones are – contrary to a common assumption – not a law-free territory but are often governed by fragmented and overlapping legal frameworks. Both civil society organizations and businesses need to manage and apply these systems carefully to avoid reputational and legal risks.
Over the years, I have repeatedly encountered a particular assumption in conflict settings: that once a government becomes abusive or contested, the legal framework of the state somehow ceases to matter for organizations and businesses operating there. A recent LinkedIn post on Syria that I came across exemplifies this assumption. In this post, an organizational consultant expressed her relief that after years of armed conflict, Syria “finally” has a legal framework “again” under the transitional government of President Ahmed al-Sharaa that organizations can rely on to guide their work.
Aside from the fact that Syria’s al-Sharaa government itself has been criticized for disregarding legal constraints and procedures, this statement implies that Syria lacked a domestic legal framework during its 14 years of armed conflict and organizations and businesses operated in a legal vacuum.
Why People Assume Legal Frameworks Disappear in Conflicts
The assumption that conflict zones lack applicable legal frameworks is a misconception based on several developments that contribute to a public perception of the domestic legal framework as unjust, illegitimate, and unworthy of adherence.
Abusive Governments
Governments have abused their legislative authority to enact legal provisions that blatantly violate fundamental rights. These often include unjustified states of emergency and, relatedly, excessive government-sanctioned restrictions on freedom of expression and assembly, due process guarantees, and the prohibition of torture.
Again, Syria serves as an example: under the al-Assad government, the so-called Counter-Terrorism Courts had the explicit power to try accused persons without adherence to procedural guarantees. This led to torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, and extrajudicial executions of many political opponents and their families.
Weaponization of the Law
Governments have instrumentalized the law to achieve political goals while failing to protect their own citizens. Dispossessing political opponents, restricting civil society and media organizations, and expanding the emergency and security apparatus are common forms of weaponizing the law.
For instance, after the 2021 coup, the Myanmar military junta enacted mandatory registration of overnight guests to justify house raids and carry out arrests without judicial warrants. Such weaponization of the law creates an aversion to using the law as a tool to achieve justice or even simply to adhere to it.
No Trust in Institutions
Citizens’ trust in government institutions often collapses in conflict situations. This stems from a combination of core issues, such as unaddressed historical failures and grievances, the collapse of state institutions and loss of the monopoly on the use of force in contested areas, widespread corruption and nepotism, as well as the above-mentioned misuse and weaponization of the law.
Sudan epitomizes this development. Public trust in state institutions has eroded in the recent conflict between the Sudanese Armed Forces and the rival Rapid Support Forces. Key public institutions have ceased to operate or been replaced with military command structures, while the conflict parties have instrumentalized the economy and peace processes for their military goals instead of prioritizing civilian needs and national unity. As a result, citizens often have no functioning government to turn to for support while dealing with immense challenges such as humanitarian crisis, instability, and economic collapse.
Moral Rejection of the State
Political opponents of abusive or contested governments often consider their governments “illegitimate”. Without entering the academic debates around governmental legitimacy, they colloquially understand such governments as failing to represent or protect the people. Consequently, they argue that the government’s legal framework is illegitimate too and that organizations and businesses do not need to follow it.
Why the Assumption Is Inaccurate
While the above-mentioned reasons are understandable, the assumption that organizations and businesses do not need to adhere to legal frameworks under abusive or contested governments is inaccurate. In some cases, it is even dangerous as it bears the risks of legal and reputational damages and may later expose them to challenges regarding the validity of their actions.
Domestic Laws Still Apply, Particularly Civil Law
Domestic laws do not cease to be valid and applicable because social unrest or armed conflict breaks out, or a government becomes contested or abusive. This is particularly true for civil law, such as contract, labor, or family law. These norms simply govern the daily interactions among private individuals, organizations, and businesses.
For instance, employees still have a right to receive payment as agreed upon in the employment contract or stated under domestic labor law. Such legal provisions may be incomplete or weak in some respects – just as in any peaceful country too – but they serve to protect fundamental rights and are applicable.
Separate from this is the question of whether individuals and legal entities may go to a court to enforce their rights. This largely depends on whether the competent court remains functional and people can access it.
Other legal norms enacted by abusive or contested governments may – and should – be rejected if they blatantly violate fundamental rights. Examples include illegal emergency measures such as arrests without warrants or the criminalization of free speech. I would, however, argue that such norms are typically public-law measures and are not usually implemented directly by private actors themselves. Organizations and businesses nevertheless still need to adhere to the legal frameworks relevant to their activities.
This does not mean that domestic law is inherently just or that compliance with domestic law alone is sufficient to ensure responsible operations. In conflict settings, organizations and businesses may face situations in which domestic legal frameworks themselves contribute to or facilitate rights abuses. Navigating these tensions requires careful legal and ethical assessment rather than the assumption that applicable legal frameworks simply cease to exist.
Extraterritorial Exposure
In addition to the domestic laws of the abusive or contested governments, other states may have laws with extraterritorial effect that apply. This is particularly relevant for international organizations or corporations, as their home states may impose due diligence, anti-bribery, sanctions, or terrorism-financing obligations abroad.
A prominent recent example is the case of the cement group Lafarge (now Holcim). In April 2026, a French criminal court convicted Lafarge of financing terrorist groups, including the Islamic State, between 2013 and 2014 to keep its cement plant operational during Syria’s armed conflict. The court imposed fines on the company and prison sentences on former executives based on French domestic law.
This case demonstrates how disregarding applicable national laws of the home state can create enormous legal and reputational risks.
Legal Invalidity or Operational Risks
If organizations do not adhere to the applicable domestic laws of the territorial government, they risk following legal frameworks that may later have limited or no legal recognition in the territory. Consequently, they may face challenges to the legal validity of their actions during or after the conflict and may incur liability for resulting damages if the incumbent or a new government regains control over the area or otherwise assesses the legality of their actions.
The warning by Chambers and Partners, a leading legal research company, for investors in Yemen exemplifies this challenge. It states that due to the fragmented political authorities and the existence of two governments, a unified legislative authority is absent in Yemen. This creates the risk that “licences, permits and contracts issued by one administration may not be recognised by the other.”
A Better Way to Understand the Applicable Legal Framework
Instead of assuming that domestic legal frameworks cease to apply during conflicts or under abusive governments, I suggest a different perspective: legal frameworks do not disappear but become more fragmented, complex, and difficult to interpret and operationalize.
For civil society organizations and businesses operating in these environments, multiple overlapping normative systems may apply simultaneously. These include domestic and international law, foreign jurisdictions with extraterritorial laws, donor and investor requirements, sanctions regimes, regulations imposed by de facto authorities, as well as local customary practices.
A sound understanding of the legal frameworks applicable to the activities and areas of operation is therefore essential. This includes assessing the relevant legal norms as well as the corresponding systems of authority and enforcement to understand how these norms are interpreted and applied in practice. Based on this understanding, organizations and businesses need to operationalize applicable norms within their internal structures and activities. This helps mitigate reputational and legal risks in both the host and home state while strengthening the accountability, credibility, and sustainability of operations in conflict-affected environments.
In conflict settings, the challenge is therefore rarely the absence of law, but rather understanding which norms apply, how they interact, and how they can be implemented responsibly in practice.