International humanitarian law, as a significant branch of international law, encompasses a variety of regulations aimed at limiting the devastating effects of armed conflict. This body of law, primarily focused on the protection of civilians, plays a crucial role in mitigating the impact of war. One specific area within these regulations concerns the use of human shields. Belligerent parties, often in an attempt to deter enemy attacks, may employ individuals as human shields. These individuals may include captured combatants or even civilians who voluntarily expose themselves to enemy fire.Various forms of human shields have been observed in past armed conflicts. This article seeks to conceptually analyze the notion of human shields, categorize their types, and examine the applicable legal framework governing each category. The existing rules generally prohibit the use of human shields; however, the legal implications may vary depending on the nature of the conflict—whether international or non-international. A key issue that arises is the question of absolute prohibition. The First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions suggests that under certain conditions, the use of human shields might be conceivable under the doctrine of necessity, a concept examined in this study. It appears that, despite the desirability of a categorical prohibition, international humanitarian law does not currently recognize an absolute ban. Moreover, the phenomenon of voluntary human shields presents a legal dilemma: how should the law protect individuals who deliberately place themselves in harm’s way? Although international legal provisions in this area are often vague and general, it is argued that the rules governing involuntary human shields should likewise apply to voluntary cases.