After a detailed analysis of the provisions of international humanitarian law that regulate the protection of persons in armed conflicts, whether it is international or non-international armed conflicts, we come to the conclusion that no significant progress can be defined in this area. The conflicts that have marked the last fifty years, as well as the currently active conflicts in the world, point to the fact that despite the extensive provisions of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, the matter in question "cries out" for changes, revision and correction of perceived deficiencies and gaps. The problem of the mechanism of implementation and supervision of the implementation of the provisions certainly arises as the biggest problem, and the action of the international community is rightly put under a big question mark. The fact is that the world is more advanced, more developed and more modern every day, and that said progress and development has not bypassed the area of warfare and conflict, so relatively outdated provisions meet with new methods of warfare and new dangerous, nuclear and biological weapons. We particularly note that the distinction between regulation between international and non-international armed conflicts represents an additional problem and challenge, because a civilian affected by such a conflict is irrelevant to legal determination, he needs protection. Future development depends on numerous actors, national governments, financial powers, the United Nations and their mutual cooperation, but instead of a declarative sentence, we will end the paper with one question, the answer to which we leave to the esteemed reader. Can we say that international humanitarian law is actually archaic, because ultimately it was created by those who perhaps did not want to burden themselves with strict rules and restrictions? Perhaps one of the key means of future, hopefully better regulation, is hidden precisely in the answer to this question and the solution to this problem.