Considering modern forms of warfare, the categorization of armed conflicts under IHL has grown more complicated. IHL has historically made a distinction between NIACs & IACs, each of which is subject to different legal frameworks and degrees of protection. Although this binary framework worked well in traditional interstate or purely internal conflicts, hybrid configurations, cross-border operations, proxy warfare, and the involvement of both state & non-state actors are common in contemporary hostilities. By analyzing treaty law, customary international law, and jurisprudence—with a focus on the interpretive strategies used by international courts and tribunals, such as the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia—this paper critically assesses the sufficiency of the current classification framework. The research identifies enduring ambiguities regarding the thresholds for the start and end of IACs and NIACs, as well as the legal ramifications of foreign intervention and internationalization, through doctrinal analysis and a few chosen case studies, most notably the conflicts in Syria, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, and Ukraine. According to the study, strict adherence to the conventional dichotomy runs the risk of fragmenting the law, delaying court decisions, and providing uneven protection for those impacted by hostilities. In the end, it suggests that to maintain legal certainty, operational viability, and the humanitarian goal of IHL, conceptual clarity should be improved rather than completely abandoned.