This paper analyses how variations in psychological warfare strategies shape civilian protection and legal compliance during sieges. Building on Schelling’s theory of coercion, this paper distinguished between two types of psychological warfare, namely intimidation-based and deprivation-based strategies. By employing a qualitative comparative design, this thesis examines the sieges of Sarajevo and Aleppo closely. The findings suggest that psychological warfare is frequently and deliberately utilised as a strategic tool that exploits civilians as a population for military advantage, thereby eroding civilian protection and reducing adherence with international legal norms. Furthermore, the thesis draws attention to contemporary challenges by exposing the limitations related to the international humanitarian law, further enhancing conceptual insight on how such dynamics shape armed conflict.