RE: Evidence of Israel targeting civilians.
There has been a lot of talk about violations of international law on here. International law is a bit of a nebulous concept because there is not some code of laws that must be followed. It is based on custom, tradition, treaties (which govern the ratifying parties), and the rulings of international organizations. There is no black letter international law.
The most relevant regarding the use of human shields would be the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949, which is essentially a statement of what has been custom and tradition (international "common law," for want of a better term).
Article 28 of the Fourth Geneva Convention provides: "The presence of a protected person (i.e., a civilian) may not be used to render certain... areas immune from military operations." Article 51 of the 1977 amendment to the 1949 Geneva Convention elaborated, "The presence... of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain... areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objects from attacks or to shield, favor or impede military operations." Keeping in mind that the presumption is dealing with prisoners in wartime, the principle stated in Article 83 is also relevant, "The Detaining Power shall not set up places of internment in areas particularly exposed to the dangers of war."
Section 51(7) of Protocol I of 1977 states, "The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."
Article 58 of Protocol I provides, "Precautions against the effects of attacks. The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible: (a) without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives; (b) avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas; © take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations."
The actions of Hamas and the Palestinian authorities would clearly appear to violate several of the above provisions.
What are the attacker's duties when the defender is using human shields?
Sections 4 and 5 of Article 51 of Protocol I provide, "4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or © those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
"5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate: (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and (b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."
The proportionality provision of section 5 would seem to apply here. It is a bit troublesome to apply because the factual issues are difficult to prove. The International Committee of the Red Cross’ model manual provides what may be a more useful standard, "The attacking commander is required to do his best to protect [civilians used to shield] but he is entitled to take the defending commander’s actions into account when considering the rule of proportionality." But even that is hardly clear cut.
I would tend to give Israel the benefit of the doubt here, although others may differ.
What is really needed is an agreed standard. The customs and traditions upon which the Geneva Conventions were based have developed over centuries, driven primarily by European nobles playing by the rules. Those rules don't really apply here. This is a very different kind of warfare, fought by people whose customs and traditions are not those of western Europe. The only way to stop the practice is to make human shielded targets fair game, which greatly limits the effectiveness of human shields. That's harsh, but in the long run less harsh than any other approach. Even if legal, the party which attacks a human shielded target will have to endure the TV images of dead civilians, and question whether the price paid in the international court of public opinion is worth the gain.
There is no good answer. I'm not a fan of the proportionality standard in international law generally, because history has proved repeatedly that proportionality breeds quagmire, and almost certainly more death and destruction in the long run than simply using overwhelming force and getting it over.
|
/
Evidence of Israel targeting civilians.
