Under IHL, the civilian population is defined as all persons who are not part of the armed forces of a party to the conflict. In case of doubt about the status of a person, he or she should always be considered to belong to the civilian population.
There are three basic rules that determine how a party to an armed conflict can conduct military operations, that is, they regulate the conduct of hostilities. These are the rules of distinction, proportionality and precaution, designed to protect the civilian population from the effects of hostilities. In addition to these norms, it is prohibited to cause unnecessary harm or suffering to all parties to armed conflicts – whether States or non-State armed groups – in all circumstances, in all armed conflicts, international or non-international.
The principle of distinction requires that parties to an armed conflict distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants, as well as between civilian objects and military objectives. Attacks can only be directed against combatants or military targets; not against civilized people or things.
IHL also prohibits indiscriminate attacks, namely:
- those that are not directed against a specific military target (for example, a soldier shooting in all directions without aiming at a particular military target, thus endangering the civilian population);
- those in which a method or means of warfare is used that cannot be directed towards a specific military objective (for example, long-range missiles that cannot be directed towards their target);
- those in which a method or means of combat is used whose effects cannot be limited as required by IHL (e.g. nuclear weapons).
- The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks regulates the use of all weapons, even those that are not of an indiscriminate nature.
The principle of proportionality prohibits attacks against military objectives “when it is foreseeable that they will incidentally cause deaths or injuries among the civilian population, or damage to civilian property, or both, which would excessive in relation to foreseen concrete and direct military advantage”.
- The military advantage must be “concrete and direct”, not hypothetical, speculative or indirect. It must be substantial and relatively close and cannot be political, economic or otherwise than military. It should be obvious; it cannot manifest itself only in the long term and must be the intended result of the attack in question, not of the military campaign as a whole.
- The “excessive” nature of the attack cannot be understood in reference to a merely numerical threshold (for example, the number of civilian victims or civilian objects damaged). In principle, the military value of a target must be considered and compared with the expected incidental damage.
- The military advantage gained from an attack must be that expected at the time of the attack. In other words, military commanders should base their assessments exclusively on the facts known before launching the attack.
Parties to the conflict must respect the precautionary principle. There are two types of precautions under IHL:
- those that must be adopted when the attack is carried out, also called “precautions against the attack”;
- those that must be taken to protect the population in a territory controlled by a party to the conflict from the effects of attacks, also called “passive precautions” or “precautions against the effects of attacks”.
Attack Precautions: Parties to an armed conflict must pay constant attention to the protection of civilians and civilian property in the conduct of military operations. All possible precautions will be taken to avoid or, in any case, reduce to a minimum the number of deaths and injuries among the civilian population, as well as damage to civilian property, which these operations could accidentally cause.
Parties to the conflict must do the following:
- take all possible precautions to verify that the targets of the attack are military;
- When it is possible to choose between several military targets that would give a similar military advantage, choose the one whose attack, as expected, presents the least danger to civilians and civilian property;
- make every effort to assess whether the attack will cause accidental death or injury to civilians, damage to civilian property, or both, which is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;
- adopt all possible precautions, especially in the choice of weapons, as well as methods and means of war, to avoid or, in any case, reduce to a minimum the accidental damage that any attacks could cause to the population and to civilian property;
- give early warning and by effective means (e.g. loudspeakers, radio, telephone where possible, easily understandable signs and distribution of leaflets where appropriate, etc.) of planned attacks against military targets which could affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not prevent it;
- take all possible precautions to cancel or suspend an attack if it is realized that the target is non-military or if it is expected that the attack will be disproportionate (because the incidental damage to the population and civilian objects will be more serious or the advantage military will be higher) lower than expected).
IHL also requires that parties to the conflict take all possible precautions to protect the civilian population and civilian objects under their control from the dangers of military operations. In particular, as far as possible, they should do the following:
- avoid placing military targets in or near densely populated areas;
- keep the civilian population and civilian assets under their control away from military objectives;
- take all other necessary precautionary measures (e.g. building shelters, establishing warning systems and evacuation procedures, etc.).
How are advancements in military technology impacting the principles of International Humanitarian Law?
Interview between Time.news Editor and IHL Expert
Editor: Good morning, and welcome to another episode of Time.news Conversations. Today, we’re diving deep into International Humanitarian Law, or IHL, and its critical role in protecting civilians during armed conflicts. We have with us Dr. Sarah Thompson, a renowned expert in IHL and a professor at the International Institute for Human Rights. Dr. Thompson, thank you for joining us.
Dr. Thompson: Thank you for having me. It’s a pleasure to be here!
Editor: Let’s start with the basics. In the context of IHL, how is the civilian population defined, and what safeguards are in place to protect them during conflicts?
Dr. Thompson: Great question! Under IHL, the civilian population encompasses all individuals who are not members of the armed forces of any party to the conflict. Importantly, if there is ever any doubt about someone’s status, they should be regarded as civilians. This principle lays a fundamental groundwork for the protections afforded by IHL.
Editor: It’s vital to clarify who is protected. Now, could you elaborate on the three core principles that govern military operations in relation to civilians?
Dr. Thompson: Absolutely. The three key principles are distinction, proportionality, and precaution. The principle of distinction mandates that all parties in a conflict distinguish between combatants and civilians, and between military objectives and civilian objects. Proportionality prohibits attacks that may cause civilian casualties or damage that is excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage. Lastly, the principle of precaution requires all feasible measures to be taken to avoid harm to civilians.
Editor: Those principles sound robust, but what happens when they are violated? What are the repercussions for parties to a conflict who disregard these rules?
Dr. Thompson: Violations of IHL can lead to serious consequences. Individual perpetrators can face prosecution for war crimes, and states may face international sanctions or other forms of accountability. The challenge, however, lies in enforcement, as we see during conflicts—often, there’s a lack of will or capacity to hold violators accountable.
Editor: It must be frustrating to see these laws in place but not always enforced. Could you explain what constitutes an ”indiscriminate attack” under IHL?
Dr. Thompson: Certainly! Indiscriminate attacks are those that do not target a specific military objective. For example, firing a weapon randomly in a civilian area without aiming at a specific target is classified as indiscriminate. Furthermore, if a weapon is inherently incapable of being directed at a specific target, such as certain long-range missiles or nuclear weapons, their use would also fall under this category. IHL prohibits such attacks to limit civilian harm.
Editor: That certainly highlights the complexity of conducting military operations ethically. Now, the principle of proportionality is intriguing. How do commanders assess whether an attack meets the proportionality requirement?
Dr. Thompson: Commanders must evaluate the military advantage anticipated from an attack against the potential civilian harm. The military advantage must be concrete and immediate—not a long-term or speculative benefit. They also need to consider the specific context and make their judgments based on the information available at the time of the attack, not hindsight.
Editor: Speaking of assessment, you mentioned “precautionary measures.” What do these entail for parties in conflict?
Dr. Thompson: There are two types of precautions. First are “attack precautions,” which involve verifying that the targets are indeed military objectives and choosing options that minimize risks to civilians when multiple military targets present similar advantages. Second, “passive precautions” must be taken to shield civilians in controlled territories from the repercussions of attacks. Both types are essential for minimizing civilian harm.
Editor: It sounds like a challenging balancing act. How do you see the application of these IHL principles evolving with modern warfare, especially with new technologies like drones?
Dr. Thompson: Modern warfare indeed poses new challenges. Technologies like drones can increase precision but might also lead to overreliance on remote warfare, detaching operators from the realities on the ground. As technology evolves, so must our interpretations and applications of IHL to ensure that civilian protections remain effective amidst changing circumstances.
Editor: We’ve explored a lot of ground today, Dr. Thompson. Before we wrap up, what message would you like to leave our viewers regarding the importance of upholding IHL?
Dr. Thompson: I’d emphasize that IHL is not just a set of rules; it represents our collective commitment to humanity. Upholding these principles is not only a legal obligation but a moral imperative to ensure that even in times of conflict, we protect those who do not take part in hostilities.
Editor: Thank you, Dr. Thompson, for shedding light on these crucial issues surrounding IHL. It’s been a fascinating discussion!
Dr. Thompson: Thank you! It’s been a pleasure to share insights on this important topic.
Editor: And thank you to our viewers for joining us today. Stay informed and aware, and we’ll see you next time on Time.news Conversations.
