The Civilian in the Crossfire

Unlike the publicized suffering of the civilian population, the law regulating armed conflict is not well known. The laws of war were first formulated within professional armies in order to regulate discipline, and thus although they also have a humanitarian purpose, they are a useful and practical body of law for the military The fundamental principle underlying the rules on hostilities is the distinction between military objectives and civilians. The latter are not to be purposely attacked, but damage to civilians which is inevitable when aiming at military objectives and which is not out of propotion to the value of the objective is tolerated. The advantage to the military in observing this distinction is economy of force (there is no tactical advantage in hitting civilians and it wastes ammunition and manpower) and for States it means less damage to rectify after the war. This traditional principle of distinction suffered greatly during the second world war but has been reaffirmed since by States and has now been codified in Protocol I of 1977 The benefits of observing the distinction between civilians and military objectives are not necessarily clear to short-sighted individuals during the heat of battle. The need, therefore, is to make the law of war a part of military training, i.e. instruction to commanders and incorporation in daily military exercises so as to make its application automatic. The basics of the law should also be known to the civilian population, who have a vested interest in its respect and from whom the military are drawn, especially if conscripted.

[1]  Robert W. Tucker,et al.  The law of war and neutrality at sea , 2006 .

[2]  I. Brownlie Some Legal Aspects of the Use of Nuclear Weapons , 1965, International and Comparative Law Quarterly.

[3]  Burns H. Weston Nuclear Weapons Versus International Law: A Contextual Reassessment , 1983 .

[4]  D. Forsythe Legal Management of Internal War: The 1977 Protocol on Non-International Armed Conflicts , 1978, American Journal of International Law.

[5]  G. Aldrich The New Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict. , 1980, American Journal of International Law.

[6]  Jiří Toman,et al.  The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions, and Other Documents , 1982, American Journal of International Law.

[7]  Unoda,et al.  Convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain conventional weapons which may be deemed to be excessively injurious or to have indiscriminate effects , 1980 .

[8]  W. Fenrick New Developments in the Law Concerning the Use of Conventional Weapons in Armed Conflict , 1982, Canadian Yearbook of international Law/Annuaire canadien de droit international.

[9]  D. Schindler,et al.  The Different Types of Armed Conflicts According to the Geneva Conventions and Protocols , 1979 .

[10]  R. R. Baxter,et al.  Legal Aspects of the Geneva Protocol of 1925 , 1970, American Journal of International Law.

[11]  R. Falk The Shimoda Case: A Legal Appraisal of the Atomic Attacks upon Hiroshima and Nagasaki , 1965, American Journal of International Law.

[12]  Geoffrey Francis Andrew Best,et al.  Humanity in Warfare. The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflicts. , 1980 .