Civilians in NonInternational Armed Conflicts For purposes of principle of distinction in NIAC all persons who are not members of State armed forces or organized armed groups of a party to the conflict are civilians and entitled to protection against attack unless and for such time a ID: 309005
Download Presentation The PPT/PDF document "DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN HOSTILITIES" is the property of its rightful owner. Permission is granted to download and print the materials on this web site for personal, non-commercial use only, and to display it on your personal computer provided you do not modify the materials and that you retain all copyright notices contained in the materials. By downloading content from our website, you accept the terms of this agreement.
Slide1
DIRECT PARTICIPATION IN HOSTILITIESSlide2
Civilians in Non-International Armed Conflicts
For purposes of principle of distinction in NIAC
, all persons who are not
members of State armed forces
or
organized armed groups
of a party to the conflict are civilians and entitled to protection against attack unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. ICRC, p. 27.Slide3
Civilians in International Armed Conflicts
For purposes of principle of distinction in IAC, all persons who are neither members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict
nor participants in a levee en masse
are civilians, and entitled to protection from attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities. ICRC. p.20.Slide4
AP I - 50
“
Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities”Slide5
API - 50
“
Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section
unless and for such time
as
they take
a
direct part in hostilities
”Slide6
The Concept of Civilians
Those conducting hostilities face the difficult task of distinguishing between
civilians who are not engaged in DPH
civilians who are engaged in a specific hostile act (DPH), and
Members of organized armed groups (continuous combat function)Slide7
Precautions and Presumption in Situations of Doubt
All feasible precautions must be taken in determining whether a person is a civilian and, if so, whether that person is directly participating in hostilities.
In case of doubt, person must be presumed to be protected against attack. ICRC, p. 74. (Art. 50 of AP I)Slide8
Definition of DPH?
“A clear and uniform definition of direct participation in hostilities has not been developed in State practice.”
Commentary, Rule 6, ICRC Customary International Law StudySlide9
Concept of Direct Participation in Hostilities
Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities refers to specific,
hostile acts carried out by individuals as part of conduct of hostilities between parties to armed conflict
.
Interpreted synonymously in IAC and NIAC. ICRC, p. 45.Slide10
3 Elements of DPH
1. Act must cause (or intend) harm to military operations or military capacity of party to Armed Conflict, or to persons or objects protected against attack (threshold of harm).
2. A direct causal link between the act and the expected harm (direct causation).
3. A belligerent nexus between the act and hostilities conducted between the parties to AC (belligerent nexus). Slide11
Element 1 - Threshold of Harm
Direct Participant reaches threshold either by causing harm of specifically military nature or by inflicting death, injury, or destruction on persons or objects protected against direct attack.
Harm does not need to materialize; what’s important is the objective likelihood that act will result in such harm. ICRC, p.47.Slide12
Element 1 - “Harm of a Specifically Military Nature”
Death, injury, destruction of military personnel and objects and “any consequence adversely affecting the military operations or military capacity of a party to the conflict.” ICRC, p. 47.
Computer attacks?Slide13
Element 1 - No Direct Participation by Omission
Refusal of a civilian to collaborate with one party to AC will not reach the required threshold of harm. ICRC, p. 49.Slide14
BUT NOTE: Direct Participation Absent Military Harm
Acts of violence directed against persons or objects protected against attack qualify as direct participation in hostilities regardless of military harm to opposing party to conflict. ICRC, pp. 49-50.
Example – sites of worship, hospitals, schools, etc.Slide15
Element 2 -Direct Causation
Must be a direct causal link between specific act and harm likely to result from it, or from a coordinated military operation of which that act constitutes an integral part. ICRC, p. 51.
“The harm in question must be brought about in one causal step.” ICRC, p. 53.
Human shields?Slide16
Element #2 - Problem
“One Causal Step” Requirement would exclude all persons who assemble IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan from category of “direct participation.”
Is Production of weapons “case-specific” “Rosie the Riveter” v. IED maker.Slide17
General War Effort and War-Sustaining Activities
Both general war effort and war-sustaining activities may ultimately result in harm reaching threshold required for qualification as direct participation in hostilities.
But general war effort and war sustaining activities also include activities that merely maintain or build up capacity to cause such harm: excluded from “Direct Participation in Hostilities,” ICRC, pp. 52 - 53.Slide18
General War Effort and War-Sustaining Activities
What about
Mechanics?
Design of weapons and equipment?
Recruiters? Recruiting activists?Slide19Slide20
Direct Causation in Collective Operations
Where specific act does not on its own directly cause the required threshold of harm,
Requirement of direct causation can still be fulfilled where
act constitutes integral part of concrete and coordinated tactical operation that directly causes such harm
. ICRC, pp. 54 -55.
Ex. Identification and marking of targets, transmission of tactical
intel
to attacking forces.Slide21Slide22
Element 3 - Belligerent Nexus
“Direct Participation in Hostilities” is restricted to specific acts that are so closely related to the hostilities conducted between parties to A.C. that they constitute integral part of conflict. ICRC, p. 58.
Act
must be designed
to directly cause the required threshold of harm in support of a party to the conflict and to the detriment of another. ICRC, p. 58. Objective Test, ICRC, p. 59.Slide23Slide24
Acts that Lack Belligerent Nexus
Acts in Defence against Violations of IHL
Violent Forms of Civil Unrest to express dissatisfaction with occupying or detaining authorities
Inter-civilian violence due to breakdown in law and order
Violent crime committed for reasons unrelated to armed conflict.
Stealing of military equipment for private use.Slide25
Temporal Scope of Loss of Protection
Civilians lose protection against direct attack for the duration of each specific act amounting to direct participation in hostilities.
Civilians directly participating in hostilities do not cease to be part of civilian population, but their protection against attack is temporarily suspended. Protected status restored when engagement in hostile act ends. ICRC, pp. 70-71.Slide26
Solis
DPH includes acts preparatory to DPH:
- movement to and from objective
- preparing of
intel
and equipment
- loading of explosives, fueling of vehicles, etc.
“Constitutes a reasonably broad description of direct participation…” Yes or no?Slide27Slide28
Problem
Interpretive Guidance throws balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations askew.
Asymmetrical Warfare (i.e. Iraq/Afghanistan) insurgents mount surprise attacks. IED or land mine attacks occur after insurgents leave area.
Best option to counter future attacks: target insurgents in their hideouts.
But ICRC says insurgents safe once they return to their hideouts. Slide29
Alternative Approach – Quasi Armed Group?
Civilian who directly participates in hostilities may be attacked “between episodes of participation.”
Civilian remains valid military objective until he/she unambiguously opts out of hostilities through extended non-participation or affirmative act of withdrawal.
Q: Who is going to monitor this? How? What does “extended” mean?Slide30
Organized Armed Groups?
- Al
Qaeda
- Viet Cong
- The WolverinesSlide31Slide32
Continuous Combat Function (2009)
New idea - Does the person assume a continuous function for the group involving his or her direct participation in hostilities
“Continuous Combat Function” requires lasting integration into an organised armed group.
Resemble soldiers of regular armed forces, not by uniform or ID, but by function.Slide33
Problems with “Function Criterion”
Members of
group
who have continuous combat function may be attacked at any time.
Those who lack “continuous combat function,” but who periodically take up arms, must be treated as civilians directly participating in hostilities – and may only be attacked while doing so. In practice, difficult to distinguish between two categories. Schmitt, Harvard National Security Journal, pp.21-24.Slide34
More Problems
Requirement of “continuous combat function” precludes attack on members of
a known
group of occasional combatants, even
in face of absolute certainty as to membership. Arguably goes beyond Art. 1 of AP II.
In contrast, membership in state’s armed forces suffices, even if member isn’t “directly participating” in hostilities.
E.g. Soviet Hockey Team circa 1980Slide35
Restraints on Use of Force in Attack
- In addition to restraints imposed by IHL on specific means and methods of warfare,
And without prejudice to further restrictions that may arise under other applicable branches of international law,
The kind and degree of force permissible against unprotected persons,
Must not exceed what is actually necessary,
To accomplish legitimate military purpose in prevailing circumstances.
In other words – If you can capture them – don’t kill them. ICRC, p. 77.Slide36
Don’t Defy Basic Notions of Humanity
While operating forces can hardly be required to take additional risks for themselves or civilians in order to capture armed enemy,
It would defy basic notions of humanity to kill enemy or refrain from giving him opportunity to surrender where there is “manifestly no necessity” for the use of lethal force. ICRC, p. 82.Slide37
Problems
1. What does this have to do with “Direct Participation in Hostilities?”
2. Principle of necessity prohibits infliction of suffering, injury or destruction not necessary for accomplishment of legitimate military purposes.
3. But under IHL, attacks are lawful if target is lawful military objective, proportionate, and all feasible precautions taken.
ICRC attempts to “squeeze a plainly human rights norm into a restraint on attacks against direct participants under guise of IHL.” Schmitt, p. 41. It imposes a law enforcement paradigm on AC situation. Disregards jurisprudence that, during AC, IHL is
lex
specialis
. Parks, p. 797
No “use of force” continuum in IHL. Would be unworkable and lead to more “war crimes.” Parks, pp. 815-818.
Depends on single, distinguishable case from Israel. Parks,, 829.Slide38
Members of Organised Armed Groups
Members of organized armed groups (OAG), belonging to a non-State party to a conflict, cease to be civilians for as long as they remain members of the OAG, due to their “continuous combat function.” ICRC, p. 71.Slide39
What is an Organized Armed Group?
Militias
German volunteers in Spain
Al Qaeda?Slide40Slide41
Targeted Killing
State of Armed Conflict
Specific Individual
Beyond Reasonable Possibility of Arrest
Senior Authority
Military Necessity (proportionality)
5. Direct Participation in Hostilities?Slide42