From Ukraine to Gaza
International Humanitarian Law (IHL) consists of pragmatic rules to minimize destruction and death in times of war. But IHL does not prohibit neither armed combat nor the killing of civilians; it's instead intended to create limits to how war can be enacted.
As with all sets of rules, IHL is subjected to interpretation and is typically analyzed by case and circumstances, rather than providing universal, blanket regulations.
Armed groups, whether states or non-state actors, may use the ambiguous nature of IHL to form strategies that may evade war crime accusations by limiting the suffering to human life.
The rule of distinction is an important measure in which armed groups bear the responsibility to distinguish themselves and their activities from civilians and civilian or public property.
This principle is intended to provide a clear understanding of who and what is being targeted. This requires that combatants are identifiable to their ‘enemies.’
This has posed a series of challenges in terms of war strategies in asymmetrical war contexts. Some armed conflicts occur between states and non-state actors.
There is no explicit approach to these contexts, as signatories to IHL do not want to encourage the role of non-state actors to combat governmental forces.
The principle of distinction points to how IHL can only be adhered to if civilians are with certainty not intending on engaging in armed conflict or involved in any such attacks.
This is complicated in the increasing context of what the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) refers to as the civilianization of armed conflicts.
As with the previous example, in which a conflict does not occur between two state armies, the entire civilian population can be considered an armed group.
Any participation from civilians in combat, subject to vague interpretation of what participation could consist of, relinquishes their right to protection under IHL. International organizations have called for this gap to be defined.
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict offers an interesting case study to examine the complexities of this issue. The Palestinian territories are considered occupied by international law.
In many ways, Palestinians are under Israeli rule and can therefore be considered unrecognized citizens of the state of Israel.
In Gaza, this designation has another element to be considered. Although Gaza is still considered occupied territory, until the beginning of the war following the events of October 7, there had not been a permanent physical presence of the Israeli state in the Gaza Strip since 2005.
Although Gaza is under blockade from Israel and Egypt, due to the lack of Israel’s permanent presence in the Strip it is not responsible for the same duties it has in the West Bank, for example.
This is further complicated by the levels of citizenry that exist in Israeli law. For example, Palestinian that are residents of Jerusalem, which Israel considers to be part of the official Israeli state, have a special designation.
Palestinians that are residents in Jerusalem are not considered full citizens, but rather inhabitants of Israel with certain privileges and conditions.
Gaza is not under, what the ICRC refers to as belligerent occupation. But because of its unique conditions Israel does have certain duties that it is obligated to adhere to.
Due to this differentiation, in the case of Gaza, international law may apply, as Gazans can be considered foreign parties.
The complexity of the designation of populations under occupation makes the application of international law equally complicated. This is because international law is not supposed to apply, rule, or otherwise dictate, the relationship between the state and its citizens.
The concept of protected civilian points to the rights of someone who is not a citizen of the state that is either holding them in detention, as a prisoner of war, or has harmed them.
While the ICRC outlines the complexities in occupied contexts, they reiterate the principle that the purpose of international law is not its application to local parties.
This conclusion complicates legal measures for Palestinians that seek resolutions through international law, and for the Israeli state, which attempts to apply certain aspects of international law to those they consider dangers to state security.
The principle of distinction is also complicated with the involvement of private security entities, some of which are militarized. In these cases, the lines become further blurred in identifying who should be considered an actual combatant in an armed conflict.
The principle of distinction in international law is closely followed by proportionality. The principle of proportionality means that even when there is a legitimate military target that may result in the deaths of civilians, the amount of civilian deaths cannot be excessive.
Determining what is an excessive amount of civilian deaths is, again, subject to interpretation. From a civilian perspective, one death may be too many. From a military perspective, civilian deaths may be a necessary consequence to weaken another entity.
Proportionality is, more or less, a principle that urges a balancing act. In some ways, it can allow for violent acts to be committed repeatedly through calculations that underline moderation.
Eyal Weizman, director of research institute Forensic Architecture, notes how IHL, in addition to human rights and humanitarianism, can be abused by states and military actors.
Weizman notes how IHL can offer mechanisms that allow violence to be calculated so it can be reduced and justified as the least possible evil.
In conclusion, while the rules of war and the legality of killing civilians under IHL may be shocking to some, it is the modus operandi that governs how contemporary conflict occurs.
Sources: (E-International Relations) (Oxford Academic) (ICRC) (Frontiers) (Human Rights Watch) (King’s College London) (ICC) (NPR) (UNRIC) (Theory, Culture & Society)
See also: One year of war in Gaza—The economic fallout for the region
Women and children account for nearly 70% of Gaza war death toll
The UN has condemned the killings as a breach of international law
LIFESTYLE Conflict
The UN's Human Rights Office has released a report revealing that almost 70% of the people killed in the war on Gaza have been women and children. The analysis further attributes this significant figure to Israel targeting densely populated areas and using weapons that have wide-reaching effects. This is supported by the revelation that 80% of the victims killed were in residential buildings or housing at the time.
Gaza's health ministry has reported the death of over 43,300 people since the war began on October 7, 2023, and one in three of those are believed to be children. The report goes on to condone these results as a breach of international law violations and further raises concern about the possibility of war crimes.
The report further clarifies that whilst some conditions allow for the lawful killing of civilians during times of war under international law, the deliberate targeting of civilians is considered a war crime. So, this raises the question, when is the killing of civilians allowed? And which international laws fail to protect civilian life? Find out by clicking through this gallery.