However, there may be room for debate in situations where goods are used for both civilian and potentially military purpose (e.g., communication technology, transport goods, petrochemical items, and some types of factories). This may be simple in straightforward situations. With this definition, informed and unprejudiced observers-as well as decision makers in times of conflicts-should be able to decide whether an object is properly called military. This definition has two elements: (1) the nature, location, purpose, or use of the goods must make an effective contribution to military action and (2) their total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization must offer a definite military advantage in the circumstances ruling at the time. The ICTY decided that the generally accepted definition was the one given by Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions. The ICTY considered the lawfulness of the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999 and looked at the definition of the concept of military objectives in comparison to other notions ( Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, available at, paras. ▸ Attacks ▸ Duty of commanders ▸ Human shields ▸ Methods (and means) of warfare ▸ Military necessity ▸ Proportionality ▸ Protected objects and property ▸ Terror However, where broadcast facilities were used solely to incite hatred and disseminate propaganda, this may have justified their destruction (ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 8 June 2000, paras. It also stressed the fact that although the media may disseminate propaganda, this does not make its installations a legitimate target. It insisted that civilians, civilian objects, and civilian morale as such are not legitimate military objectives. The ad hoc International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) spelled out the principles of international law on this issue when it gave its opinion on the NATO bombing of the Serbian TV and radio facilities. The key issue here is to ensure that the destruction of the object is indeed due to its military use rather than to terrorize civilians or weaken their morale. In addition, the attack must not create disproportionate harm to non-combatants. These are dual-use objects when they fulfill the two cumulative conditions, they may be considered legitimate military targets if additional specific conditions are respected: it is mandatory to take necessary measures before the attack to ensure that civilians are evacuated. 15).Ī particular difficulty appears where civilian objects, namely, infrastructure and buildings (roads, schools, factories, electrical fittings, radio and TV installations), are temporarily used for military purpose or are used for both civilian and military purpose. 51.7).įurthermore, works or installations containing dangerous forces (namely, dams, dikes, and nuclear electricity-generating stations) must not be the target of attacks, even if they are military objectives (API Art. 51.4).Īs a corollary to this, the presence or movements of the civilian population may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations and, in particular, to shield military objectives from attacks (API Art. 57).Īttacks that are not directed at a specific military objective are prohibited, as are those employing methods or means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective or are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction (API Art. For instance, these precautions consist in prohibiting excessive use of force and doing “everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects” and in “minimizing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, and damage to civilian objects” (API Art. In order for the attack to be considered legitimate, it must be shown that it was indeed used for military purpose and that the civil destructions remain proportional.Īt all times, humanitarian law establishes that military commanders have the obligation to respect a number of precautions in the conduct of military operations, so as to ensure the protection of civilians. In case of doubt concerning an object that is normally used for civilian purposes-such as a house or other dwelling, a place of worship, or a school-parties to a conflict must assume that the object in question is not being used for military purposes (API Art.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |