The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict
By Dr Yoram Dinstein, Yanowicz Professor of Human Rights and member of the Institute of International Law
Cambridge University Press
The crucial question is whether the brazen act of shielding a military objective with civilians (albeit a war crime) can effectively tie the hands of the enemy by barring an attack. … [T]he appraisal whether civilian casualties are excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated must make allowances for the fact that — if an attempt is made to shield military objectives with civilians — civilian casualties will be higher than usual. To quote L Doswald-Beck, "[t]he Israeli bombardment of Beirut in June and July of 1982 resulted in high civilian casualties, but not necessarily excessively so given the fact that the military targets were placed amongst the civilian population".
Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an illegal attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent … placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent … is not vested by the Law of International Armed Conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm's way.
Cambridge University Press
The crucial question is whether the brazen act of shielding a military objective with civilians (albeit a war crime) can effectively tie the hands of the enemy by barring an attack. … [T]he appraisal whether civilian casualties are excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated must make allowances for the fact that — if an attempt is made to shield military objectives with civilians — civilian casualties will be higher than usual. To quote L Doswald-Beck, "[t]he Israeli bombardment of Beirut in June and July of 1982 resulted in high civilian casualties, but not necessarily excessively so given the fact that the military targets were placed amongst the civilian population".
Customary international law is certainly more rigorous than the Protocol on this point. It has traditionally been perceived that, should civilian casualties ensue from an illegal attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent … placing innocent civilians at risk. A belligerent … is not vested by the Law of International Armed Conflict with the power to block an otherwise legitimate attack against combatants (or military objectives) by deliberately placing civilians in harm's way.
Labels: Israel
