(C) Common Dreams
This story was originally published by Common Dreams and is unaltered.
 . . . . . . . . . .



The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law [1]

[]

Date: 2023-10 

Commanders have the obligation to respect the precautionary measures described here. Furthermore, they must see to it that their subordinates also respect these rules. They therefore have the duty to ensure that members of the armed forces under their command, as well as other persons under their control, are aware of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions and Protocols and respect them. If members of the armed forces violate humanitarian law, commanders must take the necessary measures to end such acts and to initiate the disciplinary or penal action that is necessary against the perpetrators of such violations.

▸ Distinctive (or protective) emblems, signs, and signals ▸ Duty of commanders ▸ International humanitarian law ▸ Methods (and means) of warfare ▸ Military necessity ▸ Military objectives ▸ Proportionality ▸ Protected objects and property ▸ Protected persons ▸ Reprisals ▸ War

Judges had to analyze the lawfulness of attacks with regard to the respect of the principles of distinction, precaution, and proportionality between military necessity and damages caused to civilians ( ▸ Proportionality ). These principles are spelled out in Articles 57 and 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. According to case law, they are now part of customary international law, not only because they specify and flesh out general preexisting norms, but also because they do not appear to be contested by any State, including those that have not ratified the Protocol ( Kupreskic Case , 14 January 2000, para. 524).

According to the principle of distinction, military commanders must distinguish between military objectives and civilian persons or objects. This principle is spelled out in Article 57 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, which obligates those who plan or decide upon an attack to “do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects.” The obligation to do everything feasible is high but not absolute. Therefore, a determination that inadequate efforts have been made to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects should not necessarily focus exclusively on a specific incident ( Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia , ICTY, 13 June 2000, para. 29, available at http://www.un.org/icty/pressreal/nato061300.htm ).

[END]
---
[1] Url: https://guide-humanitarian-law.org/content/article/3/attacks/

Published and (C) by Common Dreams
Content appears here under this condition or license: Creative Commons CC BY-NC-ND 3.0..

via Magical.Fish Gopher News Feeds:
gopher://magical.fish/1/feeds/news/commondreams/