What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis?
(note: this blog was written by Sara Pantuliano and James Darcy)
The current events in Lebanon and their impact on the civilian population raise urgent questions about who is responsible for the protection of civilians. The emergent doctrine of the responsibility to protect (colloquially 'R2P') locates primary responsibility squarely with the government of the state in question. But it also stresses the collective responsibility of other states for protecting civilians of any state facing genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing or crimes against humanity. This response should be the exercise of first peaceful and then, if necessary, coercive (including forceful) steps to protect civilians. While the emphasis of the R2P doctrine has tended towards internal conflict, a key question in the context of the current crisis in the Middle East is what responsibility does the international community have in ensuring that civilians are protected in international conflicts as well?
In this case, the Government of Lebanon is evidently unable to prevent either the activities of Hizbollah or the retaliatory actions of Israel. The civilian population of Lebanon (and parts of Israel) are caught in the middle of this. Whether or not Israel is legally justified in its actions under the self-defence provisions of the UN Charter (Article 51) - or in lawyers' terms, whether it is justified under the ius ad bellum - its actions are contrary to the basic principles of the Geneva Conventions or the ius in bello. These require that a distinction be drawn between civilian and military targets; that due precaution be exercised to prevent incidental damage to civilians and civilian objects; and that any such damage be proportionate to the anticipated military advantage gained. Israel's actions arguably fail all of these tests.
What would the R2P doctrine require of other states in this case? Surely as a minimum that breaches of humanitarian law on both sides be condemned, and that steps be taken to put an end to such practice by whatever means necessary. Hizbollah itself has made the distinction between military and civilian objects difficult, and should be condemned for doing so - as they should for their indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israeli targets. But this cannot justify the indiscriminate nature of the Israeli response. Even if a state acts in self-defence, it is still bound by jus in bello to exercise restraint and avoid civilian casualties and damage to civilian infrastructure. The number of civilian casualties, the attack of the civilian airport in Beirut and Israel's air and sea blockade on Lebanon constitute a breach of those humanitarian obligations. Considering the inability of the Lebanese government to protect its civilians, does the international community not share a collective responsibility to protect civilians by getting Israel - through persuasion or otherwise - to moderate its actions? And can it be conscionable in these circumstances not to support calls for an immediate ceasefire?
Comments
Comments on the ODI blog are moderated. ODI will post as many of your comments as possible but we cannot guarantee to publish them all.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Friday, July 21, 2006 11:57 PM
Why do contributions such as this one never mention that Hezbollah is part of the coalition government in Lebanon, with two Ministers in that government; and that the army of Lebanon accordingly appears to make no effort to restrain Hezbollah, which started this? Yes, Israel's reaction has been disproportionate, ill-targeted, stupid and inhumane. Yes, the US and UK position delay of - some would say opposition to - the UN request for an immediate cease-fire, and for the necessary forces and rules of engagenment to enforce it, is unconscionable. But, for the international community to protect civilians (Lebanes and Israeli) - and for the above UN approach to work reasonably fast - it is essential to isolate the hawks on BOTH sides and to get a consensus of the doves on BOTH sides. Just as Lebanon will remain allied for hawkishness (and increasingly even behind Hezbollah) until Israel acts with more restraint, so Israel will remain allied for hawkishness as long as Lebanon fails to rein in Hezbollah. Unilateral condemnation of Israeli retaliation, without condemning the position of Lebanon vis-a-vis Hezbollah, is unconsrtructive as well as wrong. The prime and causative offence, leading to the terrible position of civilians in this conflict, is Lebanon's refusal (NOT its trying and failing, but its not trying) to restrain Hezbollah from attacking other coutries - a requirement on the Government of Lebanon not only by UN Resolution 1559 but by international law governing relations between States.
This is irrelevant to the issue of whether Israel should accept a Palestinian State in Gaza and the West Bank. It should.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Monday, July 24, 2006 3:01 PM
Yes the current war in Lebanon raises the question of who is responsible for protecting civilians. However, in this conflict, the civilians killed are both Lebanese and Israeli. To do justice to both sides, shouldn't the following question also be raised: how should Israeli civilians be protected? Last Tuesday, 7 days after the conflict began, more than 1500 rockets had targeted the north of Israel. This was a week ago, and since then the rain of missiles has not stopped. Hezbollah claims to be able to maintain this rhythm for another month, despite the damages it endured so far.
While Israel pretends to try to avoid civilian death, Hezbollah groups clearly claim to target Israeli civilians. And what makes it so difficult for Israel to prevent civilian death is the fact that for years Hezbollah has intimately penetrated the Lebanese society, going so far as paying monthly salaries to homes that were willing to host their arms.
Is Hezbollah a terrorist movement? if no, how can such an accumulation of arms along the border be explained? how should the recent declarations of its leader be understood?
If yes, what should be the behaviour of the Israeli government, when Hezbollah has seats in the Lebanese parliament and government? which government has so far been unable, despite recent resolutions, to even try to disarm it.
If the international community has been so long to react to the current tragedy, despite the public opinion and its call for reactions, and if nothing has been done so far to stop this dramatic conflict, what could we expect from it to protect Israeli civilians from Hezbollah, especially in the context of raising tensions in the region? Who would have pushed for –and succeed in - Hezbollah demilitarisation if no such conflict had started?
It is, yes, the responsibility of the Israeli government to protect its civilians against a terrorist group that deliberately started this conflict, knowing very well the magnitude of response they were exposing the Lebanese population to.
Of course, we should all question the Israeli army methods and the efforts made to protect Lebanese civilians, but certainly not without recalling the legitimacy of Israel attempt. Only by putting the 2 things together can some justice be done to both sides.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Tuesday, July 25, 2006 2:33 PM
For those of you interested in the international legal dimensions of the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah there are a couple of good summary pieces available.
The Crimes of War project website has a short summary of international legal issues by Anthony Dworkin -
http://www.crimesofwar.org/onnews/news-middleeast.html.
Human Rights Watch has a more detailed questions and answers page covering:
* What international humanitarian law applies to the current conflict between Israel and Hezbollah?
* What is Hezbollah's status in relation to the conflict?
* Was Hezbollah's capture of Israeli soldiers lawful?
* Is Hezbollah's firing of rockets into Israel lawful under international humanitarian law?
* Does international humanitarian law permit Israel to bomb the Beirut airport?
* Is Israel entitled to target Lebanese infrastructure
* Is Israel entitled to use military force against the Lebanese population to encourage it to press its government to stop Hezbollah's attacks and rescue Israel's soldiers?
And there are four or five other questions and answers all of which can be accessed from
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/17/lebano13748.htm.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Tuesday, July 25, 2006 4:56 PM
I see little sign that the government of Lebanon (which includes Hizbollah) has made serious attempts to restrain the organisation or secure the southern border with Israel. And sadly, a large majority of the Lebanese population seems to have been relatively content to have that situation continue over the years. While Israel's reaction to Hizbollah's deliberate provocation of this latest conflict is inexcusably disproportionate in its effect on Lebanese civilians, there is a lesson to the international community here on the dangers of allowing "failed states" to muddle on. If moderate people are prepared to tolerate extreme organisations in their midst, they and their neighbours will suffer sooner or later. The international community should indeed insist on an immediate ceasefire by both parties, but should also be prepared to contribute a sufficient military force with a robust mandate to undertake what weak or manipulated Lebanon plainly can or will not - provide a zone of security along the southern border with Israel. Unfortunately the cost will be significant.
HANDICAP INTERNATIONAL BELGIUM @ Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:09 PM
CONFIRMATION OF THE USE OF CLUSTER BOMBS RESULTING IN CIVILIAN VICTIMS IN SOUTH LEBANON AND IN BEYROUTH
Depuis le début du conflit, des informations dans la presse arabe et internationale faisaient état de l’utilisation systématique d’armes à sous-munitions. Israël a effectivement utilisé des armes à sous-munitions le 19 juillet dernier dans des zones habitées. Cette information est maintenant confirmée par Human Rights Watch, partenaire de longue date de Handicap International.
Une attaque sur le village de Blida le 19 juillet dernier a tué un civil et en a blessé 12, parmi lesquels 7 enfants. Les armes à sous-munitions ne font pas la distinction entre objectifs militaires et civils, et ont de ce fait des conséquences catastrophiques pour les populations civiles. Dans les conflits récents, jusqu’à 96% des victimes de ces armes étaient des civils dont jusqu’à 69% d’enfants.
En février dernier, la Belgique était le premier pays à interdire les armes à sous-munitions. Handicap International appelle à une interdiction internationale de ces armes. 219 916 personnes ont déjà signé la pétition pour une interdiction internationale des ces armes, voir www.sousmunitions.org
Info : www.handicapinternational.be
Photos :
http://www.hrw.org/english/docs/2006/07/24/isrlpa13798.htm
Contacts :
Katleen Maes: Tel. +32.2.280 16 01 – 32.494.329104
Stan Brabant : Tel. 32.2.286 50 59 – +32.485/33 68 15
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Tuesday, July 25, 2006 7:10 PM
This comment is allegorical - imagine two distinct scenarios, and see what you think:
a) IRA activitists (terrorists if you prefer, usually UK subjects themselves!) kidnap a British soldier in northern Ireland, and sequester him in hiding in the Irish Republic. Can you imagine a British response which involved strafing Dublin Airport, destroying the south side of Dublin City, knocking out RTE telecommunications networks, bringing down the mobile phone networks, attacking the Irish Defence Forces in the Curragh, and expelling the Irish population from all of Ulster (Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan), as well as north Leinster up to the Boyne River, and creating a wave of human misery of over 600,000 refugees/displacees, including ships and liners and other EU helicopters evacuating non-Irish people (like the 300,000 Poles) by air and sea?? Would you then be surprised if the IRA were to lob mortar fire and rockets at British Forces? Imagine further than British Forces were to build a wall to cut Ireland in half? Whatever about centuries of past British rule in Ireland, in today's world, Britain would and has responded in a civilised way to terrorist provocations.
B) Imagine if in response to the current onslaught by Israel in Lebanon, a combined Arab army were to succeed in occupying Galilee, and expelling the Israelis to the Negev? Imagine if the Palestinians were able to build a wall to cut Israel in two and separate the Haifa/Carmel area from the Negev, and then occupy those divided territories and continuously destroy every advance in socio-economic terms that Israelis might make.
Yet, my friends and fellow development workers, these two cases reflect very exactly the kind of treatment that Israel is meting our to Lebanese and Palestinians alike. It is savage and barbaric, and it is long time overdue to call Israel to account. Israel for most of its existence has hid behind the protective shield of American support, and ignored UN Security Council resolutions, human rights, and international humanitarian law, with gross impunity. But most of all, Israel is betraying the very high moral values that the Mosaic tradition has given to all of us. Israel must instead seek to inspire the world, by exemplary abidance of civilized norms. If it has a right to defend itself, it is NOT at the expense of those norms.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Wednesday, July 26, 2006 2:07 AM
Whatever is the cause of conflict, all the world knows about it. I have no comment on political stuffs, but killing civilian, an attack on the civillion area is not good way to impose their political way. This war need to stop and all concern people need to come to the negociation table.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Wednesday, July 26, 2006 7:54 AM
I think the world leaders should show the leadership role in promoting world peace. US,EU,Israe and Arabs League should share responsibility of in particular resolving the conflict with negotiation rather than a show of strength.
The International measures to protect the people of Lebanon should be strategical and needs based. Strategical could mean strenghening negotiation as equal partners of peace and needs based to evacuate them with special buses which would not be targeted by Israel Planes and providing them temporary shelters, with food, medicine and water.
We as outsiders in the conflict, to ask the US and EU to put all stakeholders in the desk.
This is not a time to blame no one it is a time to say enough is enough
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Wednesday, July 26, 2006 1:52 PM
Obviously there is much available from the usual news sources but people may be interested in this as it claims to be focussed specifically on the humanitarian impact of the situation.
"IRIN has put up a special web page covering the humanitarian impact of the Lebanon Crisis. Our team of reporters provides a comprehensive daily coverage of the situation on the ground and how it is affecting civilians. This page is updated daily."
You can access it by directly clicking on the following link:
http://www.irinnews.org/lebanon-crisis.asp
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Friday, July 28, 2006 7:58 AM
The international community not taking any sides can be more responsible by negotiating a ceasefire and support the civilians with security and humanitarian aid. It would be too ambitious to find or thing of finding a lasting solution to the problem right now. Any forceful intervention by the international community to solve the problem would only complicate the situation.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Friday, July 28, 2006 2:59 PM
Despite, arguably, United Nations Security Council Resolution 1559 no being fully implemented by the Lebanon and despite Israel having little chance of stopping cross border terrorism by Hezbollah, Israel has no right to attack the poor and innocent civilians of Lebanon.
The International community should persuade Israel through the UN or some other multilateral effort to stop the war and find a practical solution to this crisis.
Lebanon is being torn apart and it will take 25 years to rebuild what has been distroyed (physical infrastructure) but it will take more then 1000 years for the war victims to recover, generations will suffer from fear.
We as an international community should stop this ASAP.
Er. Manish Mehta
Humanitarian Worker
(worked in India, Afghanistan, Sudan and Indonesia)
A Question of National Security... @ Friday, July 28, 2006 4:01 PM
One of the most basic responsibilities of any government is the ability to provide its citizens with security from internal and external threats. A police force is the instrument generally used to provide internal security; the military secures the populace against external threats.
The latest undeclared war in the Middle East must certainly give a reasonable person cause to consider the answer to the question "How has the current conflict affected the national security interests of Israel and Lebanon?"
Let us consider the question first from the Lebanese perspective.
Israel's use of the military option against the Hezbollah organization within Lebanon is a clear violation of Lebanese sovereignty, and if Lebanon was to retaliate militarily against Israel, it would be a clear case of self-defense.
However, the failure of Lebanon's legitimate military forces to mobilize in defense of their country seriously degrades the credibility of the current government with its constituent population.
Would Lebanese counterattacks against Israel be a futile gesture? Perhaps. Certainly the Israeli Defense Force (IDF, whose name makes sense only if one supposes that the best defense is in fact a good offense) could easily crush the Lebanese security forces. This, however, would be a clear case of state aggression against another sovereign state, and would be expected to draw strong censure and probable intervention from the rest of the world.
Instead, the only defense against Israeli aggression has come from Hezzbollah, the partisan organization whose kidnapping of 2 Israeli soldiers precipitated the current offensive. This acts to rally public support within Lebanon for the organization, though one could certainly make the point that it was their actions that are responsible for the violence. That's an argument that's likely to ring hollow in the Middle East, where both Arab and Jewish governments and militias have often employed kidnapping, and its ugly stepsister, assassination, as tools to impose their will on other states and militias. Normally, such acts are answered with revenge killings, or, in the case of kidnappings, an eventual exchange of hostages and/or concessions. The Israeli military response is clearly disproportionate and of such magnitude as to overshadow the issue of the supposed provocation.
In Lebanon, the conflict is not helping to stabilize the current regime; if anything, it is likely to give Hezzbollah an even greater stake in the political future of the Lebanese state. Does this sound familiar? It's the same pattern that helped Hamas transition from a purely military organization to the majority winners in the recent Palestinian elections. By demonstrating leadership, resolve, and a willingness to fight for the security of the state, the partisan organization builds a base of legitimacy. By then mobilizing to help rebuild homes and infrastructure destroyed by Israeli raids, they will show the ability to function as administrators.
From the Israeli perspective, how has the military offensive against Hezzbollah elements based in Lebanon made life more secure for the average citizen? How likely is it to be effective in obtaining the release of the Israeli prisoners and in reducing the potential threat of Hezzbollah and its arsenal of conventional weapons?
To answer the first question, it's instructive to ask how many Israelis died in rocket attacks in the 2 weeks preceeding the current offensive. The answer is zero. Compare that to the 29 dead in Hezzbollah retaliatory strikes since the IDF launched their operations against Lebanon. Thus, for Israeli citizens, especially in the north of the country, national security has been greatly reduced, and the likelihood of dying a violent death or receiving a critical injury has skyrocketed.
Could the current reduction in national security be offset by the long-term value of a reduction in Hezzbollah offensive capabilities, or the immediate release of Israeli prisoners? Perhaps, but history indicates that neither of these are likely to occur.
Artillery fire is notoriously ineffective against ground troops and supplies when shelters made of concrete, soil and logs, or rock are available, as they certainly are to Hezzbollah fighters in Lebanon. This has been proved conclusively in battles from WWI through the current US engagements in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Heavy bombs can be more effective, but only if the enemy can be accurately targeted; and with a foe such as Hezzbollah, whose weapons of choice (and necessity) are light, mobile, and easily hidden, that can pose a real problem. As far as applying pressure to Hezzbollah or the Lebanese government, this has been the Holy Grail of air campaigns since WWII – but with the exception of the nuclear attacks against Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it has never been effective. Bombing of infrastructure does not weaken a civilian population or partisan opponent's will to resist; in fact, it tends to bolster national resolve and breeds resentment against the attacker.
A final possibility is to use ground forces to search out enemy fighters and weapons caches. Even for a large occupation force, this can be a difficult proposition. (Consider the US occupation of Iraq, where they are currently facing a fragmented insurgency that is less than 3 years old.) The challenges are increased greatly when the target organization is well-established and embedded in the population and politics of the region. This can really only succeed in an extremely totalitarian environment under martial law, which is not a politically viable option for most democratic governments.
Besides, Israel already occupied Lebanon for 22 years (1978-2000). They couldn't effectively suppress Hezzbollah then, and it's unlikely that they would be able to do so now. With that said, Israel has put itself in a very bad position. It has reduced stability in the region by demonstrating the weakness of the current administration in Lebanon. By taking a hard-line stance, their own government is bound to lose face when they are eventually obliged to negotiate a solution with Hezzbollah, or their defacto representatives in the Lebanese government. For the IDF, this has negative internal and external ramifications; a failure of the military option will reduce morale and show the world that the premier military organization in the Middle East can have its nose bloodied by a rag-tag band of guerrillas with the will to fight.
What does this mean for us as citizens of the world? Most of us are mercifully insulated from this latest wave of violence, but it's of the utmost importance that we do not ignore it. Please contact your country's government and ask them to apply pressure to both Lebanon and Israel to resolve this issue via negotiations.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Saturday, July 29, 2006 5:24 AM
The emerging doctrine of Responsibilty to Protect (R2P) as brought out by Sara Pantuliano and James Darcy is more applicable to internal conflicts. In the international conflict, the nation states generally rally behind their interest blocks making it more complicated. The UN or neutral third Nation or body of nation states may get involved to diffuse the situation.
But in present crisis the question here is;
Is this an international conflict and what international Law is applicable here?
Broadly, the international law governing armed conflicts is covered under Geneva conventions for war between two states or for international conflict. There is another limited set of rules for civil wars and non international conflicts. The present Israel-Lebanon crisis like other conflicts in middle east is a conflict between Israel and Hizbollah which is not a state group. Since the state of Lebanon is not in war with Israel, rather finds it difficult to exercise control over Hizbollah, this cannot be called as an International conflict. It is a complex problem associated with weak or failed state to exercise control over its own cadre(Hizbs) involved in cross border terrorist activities and Israel retaliating strongly to deter such actions of Hizbolah activists. This caused a large number of civilian casualties. Israel by attacking civilian airport and sea blockade to deter Hizbs from future such actions, has further violated humanitarian obligations.
So emerging Doctrine of R2P needs to emerge specifically for such situations where in the conflict may not be International but have a cross border dimension against a non state group or terrorist factions. Since civil population is largely effected in such conflicts, International Community should get involved to take collective responsibility for protecting civilians. This response should be the exercise of first peaceful and then, if necessary, coercive (including forceful) steps.
In the present crisis, international community should pressurise Israel to exercise restraint and hold ceasefire while Lebanon and Hizbullah act responsibly to seprate its military cadre from civil population. International community may be under UN Mission should help Lebanon government to get control over and convert Hizbullah militia into regular force with proper command and control structure of a disciplined force under the control of state. Humanitarian agencies should get involved for response action for effected population.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Wednesday, August 02, 2006 1:28 PM
Let me start by categorically stating that if you find what follows here to be ‘extreme’, it is because you are. Despite how you might read this, I AM trying to engage with the group. But I fear that western political discourse has become so far removed from reason that rational dialogue has become almost impossible.
I was so relieved to see at least one balanced contribution (that of Martin McFingal) among the ones posted on this page. Not surprisingly, it comes from lessons from a relevant case, and probably from an Irish person. The rest are simply old and tired positions from a western group of 'intellectuals' with an extremely one-sided and ill-informed set of propositions. Mr. Lipton, what the 'international community' (a sad misnomer for a minority group of poorly informed, value-free, violent and hypocritical states) needs to do is to LEARN ANEW how to ask the right questions in the first place. The 'international community' needs to stop pretending that is 'responsible' for the security of innocent civilians in oppressed countries. Quite simply, the 'international community' has no legitimacy to even pretend that it has a real role to play on the side of ‘justice’. Its role today is purely and shakily founded on raw military power, decorated (less and less intelligently/convincingly) with seductive imagery of human rights. We need new and revamped international institutions that represent and have another, more legitimate type of affinity with the people of the world.
More than that, western institutions have grown into stale, clueless and really rather stupid organs. How could ‘intellectuals’ and development ‘practitioners’ possibly still be debating a false and deliberately misleading notion like Israeli ‘retaliation’ after all the blatant and habitual atrocities of Israel over 6 decades in the region? Have you had your eyes and ears surgically blocked against the plight of the victims of Zionism? Can you truly not exercise a commonsensical judgement on justice, ethics and fair play when it comes to Arabs? In truth, it would be much more effective for peace in the Middle East if the ‘international community’ simply packed up and left the Arab people to deal with their own problems without outside ‘help’. This is the kind of help that they really do not need, Mr. Lipton. Get the ‘international community’ out, remove their influence, stop pumping western arms and aid into Israel, and then you will see how quickly the Palestinian question would be resolved. Your ‘international community’ IS the problem. It is not the solution.
Finally, and since the predominant discourse is so ‘preoccupied’ with the issue, I will make a simple proposal, knowing that it will raise your blood pressure to the ceiling as it is so unthinkable and out of your ‘western ideological box’. The greatest hope for the spread of democracy in the Middle East is precisely with groups like Hamas and Hizbollah. They are among the few political institutions that have a real constituency among the general population and are in fact held accountable to them through CSO’s and ‘social capital’ as well as the ballot box. Their legitimacy is unparalleled not just because of their proven care for the people in the provision of basic social services, but also exponentially raised by their willingness to fight for their basic human rights and against brutal colonialism, oppression and foreign hegemony. Their strength lies within their ties with their people. What is more, they are willing and ready to talk as equals. It is the West and Israel that is refusing to talk and will not stop the violence. They cannot deal with equals. It is not in their blood.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Friday, August 04, 2006 9:20 AM
This topic has generated an interesting and wide-ranging discussion – rather wider than we envisaged when we posted our original blog. We would like to bring the discussion back to the more specifically humanitarian dimensions of the situation and make a couple of further observations in the light of developments since we posted our comment ten days ago.
First, we think it is important to point out that international humanitarian law – which essentially embodies a doctrine of humane restraint in the use of force – sets limits on the freedom of political and military action of state and non-state actors. The question of whether a given strategy is politically expedient or justified does not affect the application of humanitarian norms. We make no comment on the political wisdom of the strategies adopted by the parties to this conflict, or indeed on the legitimacy of the resort to armed force. Our point was that the humanitarian norms of war apply regardless of the answer to such questions.
Second, this case raises important questions about how to interpret and to comply with the laws of war in ‘asymmetric’ conflicts including (counter-)terrorist or (counter-)insurgency campaigns. How are civilian and military targets to be distinguished in situations of this kind, where one or more parties to the conflict deliberately blurs the distinction? What kind of advance warning to the civilian population would satisfy the demands of the precautionary principle? These and related questions are ones that may pose genuine difficulty for military planners and others. But in our judgement, neither the actions of Israel nor those of Hizbollah satisfy the most basic humanitarian requirements. And we continue to believe that the international community is in dereliction of its responsibility to protect by failing to bring effective pressure to bear on the parties to either moderate their actions in line with international humanitarian law or agree a ceasefire. The result, tragically, is an ever-mounting toll of civilian casualties, displacement and destruction.
We invite further contributions specifically on these humanitarian questions, and suggest that the more political debate about strategy and legitimacy would be better continued elsewhere.
re: What is the responsibility of the international community to protect civilians in the Lebanon crisis? @ Sunday, August 13, 2006 11:37 PM
Asymmetric warfare is nothing new and will increasingly be the way we will find armed conflicts to be fought in the future. Jus in bello was drafted with conventional, Clausewitzian wars in mind. Asymmetric warfare blurs the distinction between civilian and military actors. Does that mean that we will need to create new guidelines to protect civil society during asymmetric conflicts or should the rules apply regardless?
I truly believe in the latter.
This then means that those who have ‘modern’ means of specialist technological equipment and intelligence to achieve a ‘decisions advantage’ due to superior information have an obligation to limit the number of casualties within the civilian population by using the means available to them. They have an obligation to use reasoned retaliation. They have an obligation to do what they can to protect. And they have an obligation to be responsible. Thus, they have a responsibility to protect. The strong must do what they can for the weak not having to suffer.
Should this responsibility not be acted upon by the parties directly involved, the ‘international community’ has an obligation to warrant the same in a timely manner, by any means that this may require.
