International Humanitarian Law Oral Presentation Module Name: UJGT8E-15-M Student No: 11037902

CONTENT Actions taken by Aland Commander Laws of International Armed Conflict Precautions Principles I.C.C. Rome Statute Conclusion

Actions taken by ALAND Commander Estimates that it is too dangerous for Aland combatants to enter Backyard. Decides to shell the part of Backyard closer to his unit as a matter of military necessity. Orders members of his unit to verify evacuation of Blurb combatants, who fire on Aland combatants as they enter Backyard. Orders siege of Backyard which contains cultural property. Orders destruction of Backyard from a distance after failure of the siege to bring about surrender of Blurb combatants.

L. O. I. A. C. Geneva Convention 1 Do Aland’s Commander’s actions respect wounded and sick enemy combatants in the field? Geneva Convention 4 Is there sufficient evidence that Blurb’s civilians were protected from military attacks? Additional Protocol 1 ICRC Study on Customary International Law governing long term and on-going conflict between the armed forces of two or more nations. 1949 Geneva Conventions GCI … wounded and sick combatants GC II … maritime conflict … laws governing armed conflict at sea. GC III … prisoners of war and other protected persons GC IV … civilians as protected persons during armed conflicts. Additional Protocol 1, (API) 1977 … to Geneva Conventions regarding laws of international armed conflict ICRC study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, (CIHL) 2005 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict Hague Regulations, annexed to The Hague Convention of 18 October 1907 Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (HR IV) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, (ICC) 1998 Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY)

Precautions in attack Precautions should have been taken before the shelling, siege and destruction of the Backyard by Aland. E.g. Art. 57 (2)(a), AP1 & Rule 18, CIL asserts ‘feasible precautions’ must be taken by combatants before an attack, e.g. verifying military objects are being targeted and minimising collateral damage. Precautions should be taken to verify military objectives in the destruction of Backyard E.g. Art. 57(3), AP1 ‘military object selected for targeting should cause least collateral damage’ Art. 57 (1), AP1 ‘bellingerent parties should refrain from targeting civilians’. Art.57(2)(c), AP1 & Rule 20, CIL obliges bellingerent parties to provide ‘effective advance warning of military attacks which may affect civilians’

Principle of Military Necessity “military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage” Article 52(2) AP I & Rule 8, CIHL It may be argued, Aland’s actions arose from military necessity, and therefore were not illegal acts of warfare. Blurb should not have established military objects where Backyard’s civilian population was put at risk of military attack. Moreover, it was the duty of Blurb’s Commanders to remove civilian population from areas most like to be targeted in Backyard. Presence of civilians on its own is not sufficient to render certain areas immune from military targetting. Art 28, GC4 Rule 23, CIL … ‘bellingerent parties should avoid establishing military objects near civilian objects’… Rule 24, CIL … ‘bellingerent parties should remove civilians and civilian objectives under their control from the vicinity of military objects’…. However, Art. 52 (1), AP1 which states civilians shall not be the object of attack.

Principle of Unnecessary Suffering Criteria for ordering siege of Backyard do not meet provisions of Art. 54(5), AP1… Aland was not defending its territory from invasion by Blurb. Arts.12-15, GC1 obliges combatants to respect wounded and sick combatants. CIL: Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission deemed siege warfare to be prohibited. Possible illegality of siege causing unnecessary suffering to enemy combatants. GC1- No evidence of respect for wounded and sick … wounded and sick combatants shall not be murdered or exterminated; and should receive adequate care.

Principle of Distinction Excessive collateral damage to Backyard including destruction of cultural property is a serious breach of l.o.i.a.c. Art. 49, GC IV Art.52 (3), AP1 Rule 50 CIHL Art. 27 (1) & 56, HR IV Art. 49, GC4 prohibits collective punishment of civilians. Art.52 (3), AP1 prohibits targeting civilian objects, e.g. museums. ICRC study on CIL affirms civilian objects benefit from complementary protection and should not be targeted, even if justified by military necessity. Art. 27 (1) Hague Regulations IV ….”In sieges and bombardments all necessary steps must be taken to spare, as far as possible, buildings dedicated to religion, art, science, or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not being used at the time for military purposes” Art. 56, HR IV … “The property of municipalities, that of institutions dedicated to religion, charity and education, the arts and sciences, even when State property, shall be treated as private property. All seizure of, destruction or wilful damage done to institutions of this character, historic monuments, works of art and science, is forbidden, and should be made the subject of legal proceedings”

Principle of Discrimination No formal advance warnings were given to Blurb by Aland before shelling, siege and destruction of Backyard. Art. 33-34, GC IV prohibits indiscriminate destruction of civilian objects. Art. 51 (4), AP1 prohibits indiscriminate military attacks, not directed at specific military targets resulting in excessive loss of civilian lives. Rule 146, CIHL prohibits reprisals on protected persons e.g. civilians Rule 147, CIHL prohibits reprisals on protected civilian objects e.g. cultural property

Principle of Proportionality Disproportionate collateral damage caused by the shelling and destruction of Backyard is illegal. Art. 50/ 51/130/147 of GC 1-IV respectively prohibit wanton, excessive destruction of civilian objectives in military attacks. E.g. Art. 3 (b) ICTY Statute states ‘wanton destruction of civilian objectives constitute a war crime for which an individual may be prosecuted’. ICC Statute & national legislation of many states including the UK, USA, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Australia also make it a war crime to violate principle of proportionality Art.57, AP1 & Rule 14, CIHL . Launching an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, is prohibited.

Principle of Humanity No evidence of warnings by Aland for Blurb to evacuate Backyard’s civilian pop’n. Art. 17, GC IV obliges bellingerent parties conclude agreements for the removal of the wounded and other protected persons from besieged areas. Art. 54, AP 1 prohibits starvation of civilians as a means of warfare. Art. 103, CIL prohibits collective punishment.

Were the decisions of the Aland Commander legitimate acts of warfare? For Against Military precautions should have been taken by Blurb to reduce collateral damage. Use of the civilian pop’n of Backyard as human shields by Blurb was illegal. Attack on Aland unit is evidence of military necessity for shelling of Backyard. Excessive and indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objectives constitute a war crime. Collective punishment e.g. reprisal attacks is prohibited. Siege warfare is prohibited. Military attacks on cultural property which are prohibited. Use of human shields by combatants is prohibited … Rule 97, CIHL However, cardinal principles of distinction and unnecessary suffering seriously violated by Aland’s reprisal attacks. ... Rule 8, CIHL asserts civilians should not be militarily targeted. … Art 53 c prohibits reprisals where cultural property may be destroyed … Rule 145, CIHL prohibits reprisals except under certain circumstances excluding anticipatory reprisals e.g. measure of last resort when formal warning should be given; must be proportionate & decision taken at highest level of government. …

1998 Rome Statute of the I.C.C Serious Violations/War Crimes Siege of Backyard violates Art. 7 i) Order to destroy Backyard violates Art. 8 (2) (a) (iv) ii) destruction of cultural property violates Art. 8 (2) (b) (ix) Rule 152, CIHL … Commanders and other superiors are criminally responsible for war crimes committed pursuant to their orders. … also asserted in ICC Statute, Arts. 5 & 25 ; ICTY Statute, Articles 2 & 3 Serious violations of Geneva Conventions included in Rome Statute of ICC, e.g. WW2 war crimes trials … Art.7… Siege of Backyard was a crime against humanity,, if unnecessary suffering caused to civilians and combatants. Art. 8 (2) (a) (iv) Extensive destruction of Backyard was not imperatively justified by military necessity and therefore was a crime Grave breaches of AP1 … Art. 57 (2)(a)(iii) states indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations constitute a war crime; Art. 85 (3) (b) AP1 … making buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes or historic monuments the object of attack, provided they are not military objectives. …. Art. 8 (2) (b) (ix) Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives.

Conclusion The siege and destruction of Backyard constitute serious violations of jus in bello, for which Aland’s Commander can be prosecuted as a war criminal.

Bibliography Dinstein, Yoram, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (2nd Edn. Cambridge University Press 2010) International Committee of the Red Cross, Treaties and Customary Law, http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/treaties-customary-law/index.jsp accessed 21 Februray 2013 International Committee of the Red Cross: Advisory Service on international Humanitarian Law, Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Kalshoven, F. and Zegveld, L., Constraints on the Waging of War; An Introduction to International Humanitarian Law (4th Edn..Cambrige University Press 2011)