This means that this essay treads a very fine line in a particularly delicate area within the convolution of the world of armed conflict where the human rights violations are brought up against the nuances of international law and ethic. The question at its core resolves around if by the very existence of war in itself it automatically means their incidence is an infringement on the right of life. The goal in this discussion, hence, is to analyse legal framework, borrow lessons from historical precedents as well explore ethics that informs review of human rights during times war is being inflicted. A balance so delicate between military necessity and individual rights, this essay is focused on to enlighten that the occurrence of civilian deaths might be regarded as regrettable but in an unambiguous manner does not signify breach of the right to life. The following sections help address these complexities with the kind of comprehensive examination needed of this critical element of international law.
Definitions of Armed Conflict
In this regard the credit should go to such critical role played by certain international legal instruments that provide the framework within which the understanding and categorization of such conflicts are pursued in delineating the definition of armed conflict. With this in context, hence, the Geneva Conventions, coupled with their Additional Protocols, are critical fundamental instruments that institute clear definitions as well as rules. Such treaties define the parameters within which armed conflicts may be identified and provide a basis in which International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is to be applied in situations that involve such armed conflicts[1]. Referring to these instruments, we do recognize how important the same has been in shaping the legal landscape that should govern the conduct of parties involved by the arm conflicts.
The Geneva Conventions were adopted between 1864 to 1949, which gave the legal framework for the protection of civilians and combatants in an armed conflict[2]. The Third Geneva Convention deals with the treatment of prisoners of war in custody, while the Fourth Geneva Convention has treated the protection of civilians during wartime. Moreover, the Additional Protocols of 1977 elaborated on the definitions and scope of regulations of armed conflicts. The provisions under non-international armed conflicts added in Additional Protocol II, however, make reference to a spectrum of situations from conflict between states to disturbances and tensions of an internal nature stronger.
Further, the International Criminal Court (ICC), through the Rome Statute, houses the definition of armed conflict as a developing legal concept. Adopted in 1998, the court defines in no uncertain terms its jurisdiction over war crimes, violation to humanity, and genocide[3]. By way of a reference of this statute, we take note to the developing enshrined law definitions around armed conflicts and the commitment to holding accountability for grave international crimes. Both these international legal instruments help to build a comprehensive understanding of armed conflict and to find ways through the complexities of today’s warfare within a clearly defined legal framework for all actors who engage in armed conflict.
Distinction between Civilian Casualties and Violation of the Right to Life
This is in consideration of the disparity between harm to civilians and violation of the right to life in armed conflicts, thus one of the fundamental pillars concerning the principle of proportionality as an important guiding legal framework. Proportionality, enshrined in customary as well as treaty-based international humanitarian law (IHL), forms the basic tenet aimed at striking a right balance between the anticipated military advantage of a given attack and the prospective harm to civilians or civilian objects. It should be emphasized that though unintentional civilian casualties may be integral to the tragic commission of warfare what is most important is that they should not sustain incommensurable disproportion compared to the military advantage sought[4]. This principle functions as a critical safeguard in attempting to ensure the use of force remains within acceptable bounds thus preventing too much harm being meted on non-combatants.
The principle of proportionality builds on the legal framework and acts as moral and legal handicap to military action drawing attention to the need for a controlled response that would achieve military aims[5]. However, understanding such intricacies of proportionality demands the analytical and illustrative nature of specific cases and examples to define its practical application. This transition helps to relate the legal concepts with their practical representation during battles and further improvises the continuum of storying.
The translation of proportionality from theoretical onlookings to practical implications, actual cases in the real word reveal the sophistication of the application of the principle to the context of armed conflicts. Meanwhile, examples of how military forces take precautions to avoid causing damage on civilians is by issuing warnings before an operation or strike in an area that civilians might be present. Through these real-world examples, attention is returned from theory to the very practical issue of keeping a clear focus on the principle of proportionality as applied access civilian casualties.
On the other hand, a stark contrast comes to the fore when one considers those cases where proportionality fails and there arise cases of civilian casualties that seem disproportionate if compared to the military objectives being pursued[6]. The Yemen conflict, with reports of indiscriminate bombings reported to have hit civilian areas, brings to the fore accusations of deliberate targeting of non-combatants. It is such instances that reflect the critical role of proportionality in preventing excessive harm and underline the ethical and legal necessity to scrutinize such cases where the principle may not have been adequately observed. It is through this broad examination that the precise application of proportionality in the context of armed conflicts surfaces hence fathoming its fundamental nature in forging a line between nonintentional loss of civilian life and deliberate breach of guarantee of life.
Proportionality and Military Necessity
The assessment of civilians during armed conflict is essentially influenced by the international humanitarian law (IHL), a kind of guiding principle that is strongly based on the two principles of proportionality and military necessity. Proportionality as a guiding principle insists on a judicious equilibrium between the military advantage sought and potential hurt to civilians or civilian infrastructures[7]. And proportionality acts as a crucial restraint placing demand that the force remains proportionate to the intended military objective. Military necessity, of course, proceeds hand in hand with the inherent violence of armed conflict which would enable the military to use all force necessary to obtain legitimate military objectives. The demand to protect civilian lives clearly emerges in the essence of warfare, and therein lies the issue with balancing proportionality and military necessity.
As this report details by analysis of legal precedents as provided by the International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons and cases heard by international criminal tribunals, proportionality and military necessity are not empty concepts but are vital bench marks for a determination of whether acts during armed conflict are legal[8]. These principles can be found in legal discourses and they advise the ethical, legal dimensions applicable to civilian deaths. For instance, the ICJ advisory opinion also emphasizes strictly application of these principles in regard to the consideration of the use of nuclear weapons that further implies that event at extreme cases the principle of proportionality and military necessity is essential.
In the same vein, an examination of cases before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) has provided the application brought by principles such as proportionality and military necessity to the real facts in the context[9]. These tribunals have dived deep into the cases relating to the allegations of disproportionate and unnecessary use of force offering jurisprudential insights that give illumination in the way of interpretation and application of these critical principles. In this regard, these instances show the empirical importance of military necessity, as well as proportionality in holding missions accountable for side effects on the civil population.
Even as we move to the second part of this paper where this impact of the principles continued to frame the backdrop within which state responsibility and accountability is pursued amplifying the layers within the paradigm of armed conflicts in international law. The integration of these legal precedents here in a coherent way not only heightens the richness of the theoretical discourse but also drives home the message that proportionality and military necessity are firmly rooted in the realities of real life and hardly independent from them as indeed they ought to be.
State Responsibility and Accountability
Protection of the civilians is not only a mere moral-imperative but again it’s as a legal responsibility within the international humanitarian law (IHL) which rests upon the states during times of armed-conflict. States have a responsibility to ensure that military action takes place within the confines of established legal norms and that the top rule of war always remains the minimizing harm to the civilians’[10].This responsibility extends not just in the battlefield but also covers during efforts preventing displacement and humanitarian assistance as well as ensuring safe return. Within armed conflict’s legal frame work is the responsibility of a state on civilian casualties thus further debate on accountability is framed around.
Where such have been sustained the obligations ascribed to States surrounding such civilian losses are critical as a factor at the bleeding edge that determines in law the outcome. For the states that are liable for wrongdoings that associate with arms forces, they ought to take liability of conducting a full investigation in claims raised proper prosecuting of the perpetuators involved in any wrongdoing and making reparation remedies for the victims since under international law. A state’s failure to execute any of these responsibilities normally culminates in the international condemnation and possible sanctions by the international community[11]. The relationship that exists between the duties of states and the legal consequences of that responsibility reveals the thin line that must be drawn between military necessity and the regard for the preservation of civilian life thereby expressing the gravity attached to state action in wartime.
The legal implication of this is for far beyond the battlefield and it underscores that states have a responsibility not only to refrain from recruiting such harm but respond to and offer redress in a timely fashion. That is in relation to occurrences of the failure of states whereby the connection can be associated between state actions with the protection to civilian lives. Indeed, historical and contemporary examples show the transformation of state’s actions into civilian casualties in legal operate as much as the aftermath of the NATO intervention to Kosovo or the proceedings of the International Criminal Court (ICC) with respect to the situation in Darfur. These cases evidence concrete impacts of state’s responsibility over the protection to civilian lives and indicate how accountability mechanisms are recorded in order to enforce IHL principles.
Essentially, state responsibility thus by linkage to legal consequences creates a framework in which states are not just the principle protagonists in times of armed conflict but essentially the main bearers of legal obligation towards protecting civilians[12]. This mutually benefiting relationship underscoring the importance for states adhering to principles that are contained within IHL ensuring their actions concur with that imperative of minimizing harm sustained by non-combatants. In symbol, here it proves level of legal consequence the actions of states play as important mechanism to the rights and lives of civilians during the friction of armed conflicts towards our exploration within the complexities of state responsibility and accountability. Furthermore, examples of the recorded and contemporary instances compounding into this serve to manifold reinforce the need for such robust frameworks of accountability that will be effective in establishing a climate which is internationally biding in assuring securing the civilian lives with regard to international law.
Human-rights Approach
Such a characteristic played by the international humanitarian law (IHL) in intersection with human rights law (HRL) during armed conflicts most certainly embarks for quite a nuanced challenge, particularly whilst evaluating the kind of civilian casualty. While, in fact, when harking back to foundational principles, applied strictly, a rights-based approach may find difficulty accommodating the distinct dynamics that fuel war. The tendency of human rights law, with its stress on the inalienable right to life, is to come into contact from time to time with pragmatic allocations spelled out by IHL[13]. The unexpected part of the requirement that forces operating in armed conflict can be able to deal with complex and unpredictable occurring situations may translate into their unintended causing harm to the civilians, this calls for proper equilibrium between the regard for basic rights and the realities that those that get involved in conflicts can face.
Notably, challenges arise in examining cases that have traversed the corridors of international courts particularly those touching on the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR). The Behrami and Saramati case in the view of the Kosovo armed conflicts is hence just one such example, looking at the same from a perspective of the appraisal of the ECtHR considering cases where alleged violations of their right to life took place[14]. This is premised on the underpinning of these cases on the difficulty of applying human rights standards in armed conflict wherein the straight application of these principles may not necessarily cover exigencies faced by military actors. Moving through these challenges, the ECtHR has illustrated the requirement of such a nuanced understanding which could encompass flexibility embedded within international humanitarian law in dealing with complexities being surfaced out of armed conflicts as well.
This is the delicate balancing act that the ECtHR has to strike in these cases, recognizing of course at the same time the military obligation to protect soldiers’ lives and practical constraints of war[15]. The court has been stalled between the absolutist character of such right and the necessity to permit military forces sufficient flexibility so that they will have the ability to act effectively in chaos of armed conflict. This struggle, however, underscores both the overarching theme of idealized principles on human rights vis a vis with the pragmatic necessities to ensure national security and at the same time in the midst of hostilities, to protect civilians.
In this form, these challenges faced by the ECtHR grow increasingly significant in a form that would impact broader discourse on human rights concerning the way civilian casualties are handled in any armed conflict. The influence of this in some way similar to this is the approach while the decisions of the court try to balance out the absolute nature of the right to life against the realities of warfare, it determines how balancing out that human rights principles can be effective in the elaborate context of waging war[16]. Therefore, this complex interplay highlights the continued necessity for balanced perspectives with regards to essential human rights while also taking into account complexities faced by military actors contributing to continued evolution of legal frameworks governing right to life in armed conflict.
Conclusion
From this view, this research clearly underlines the balanced perspective in contemplating armed-conflict civilian casualties: The multi-faceted issue that ensues. The thesis, therefore, one which demonstrates that death amongst civilians or non-combatants does in no essentialist way represent a violation to the right to life, finds its support through thoughtful analysis of international legal frameworks, historical example, and ethically considered conclusions. Against these formal definitions of armed conflict and the varying debates revolving issues like distinction from noncombatants, proportionality and necessity are some of the concepts laying basis for a better perspective of nuanced relationship existing between civilian protection legal frameworks with practicality. But perhaps it serves as an equally important function, underlining the continuing problem of balancing military exigencies with the imperative of causing minimum harm to non-combatants. As global armed conflicts mutate further, this nuanced perspective certainly infers a development in the refinement of the legal frameworks surrounding how best to protect civilians— all as valuable insight for not only policy-makers but scholars who necessarily participate in the pursuit of minimizing the impact of warfare upon civilian populations.
Bibliography
Alexy, R., ‘Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality’ in M. Rosenfeld and A. Arato (eds), Habermas and Law (Routledge 2020) pp 265-274.
Bantekas, I., ‘Punishment in Warfare and the Application of Law’ in A. Clapham and P. Gaeta (eds), Principles of Direct and Superior Responsibility in International Humanitarian Law (Manchester University Press 2022) 1-37.
D’Alessandra, F., and Gillett, M., ‘The War Crime of Starvation in Non-International Armed Conflict’ (2019) 17(4) Journal of International Criminal Justice 815-847.
Frenkel, B.E., Green Martínez, S.A., and Maisley, N., ‘Uses of IHL by the International Court of Justice: A Critical Approach towards Its Role in the International Legal Arena’ in Heffes, E., and Bento, C. (eds), International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors: Debates, Law and Practice (2020) 265-295.
Getachew, A., ‘The Limits of Sovereignty as Responsibility’ (2019) 26(2) Constellations 225-240.
Gowlland-Debbas, V., United Nations Sanctions and International Law (Vol. 1) (Brill, 2021).
Lubell, N., and Cohen, A., ‘Strategic Proportionality: Limitations on the Use of Force in Modern Armed Conflicts’ (2020) 96 Int Law Stud 159-195.
Melzer, N., and Kuster, E., International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction (International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 2019).
Morawska, E.H., ‘The Preventive Dimension of the Protection of the Right to Life under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2019) 20(2) Espaço Jurídico J Law [EJJL] 233-250.
Okada, Y., ‘What’s Wrong with Behrami and Saramati? Revisiting the Dichotomy between UN Peacekeeping and UN-authorized Operations in Terms of Attribution’ (2019) 24(2) J Conflict & Security Law 343-371.
O’Sullivan, E., and Ackerman, J.E., Practice and Procedure of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: With Selected Materials from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (BRILL 2021).
Regan, M., ‘International Law and the Humanization of Warfare’ (2023) 37(4) Ethics & Int’l Aff 375-390.
Solis, G.D., the Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
Trykhlib, K., ‘The Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2020) 4 EU & Comp Law Issues & Challenges Ser (ECLIC) 128-154.
Tzenios, N., ‘Case Study: Just War Doctrine’ (2023) 13(1) Open J Political Sci 1-17.
White, N. D. (2019). Due diligence obligations of conduct: developing a responsibility regime for PMSCs. In Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) and the Quest for Accountability (pp. 96-124). Routledge.
[1] Melzer, N., and Kuster, E., International Humanitarian Law: A Comprehensive Introduction (International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, 2019).
[2] Bantekas, I., ‘Punishment in Warfare and the Application of Law’ in A. Clapham and P. Gaeta (eds), Principles of Direct and Superior Responsibility in International Humanitarian Law (Manchester University Press 2022) 1-37.
[3] D’Alessandra, F., and Gillett, M., ‘The War Crime of Starvation in Non-International Armed Conflict’ (2019) 17(4) Journal of International Criminal Justice 815-847.
[4] Solis, G.D., The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (Cambridge University Press, 2021).
[5] Alexy, R., ‘Constitutional Rights, Balancing, and Rationality’ in M. Rosenfeld and A. Arato (eds), Habermas and Law (Routledge 2020) pp 265-274.
[6] Tzenios, N., ‘Case Study: Just War Doctrine’ (2023) 13(1) Open J Political Sci 1-17.
[7] Lubell, N., and Cohen, A., ‘Strategic Proportionality: Limitations on the Use of Force in Modern Armed Conflicts’ (2020) 96 Int Law Stud 159-195.
[8] Frenkel, B.E., Green Martínez, S.A., and Maisley, N., ‘Uses of IHL by the International Court of Justice: A Critical Approach Towards Its Role in the International Legal Arena’ in Heffes, E., and Bento, C. (eds), International Humanitarian Law and Non-State Actors: Debates, Law and Practice (2020) 265-295.
[9] O’Sullivan, E., and Ackerman, J.E., Practice and Procedure of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia: With Selected Materials from the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (BRILL 2021).
[10] Getachew, A., ‘The Limits of Sovereignty as Responsibility’ (2019) 26(2) Constellations 225-240.
[11] Gowlland-Debbas, V., United Nations Sanctions and International Law (Vol. 1) (Brill, 2021).
[12] White, N. D. (2019). Due diligence obligations of conduct: developing a responsibility regime for PMSCs. In Private Military and Security Companies (PMSCs) and the Quest for Accountability (pp. 96-124). Routledge.
[13] Regan, M., ‘International Law and the Humanization of Warfare’ (2023) 37(4) Ethics & Int’l Aff 375-390.
[14] Okada, Y., ‘What’s Wrong with Behrami and Saramati? Revisiting the Dichotomy between UN Peacekeeping and UN-authorized Operations in Terms of Attribution’ (2019) 24(2) J Conflict & Security Law 343-371.
[15] Trykhlib, K., ‘The Principle of Proportionality in the Jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights’ (2020) 4 EU & Comp Law Issues & Challenges Ser (ECLIC) 128-154.
[16] Morawska, E.H., ‘The Preventive Dimension of the Protection of the Right to Life under the European Convention on Human Rights’ (2019) 20(2) Espaço Jurídico J Law [EJJL] 233-250.
write