No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the author.
The End of Innocence: Rethinking Noncombatancy in the Post-Kosovo Era
Abstract
The protection of civilians and their property in war is an accepted norm of international law - even where the putatively "noncombatant" populace openly supports the immoral use of force by its military. NATO's Kosovo operation suggests, however, that the imposition of hardship on the sentient, adult "noncombatant" population through property loss can erode a society's appetite for malevolence. While civilians should not be targeted, a new paradigm for noncombatancy that allows the destruction of certain property currently protected by international law but not absolutely indispensable to civilian survival may well help shorten conflict and effect necessary societal change.
... Ausgehend von der Einschätzung, dass die Politik der jugoslawischen Regierung gegenüber dem Kosovo nicht nur von der Regierung Milosevic, sondern von der Mehrheit der serbischen Bevölkerung getragen wurde, wird erwogen, ob nicht sinnvollerweise der völkerrechtlich festgeschriebene Nichtkombattantenstatus der Bevölkerung durch eine formelle Änderung der Rechtsnorm teilweise eingeschränkt werden sollte. Dadurch würden Angriffe auch auf rein zivile Einrichtungen, wie etwa Banken, Fabriken, Geschäfte sowie kulturelle und historisch wertvolle Objekte -wenn auch noch nicht auf Zivilpersonen selbst -möglich, um auf diese Weise den Druck auf den Gegner zu erhöhen [36] . ...
Dr. phil., geb. 1960; Referent für Grundsatzfragen in der internationalen Planungsabteilung der Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Sankt Augustin. Anschrift: Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung, Rathausallee 12, D-53757 Sankt Augustin. E-Mail: Martin.Hoch@kas.de Veröffentlichungen zur Kriegstheorie, internationalen Politik und Militärgeschichte, u. a.: Zum Verhältnis von Krieg und Politik im 21. Jahrhundert: Grauzonen, Verwerfungen, Paradoxa, in: Jörg Calließ (Hrsg.), Vom Gebrauch des "traurigen Notmittels" Krieg. Welche militärischen Operationen können welche politischen Zwecke fördern?, Loccumer Protokolle, Bd. 32/2000, Rehburg-Loccum 2001 (i. E.). Kurzbeschreibung: Im Konfliktspektrum des 21. Jahrhunderts kommt den "kleinen Kriegen" (den Kriegen zwischen Staaten und nichtstaatlichen Akteuren) im Vergleich zu den zwischenstaatlichen Kriegen eine wachsende Bedeutung zu. Eine der Grundtendenzen des zukünftigen Kriegsbildes ist die immer schwieriger zu treffende Unterscheidung zwischen zivilen und militärischen Zielen, zwischen Kombattanten und Nichtkombattanten. Diese Unterscheidung ist gleichwohl zu einem unverzichtbaren Teil des zivilisatorischen Selbstverständnisses westlicher Staaten geworden. Für westliche Demokratien werden Militäreinsätze als Mittel der Politik im 21. Jahrhundert nur dann sinnvoll und zu verantworten sein, wenn sie -im Verbund mit geeigneten diplomatischen Maßnahmen -eine grundlegende, dauerhafte und vor allem von der unterlegenen Seite akzeptierte Veränderung der politischen Ausgangslage bewirken.
The monograph ascertains the balance between the principles of military necessity and humanity. This balance can be considered as the essence of International Humanitarian Law. The study provides a structured overview of rights and obligation issues applied during an armed conflict, focusing mainly on theoretical shortcomings in the field and their impact. These principles are able to address contemporary development issues and many times interact even more properly than the existing treaty framework.
Cambridge Core - Public International Law - The Military Commander's Necessity - by Sigrid Redse Johansen
This work has examined the evolution of the idea that certain categories of people ought to be granted immunity from violence in war. Of each stage of the Western justification of war over the past 1600 years, the questions have been asked: Who may be killed in war? Why? Who may not? Why not? These questions were asked in order to discover the reasoning and motivations behind the development of the PNCI. Some conclusions can now be reached and some pointers to the future development of the principle given.
Der Lebenskundliche Unterricht war sowohl inhaltlich als auch methodisch von Anbeginn seiner Einführung im Kern immer schon ein Ethikunterricht. Dies gilt es in einem ersten Teil – nach einigen erläuternden Hinweisen zu den grundlegenden Zielbestimmungen bei der Einrichtung dieses Unterrichts – anhand ausgewählter Beispiele darzustellen. Erst mit der Inkraftsetzung der neuen Zentralen Dienstvorschrift (ZDv) 10/4 im Jahr 20091, welche die ZDv 66/2 aus dem Jahre 1959 ablöste, erfuhr dieser Unterricht eine spezifische berufsethische Ausrichtung.
Some contemporary and emerging approaches to the conduct of hostilities are tackled in this chapter. While attacking the enemy from a distance may be nothing new, the use of remotely piloted platforms and of cyber attack techniques potentially takes the notion of ‘remote attack’ to a new level. The legal implications of notions of ‘invulnerable remoteness’, and the liability issues that may be triggered by erroneous remote attacks, are explored. Some interpretations of the concept of ‘Effects based operations’ seem hard to reconcile with the principle of distinction. Will that principle prevail? Is the evident depopulation of the future battlefield that new technology may herald a legally significant development and will it in fact be machines that decide who is to live and who is to die? Does asymmetry in warfare justify the asymmetrically inferior in loosening the legal constraints by which he is bound
This chapter examines the international humanitarian law governing the conduct of “attacks”. In particular, it identifies and analyzes topics in the law of attack that are presently unsettled as a matter of law. Issues addressed include the scope of the term “military objectives”, the meaning of the term “attack”, application of the rule of proportionality, and the precautions in attack requirements. The author offers his own assessment of how best to resolve such matters.
Cyber warfare figures prominently on the agenda of policymakers and military leaders around the world. New units to ensure cyber security are created at various levels of government, including in the armed forces. But cyber operations in armed conflict situations could have potentially very serious consequences, in particular when their effect is not limited to the data of the targeted computer system or computer. Indeed, cyber operations are usually intended to have an effect in the ‘real world’. For instance, by tampering with the supporting computer systems, one can manipulate an enemy's air traffic control systems, oil pipeline flow systems, or nuclear plants. The potential humanitarian impact of some cyber operations on the civilian population is enormous. It is therefore important to discuss the rules of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern such operations because one of the main objectives of this body of law is to protect the civilian population from the effects of warfare. This article seeks to address some of the questions that arise when applying IHL – a body of law that was drafted with traditional kinetic warfare in mind – to cyber technology. The first question is: when is cyber war really war in the sense of ‘armed conflict’? After discussing this question, the article goes on to look at some of the most important rules of IHL governing the conduct of hostilities and the interpretation in the cyber realm of those rules, namely the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution. With respect to all of these rules, the cyber realm poses a number of questions that are still open. In particular, the interconnectedness of cyber space poses a challenge to the most fundamental premise of the rules on the conduct of hostilities, namely that civilian and military objects can and must be distinguished at all times. Thus, whether the traditional rules of IHL will provide sufficient protection to civilians from the effects of cyber warfare remains to be seen. Their interpretation will certainly need to take the specificities of cyber space into account. In the absence of better knowledge of the potential effects of cyber warfare, it cannot be excluded that more stringent rules might be necessary.
This article examines how military organizations that are generally committed to following the laws and customs of war exploit what the author terms ‘the collateral damage exemption’, by employing legally-sanctioned war-fighting strategies that result in significant numbers of civilian casualties. This exemption shields combatants from legal liability for ‘incidental’ or ‘inadvertent’ civilian losses and the destruction of civilian objects that may occur during lawful actions. The author argues that military strategies which promote the use of overwhelming force under conditions that are likely to adversely affect the civilian population on a significant scale push the boundaries of legal behavior. Under these conditions, collateral damage is not inadvertent, but the calculated results of policy decisions. Most academics, journalists, and political leaders focus on blatant violations of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), for example, deliberate attacks on civilian populations. However, these actions are in many ways the least interesting from both a policy and scholarly perspective. This is because such violations are usually unambiguous, easily detected, and difficult to defend. More insidious are practices that deliberately straddle the line between legitimate action and violation by exploiting the collateral damage exception to IHL. This article demonstrates that high rates of civilian casualties that occur under the shroud of legality threaten the integrity of the laws and customs of armed conflict.
In this paper the author examines areas of overlap between information crimes (also known as hacking and cyberterrorism) and traditional war crimes as defined by the internationally accepted laws of armed conflict paying special attention to the principles of chivalry, humanity, proportionality, and military necessity. This paper further explores the potential culpability of information warfare practitioners should this intersection of information warfare and war crimes become codified into international law.
In this essay, I address a recent argument by Colm McKeogh and several others that calls for two major modifications of traditional Just War doctrine: (1) abandoning the intend/foresee distinction and outlawing even foreseen civilian deaths in war, and (2) abandoning the principle of noncombatant immunity to the extent of allowing intentional harm to civilian property in war, so long as that property is not indispensable for survival. I argue that neither of these changes is warranted from a moral standpoint. In particular, I claim that the two proposals are in fundamental tension: McKeogh invokes the principle of noncombatant immunity in war to justify his first proposal, but then violates that principle in his second proposal. There is no good moral basis for permitting intentional harm to innocent persons, even if that harm is only to property. Finally, I defend the intend/foresee distinction as a reasonable basis on which to minimize harm to innocents in wartime.
The ‘direct participation’ exception to the principle of distinction, found in Article 51(3) of Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Protocol II, embodies a long-recognized concept in the laws governing armed conflict. For centuries the broad notion that humanity demands the protection only of those citizens who are harmless has found expression in the rules and norms relating to war. This article traces the historical factors and trends which influenced the development of the ‘direct participation’ exception in its current form, revealing a tendency towards ‘humanizing’ the law in favour of civilians, notwithstanding their increased military value.
Myths of Popular Innocence
- J Daniel
- Boorstin
Daniel J. Boorstin, "Myths of Popular Innocence," US.
Serbs Unmoved By Kosovans' Anguish
- Eve-Ann Prentice
See e.g., Eve-Ann Prentice, "Serbs Unmoved By
Kosovans' Anguish," London Times, May 26, 1999.