Please enable JavaScript.

Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.

II- Attacks on invidividuals - Coggle Diagram

- - - - Cause injury or death to people
      - Destroy or damage physical objects or infrastructure
  - - - IAC -> combatants are typically members of the armed forces of a state -> they have the right to participate in hostilities, if they are captured they are entitled to POAW status (cannot be prosecuted just for taking part in fighting)
      - NIAC -> they can be lawfully targeted during an armed conflict BUT they do not have combatant immunity if captured + can be prosecuted for taking part in the fighting
    - - Formal membership: The person is part of a permanent unit, possibly wears a uniform, or is clearly integrated into the armed group.
      - Functional membership: Even if not formally part of the group, someone who continuously performs combat functions (planning, fighting, etc.) can be considered a member — and therefore can be targeted
    - - However, if someone only fights occasionally, they are treated as a civilian taking direct part in hostilities — and they can only be targeted while participating in the hostile act
      - Some civilian accompanying armed forces can benefit from POW status. Combatants and POW usually goes hand by hand (usually those who are targeted can benefit from POW status) BUT there are also persons who are entitled to POW status who are civilians BUT they cannot be targeted
    - - Combatants: no need of distinction (can still be targeted because of the only fact that they are members of the armed force)
        
        If you are member of an armed forces but you do not were a distinctive sign, the adversary knows that you are member of the armed force, you can still be targeted
        
        Combatants can be targeted permanently as long as:
        
        They are not placed hors de combat
        
        They haven’t have formally laid down their arms
      - POWs: distinctive sign is necessary + civilians entitled to POW status.
- - - - They CANNOT be targeted, but they CAN be arrested (if they represent a threat for the enemy -> can be arrested for its participation in the hostilities)
      - What is an act of direct participation in hostilities
        
        Casuistic approach (ICTY): to be determined in concreto: acts which never constitute DPH (providing food, medicine)/ acts which always constitute DPC (attacking, conducting sabotage operations)/ unclear acts (furnishing ammunition, voluntary human shield)
        
        Abstract approach (ICRC) -> 3 criteria
        
        Threshold of harm (affect military capacity of the enemy)
        
        Direct causation (causal link between the act and the harm)
        
        Belligerent nexus (acts closely connected to the conduct of hostilities)
      - Belligerent nexus (acts closely connected to the conduct of hostilities)
        “Revolving door” civilians do ne cease to be civilians, but their protection is temporarily suspended when engaged in hostilities
    - - Even if an attack is targeting a military objective, IHL allows for some collateral damage to civilians. However, the principle of proportionality applies
      - You must compare the military advantage and the damage that you cause to civilians
      - The challenges:
        
        Comparison between civilian casualties and military advantage BEFORE attacking (a priori) The assessment must be made based on the information the armed forces have. You should take in consideration the impact on civilians.
        
        The damage you are causing must be proportionate = 2 things to be considered: concrete and direct military advantage
        
        The tribunal asks: would a reasonable commander carry out this attack if he had this information? -> You must look at each attack to see if it was proportional.
        
        Is the reaction proportionate? regarding the use of force, this can be disproportionate but regarding the laws of war, you must look at every attack. You must look at the impact on the civilian population and if it is too repetitive, it could be complicated to justify the attack as proportionate
        
        Forceable damage -> when you are launching an attack, you must take in consideration all the forceable damage
        
        Depending on the nature of the attack, this could have long-term repercussion. It all depends on the capacities if you can make this assessment but if you have the information that the impact would be too important, you must not attack
        
        Measures of precaution
        
        Cancellation or suspension of an attack when advantage is not military or loss to civilian population excessive
      - Proportionality in Practice -> in some conflicts, especially in densely populated areas, it is challenging to avoid civilian casualties entirely. Attacks on military targets may unintentionally harm civilians, but the law seeks to minimize this harm
        
        Example – Gaza Context:
        
        The situation in Gaza is a poignant example. Israel has argued that their attacks were driven by military necessity, but many have criticized the disproportionate loss of civilian life
        
        The destruction of Gaza and the civilian casualties raise the question of whether the military advantage truly justified such widespread harm.
- - - - Wounded
      - Sick
      - Clearly express intention to surrender (se rendre)
      - Already captured