Gaza highlights the threat to civilians in times of conflict
An Israeli strike on a school and mosque in Gaza that housed displaced people killed more than 90 Palestinians, most of them civilians, on Saturday. The strike highlights the importance and difficulty of protecting civilians during war.
The intensity of the destruction in the crowded territory of Gaza has highlighted the threats to civilians in times of conflict. Sadly, Gaza is not alone. Civilians are also dying in Ukraine, Sudan, Myanmar, Yemen, and other parts of the world.
Throughout history, civilians have suffered from the direct and indirect effects of war. At times, people tried to develop norms designed to mitigate the harm to civilians. After the Second World War, the core of international law on this issue came from the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols. The conventions and other relevant edicts make up international humanitarian law, or IHL, which provides rules for the conduct of war. IHL does not determine whether a war started for legitimate reasons, which is governed under other international laws. Regardless of the legitimacy of a war, all parties should abide by international humanitarian law. Put simply, civilians are not combatants. Civilians include children, older people who are unable to fight, and women and men who are not part of a military or armed group.
Under international humanitarian law, also known as the law of war, parties to a conflict must not target civilians. Targeting civilians is a war crime. This includes intentionally killing or assaulting civilians. Parties to the conflict also must not intentionally destroy resources that are necessary for civilians’ survival; examples could include burning crops, and diverting or poisoning water sources. Civilians also have a right to access aid, including food and medical treatment, during war. International humanitarian law also includes protections for those who were engaged in hostilities, but are no longer able to fight — primarily combatants taken prisoner or who are injured or sick.
These principles defy the worst of human nature
Kerry Boyd Anderson
These principles defy the worst of human nature. Human beings have a strong tendency to view their own group as the superior party in a conflict. Whether the group is defined by nationality, religion, race, ethnicity, or another marker of identity, people tend to believe that their group is the just party in a conflict, and that the adversarial group is morally inferior and responsible for starting the war. From that position, it is easy to dehumanize all members of the other group — to not only see soldiers and fighters as legitimate targets, but also to view the killing or targeting of civilians as acceptable.
International humanitarian law, however, calls on the better aspects of humanity. It transcends our tendency to dehumanize the “other” and, instead, posits principles that should apply to everyone.
This is hard. International humanitarian law demands that people, even in times of greatest stress and hostility, implement principles and practices that run counter to many natural instincts.
The law of war can sound good, but is harder to accept when people have to apply it to an adversarial group. Another complication is that a group can be a victim and perpetrator at the same time. For example, Palestinians have the right to resist Israeli occupation, and Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack violated the laws of war when its fighters intentionally killed, abused, and took hostage civilians. Israel has a right to defend itself, and the deaths of 1,200 Israelis on Oct. 7 do not justify killing almost 40,000 Palestinians in Gaza, many of them civilians — nor does Israel have the right to target civilian infrastructure or to block aid. Accordingly, in May, the International Criminal Court found that specific leaders of Hamas and Israel were responsible for war crimes.
A group can be a victim and perpetrator at the same time
Kerry Boyd Anderson
The Israeli-Palestinian conflict is far from an isolated example. For example, Russia violated the law of war by intentionally attacking Syrian and, later, Ukrainian civilians and civilian infrastructure. Even in complex civil wars, such as in Sudan, militias commit war crimes when they target civilians or otherwise abuse them.
Even when people embrace international humanitarian law, implementation is still challenging. For example, international humanitarian law acknowledges that some civilians will suffer harm during times of war. Before an attack, a party to the conflict is obligated to assess whether the potential collateral damage would be excessive when compared with the expected military advantage. This leaves a lot of room, however, for different interpretations and abuse.
Some global trends complicate implementation, while also reinforcing the importance of international humanitarian law. Wars increasingly are fought in urban areas, making it more difficult to distinguish between combatants and civilians. New weapons and technologies might further complicate how armed groups distinguish between fighters and civilians. The UN Security Council is hamstrung by states that prioritize their own interests and apply double standards to enforcing international humanitarian law. UN humanitarian agencies play a crucial role in assisting civilians in times of war, but the UN as a political body struggles to ensure their protection.
None of these are reasons to give up. Every civilian life protected matters. Furthermore, killing and abusing civilians deepens the moral injury that many fighters and societies suffer from conflict, and insisting on humanity’s better nature by protecting civilians helps everyone have a better chance of recovery and peace when fighting stops.
