Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Command: Modern Operations series



Message

Dysta -> Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (8/11/2016 12:23:30 PM)

From news thread, I have heard numerous civilian/NGO infrastructures from territorial disputed regions/islands, or specific regions in a middle of war, have lots of accusations from medias by using these facilities and its innocent workers as shields for military purposes; or deliberately attacked them because of the potential rebel activities, but ended up they're just dead innocents.

But I seldom heard how military really do if they are confirmed a dual-use facilities that's part of their target, but also involved with civilians? I searched on Google for a long time, until the "Voluntary Human Shield" title comes out, and got an interesting article from 2004:

http://www.wischik.com/marcus/essay/humanshields.html

And this is the line I'm looking for:

quote:


Dual-Use Targets

The category of dual-use targets is problematic not least because the category broad and disputed. Objects such as oil refineries, airports, and port facilities conceivably have both civilian and military value. The status of voluntary human shields protecting such installations is currently at best vague, and at worst completely undefined. The fact that the target is capable of both military and civilian use immediately imposes the familiar requirements of necessity and proportionality.

If the shields are to be regarded as civilians, then certain prohibitions swing into operation. Firstly, the use of air-launched incendiary weapons becomes severely curtailed and subject to a very high threshold militarynecessity analysis. Secondly, if it were possible to prove that the commanders ordering the attacks were deliberately targeting the civilians rather than the installation, they would be guilty of a grave breach of IHL. On the other hand, 'collateral damage' to civilians should be minimised; this can be regarded as an extension of the principles of military necessity tied to proportionality, again with a high threshold. These various requirements of proportionality and necessity are cumulative.

If the voluntary human shields are regarded as non-combatants, this will again impose the proportionality and necessity requirements, but to a lesser degree than civilians. As our classification of counter-combatant is an extension of this category, similar constraints would apply. If the voluntary human shields are regarded as combatants, their very presence may serve to lower the thresholds of proportionality and necessity.


Only this part does not have a firm use of reference based on the Geneva Convention of any protocols, so the RoE against Dual-Use facilities is ambiguous and disputable. The only reliable but passive option is 'return-fire only', if the target suddenly gone hostile and launch the attack, then it can be classified as military/combat asset to engage. The downside is the hostile side gain first-shot advantage against the passive defenses.

Recon and intelligence gathering is crucial to determine if the facility is dangerous or not, but when non-combatant peoples are involved with it, things will be complicated. What if they're helping the hostile, but lacks of evidence to be convincing? Then I found this line:

quote:

Non-combatant Status

Voluntary human shields do not share the same policy-imperative exclusion from hostilities that medical or religious personnel enjoy; whilst both sides need doctors and priests to care for the physical and spiritual welfare of their forces, neither particularly requires the presence of voluntary human shields. It would therefore be inappropriate to grant voluntary human shields similar status.

Giving the voluntary human shield status equivalent to a non-combatant non-medical non-religious member of the opposing armed force is perhaps a more accurate description of the situation. Their activities have military objectives, but they are not directly involved in the front-line conduct of hostilities. This would, however, give the voluntary human shield the status of a member of an armed force, and therefore a legitimate military target as described in Art. 52(2) AP-I. This approach would compel the attacker to restrict their operations to the principles of proportionality and military necessity, but with a lower threshold than described previously for attacks in which civilians may be involved.


In that case, if civilians are voluntary obscuring the attacking side even they're unarmed, they're still can be classified as hostile militants and permissible to kill them, except they're less prioritized before the proper military combatants.

For scenario making, especially want to add the fog-of-war element involve with civilians, this article could be helpful. Check the link for more.



Gunner98 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (8/11/2016 3:46:38 PM)

quote:

The only reliable but passive option is 'return-fire only', if


No that's not true. A dual use facility can be targeted as long as necessity and proportionality conditions are met. It is a complex process with lots of checks and balances in it, but in the end that is what the decision makers who approve the targets get paid to do.

I haven't had the chance to read the article yet but am familiar with the subject.

An example:

A quite common dual use facility - Highway bridge:

Chose a time or set of conditions where it is unlikely that civilians will be using it and then use a weapon that will destroy the ability of the bridge to carry military traffic:
-your choice of time is based on the pattern of life (POL) within the target area, the standard of how much POL data you collect is dependant on the conflict and circumstances. It can vary widely, but lets say that at 4AM local time no one has been on the bridge that you have observed for the past XX days.
-So that might mean dropping the whole bridge, a single span, or a single lane - judgment call based on a lot of factors.
-if the bridge also caries power, water, sewage or fuel (often in conduits or pipelines beneath the bridge), some other checks are needed an perhaps there is a better target

Lets say it is a double bridge, 2 lanes each way, not near a residential area with no complications. Strike at 4 AM, Drop one bride completely, the second bridge you hit with lighter munitions allowing foot traffic to continue but nothing heavier. Job done, civilian foot traffic can continue, not much else. Otherwise crater the highway in 4 or 5 spots either side of the bridge, limiting traffic, there are a bunch of ways to achieve the effect your looking for.

If a facility is being used for military purpose, it is a valid target, even it dual use. It just gets more complicated.

B



Norm49 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/6/2021 10:05:20 PM)

Hi, I know it is a old thread but this is what i was looking for. I am working on a scenario with this problem. I want the industry to be a target and to get info I was looking at the air strike on desert storm operation.

I know electric facility were hid during the air strike. I reed that after the wars Kuwait could produce only 4% of the electricity it was producing before the wars and that pump station as well as water treatment facility were hit. How can dose target can be justify? Did the US commit wars crime by targeting dose facility?



Gunner98 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/6/2021 10:31:07 PM)

quote:

I know electric facility were hid during the air strike. I reed that after the wars Kuwait could produce only 4% of the electricity it was producing before the wars and that pump station as well as water treatment facility were hit. How can dose target can be justify? Did the US commit wars crime by targeting dose facility?


No.

Water and electrical production facilities are dual use as described above. If the commanders at the time considered them viable military targets because of a whole bunch of reasons then they are legal targets.

The targeting cannot be designed or aimed at creating suffering among a civilian population. But if the aim of the targeting was a military one; it is legal. I don't know how they justified the targets but I'm certain they did. I don't know if that justification would stand the test of today's 20/20 hindsight vision - but it doesn't have to.

A simple test would need to be satisfied: Were military forces using the water and electricity systems for a military objective? If yes - it was a viable target. That is a fundamental problem when a state and a states infrastructure are an integral part of the defense structure (like Baathist Iraq) - virtually everything is a legal target.

The US would be required to apply proportional force and a bunch of other requirements which escape me at the moment but they achieve that by using PGMs and a proper decision making process (which they did). They would also be required to - where feasible - mitigate the effect on civilians. Did hospitals have back up generating systems? Did the US provide water and electricity as soon as practicable and safe after hostilities, etc etc etc.

If you're looking for war crimes in that conflict, you don't have to look far - but your looking at the wrong perpetrator.

B




Norm49 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/6/2021 11:05:43 PM)

I am not looking for wars crime in the conflict. I am trying to dra the line were wars crime begin.

To put it more clearly electricity is use by military installation and military industry but dose probably have backup generator. Even if you target the power plant the installation will remain operational but refrigerator, stove and other electric appliance at home wont. Military installation will require more logistic such as needing diesel, diesel that cant be use in your tank, APC and other military vehicle. A analyst must be done before striking such target but are dose caracteria are clearly mark somewhere or it is a blur line. It probably is a blur line and a very complex topic.

A other example are bridge. It can carry military vehicle but also carry food for civilian. It is technically a viable military target.

In case of water treatment. Yes military use water but preventing military personal to use water is not a wars crime? If you look at medical supply, blocking them is a war crime because it is use for medical purpose but hospital need water and they wont have backup for that. I see water to be similar to medical supply.

If no clear boundary exist on this topic every one can have a very drastic view on the subject.For example I can justify booming a refugee camp because many of the refugee want to join there military.Or a military hospital, some personal will heal and return to combat so booming the hospital is a viable target to take out those combatant before they return on the field. In reality dose are wars crime but it is do demonstrate that principle of proportionality and necessity doesn't really mean any thing. Ask Adolf Hitler and Nelson Mendela there definition of proportionality and necessity.



HalfLifeExpert -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 12:32:29 AM)

In my opinion, striking a food source or water source would really only be acceptable in the situation where it was to force an isolated military force (like an Island) to surrender, and only if that food/water source is explicitly going to military personnel. Otherwise the risks for harming civilians is too great. Go after other targets. A well fed military force with no ammo or fuel can't do a whole lot. If the food is mixed in with ammo and such, well that is just too bad for the enemy.

For Bridges, ideally one shouldn't if at all possible attack them if there is civilian traffic on them. Bombing a bridge full of civilian cars in a traffic jam would be wrong. The Civilian Traffic jam still hurts the enemy after all.

Of course there is always a chance of a couple civilian cars driving onto the bridge after weapons release, but nothing can really be done to avoid that.

For Electric power, I'd say it's a legitimate target. For critical functions like hospitals, they should have some kind of backup power generators to keep life support functions going.

In some conflicts you have instances where civilian hospitals or schools are bombed. Very rarely is this intentional.

I believe that the sole justifiable reason for striking such targets is if there is incontrovertible proof that the enemy is using those locations to fire on your forces. I believe that using a hospital or school as a human shield is a most immoral wartime act and should be punished and made public with the incontrovertible proof. Striking such a place that the enemy is using as a human shield is on the defender, not the striker.

Military hospitals are not justifiable targets. It's effectively the same deal as massacring POWs to me. A combatant that in ineffective in fighting (wounded or captured) must not be harmed.


I believe that generally speaking, a nation under air/naval attack is obligated keep their civilian populace as separate from their warfighting capabilities as is possible. Yes some targets are dual use (like bridges) but most of those can be struck in such a way to reduce civilian collateral casualties.


And in instances where unjustifiable targets are hit, the striking force should own up to their mistakes. Denying and making false claims only make things worse for them.



kevinkins -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 9:46:59 AM)

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
William Tecumseh Sherman

So in other words, when at war no target is out of bounds. Get the damn thing over with and move on. In the end, more people will live and turn out happier.

If you are willing to place your citizens in harms way and have the means to crush the enemy, just crush them. Quickly. Short of nukes. Then pick up the geopolitical pieces later. Not rocket science.



Gunner98 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 10:20:51 AM)

You're right, this is a complex subject and my days of being an expert, if I ever was one, (not a lawyer) are long past.

There are dozens, if not hundreds of very specific provision which include any form of hospital, or refugee camp. There is almost an entire treaty devoted to cultural and religious sites. Prisoners of war is a big section of the law and that was the original reason for the laws in the first place.

The overall subject is International Humanitarian Law (IHL), you can read all about it here available in multiple languages. Is the law perfect - absolutely not; is it convoluted - absolutely. The law is agreed upon and ratified by independent and sovereign countries, do all countries on earth agree on everything - no. That is why the law is imperfect and complex.

Most of the law was written in response to World War Two and based on law that was written in the days of the Franco-Prussian war and principles established in the Napoleonic era. So the law is dated. It generally works well when you have two nation-states who have both ratified all of the treaties without reservation and are fighting a conventional war, have well trained militaries, a free press and allow international oversight. How often does all that come together?

However, it is what militaries and countries work and comply with. Overall the law is a measuring stick for nations to train, comply with and self regulate. The ICC is a late offshoot and is largely inconsequential in major wars, it has no real authority but works as a focus of international interpretation of the law. The US (and many other) countries are not participants in the ICC so their citizens are not subject to its decisions, those countries administer IHL through domestic civil or military courts. The US has done so several (many - don't know) times and Canada had a major case a few years ago.

Not a simple subject.



Gunner98 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 12:45:43 PM)

quote:

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
William Tecumseh Sherman


Sherman was out of step with the world at the time he said that and he is certainly out of step with the world 150 years later.

If you want your soldiers who are captured by the enemy to be routinely tortured, starved, denied medical treatment and executed as non-signatories to the Geneva conventions (Japan or North Vietnam) did - you're welcome to it. Good luck motivating modern soldiers to face that

If you want your citizens turned out for forced labour or sex slaves. You're welcome to it.

If you want you soldiers suffering wounds from triangular bayonets or phosphorus. Go for it

You say 'short of nukes'. Why? No limits = no limits. And nukes are not specifically covered by IHL anyway.

No thank you I would rather that the laws stand.




BDukes -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 1:50:47 PM)

In real life, I think it's best to aspire to do the right things (see Gunner's post). I think the authors and signatories of any war-related law are showing that and mostly demonstrating it. The problem is when you get into the great power war stuff where political and maybe even existential forces have some play into it. Example would be WWII Allies after Pearl Harbor, Philippines, Nanking, and New Guinea. You read a lot of history, you know the patterns are there. Historical context is also important. We look at things in the past through the lens of what we think is moral and just now.

Game life is a little different. If you take things very seriously then you probably should abide by the law to enjoy your hobby. If you play to just have fun than do whatever you want. It is just a game or tool to thinking about things. You aren't actually doing anything and in the scope of our other gaming habits probably healthier..LOL

Mike









kevinkins -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 2:44:43 PM)

If you crush the enemy fast enough, your forces will suffer none captured. An enemy nation does not have to abide by international law anyway; it's irrelevant. Laws are made to be broken. The idea of limited war is bad. Especially if you have the most military capability in the world. William Tecumseh Sherman predicted our humiliation in Afghanistan and is not out of step. If you go to war - go to war and crush. We can't be asking lawyers to approve tactics. Break the will of the enemy's moms and the war will be over quickly and everything is better off.

quote:

ORIGINAL: Gunner98

quote:

"Every attempt to make war easy and safe will result in humiliation and disaster."
William Tecumseh Sherman


Sherman was out of step with the world at the time he said that and he is certainly out of step with the world 150 years later.

If you want your soldiers who are captured by the enemy to be routinely tortured, starved, denied medical treatment and executed as non-signatories to the Geneva conventions (Japan or North Vietnam) did - you're welcome to it. Good luck motivating modern soldiers to face that

If you want your citizens turned out for forced labour or sex slaves. You're welcome to it.

If you want you soldiers suffering wounds from triangular bayonets or phosphorus. Go for it

You say 'short of nukes'. Why? No limits = no limits. And nukes are not specifically covered by IHL anyway.

No thank you I would rather that the laws stand.






Gunner98 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 4:05:48 PM)

quote:

If you crush the enemy fast enough,


We'll be home by Christmas. That tune has been heard before



stww2 -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 8:42:48 PM)

There was a brief time period, back in the 1990s ("the end of history" to quote Fukuyama's now infamous phrase), that it looked like the international community was going to take prosecuting war crimes/crimes against humanity at least somewhat seriously.

First you had the two ad-hoc tribunals: the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) and the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR). The most significant exercise in international criminal justice since Nuremburg and the other post-WW2 tribunals. 90 convictions in the ICTY 62 convictions in the ICTR. Probably just a fraction of the actual offenders in those conflicts, but then that's true of regular criminal law as well, isn't it?

Next, you had the two hybrid tribunals: the Special Court for Sierra Leone (established 2002) and then the Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia (established 1997). Unlike the ICTY and ICTR (whose defendants ranged from former heads of states to lowly individual combatants), these courts only went after a handful of high-level offenders. These were joint UN-national projects, partly because of specific circumstances of those country's situations, partly because this approach was seen a cheaper method than the expensive ICTY/ICTR tribunals, and probably for some other reasons too.

Of course, one of the conclusions that came out of this era was that rather than having to establish a separate tribunal every time a new conflict occurred, it might be better to have a standing body. This body was ultimately formed with the creation of the International Criminal Court (ICC) in 2002 (after enough states had ratified the 1998 Rome Statute). The ICC, as Gunner mentioned, has largely not proven to be a particularly effective organization, for a whole host of reasons that one could probably write an essay on. Chief among them is probably that the increasingly multi-polar nature of the current international system had precluded the sort of joint international action that would be required to actually give the ICC any teeth outside of a handful of situations, as absent that it is very easy to evade ICC jurisdiction by just not signing on to the Court in the first place. That several of the P5 members would probably have their officials (or officials of their allies) be among the first ones on trial if the ICC was stronger probably doesn't help...

One thing we have been seeing in recent years, with no shortage of horrible conflicts, war crimes, and human rights violations but no concerted international effort to prosecute them (or even stop them, for that matter) is a return to the exercise of universal jurisdiction in national courts. Indeed, I believe there’s a case going in right now in the German courts where a former Syrian state official is being prosecuted for torture he is alleged to have committed while working for the Syrian government.



kevinkins -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/7/2021 11:06:32 PM)

Edited



Dysta -> RE: Voluntary human shields? (An article about dual-use targets and combatant status) (11/10/2021 7:01:43 AM)

What a disastrous timing to have a good discussion about my old finding.

Given by series of fiascos to the world in 2020 ahead,I have difficulty to see world military trying to refrain themselves from further complicate the use of assets that can be instantaneously proved to be useful before world community even have time to declare them as “dual-use”, be it as advanced as self-driving vehicles, or as crude as a railway being laid across countries, they will provide many tactical and eventually strategic uses if uncontrollable conflicts want them to be in the future.

It will be another kind of fog of war: to determine if your cellphone that used for posting some chitchats, or ordering for food and good without leaving home, will someday becomes a weapon who can harness those to acquire informations they want.



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
0.734375