Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-dh8gc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T09:53:26.088Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Regulating the conduct of urban warfare: lessons from contemporary asymmetric armed conflicts

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  06 August 2010

Michael John-Hopkins
Michael John-Hopkins
Affiliation:
Michael John-Hopkins is a Tutor in Law and Ph.D. candidate at the Department of Law and Criminology, Aberystwyth University, Wales, United Kingdom.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A survey of contemporary armed conflicts indicates that major military powers are increasingly facing militarily weaker adversaries and being drawn into unconventional engagements in cities, towns, and villages. Given the asymmetry of military capabilities in such conflicts, it is submitted that higher standards of reasonableness be imposed upon military commanders of major military powers to ensure constant care for civilian populations, and furthermore that civilian populations be spared more effectively from the effects of urban warfare by applying customary law ab initio, in order to avoid gaps in protection that may arise from the premature classification of armed conflicts.

Type
Urban violence
Information
International Review of the Red Cross , Volume 92 , Issue 878: Urban violence , June 2010 , pp. 469 - 493
Copyright
Copyright © International Committee of the Red Cross 2010

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Brian Steed, Piercing the Fog of War: Recognizing Change on the Battlefield, Zenith Press, Minneapolis, 2009, ch. 2.

2 Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, St Petersburg, 29 November/11 December 1868, paras. 2 and 3.

3 UN Department for Economic and Social Affairs, Population Division, World Urbanization Prospects, 2001 Revision, New York, 2002; Mike Davies, Planet of the Slums, Verso, London, 2007, pp. 1–3.

4 M. Davies, above note 3, p. 23; UN–HABITAT, The Challenge of the Slums: Global Report on Human Settlements 2003, London, 2003, p. 3; UN–HABITAT, Slums of the World: The Face of Urban Poverty in the New Millennium?, Working Paper, Nairobi, 2003, Annex 3.

5 World Bank, World Development Indicators 2002, Table 3.10, available at: www.worldbank.org/data/wdi2002/pdfs/table%203–10.pdf (last visited 9 May 2010).

6 Ivan Arreguín-Toft, How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2008, p. 4.

7 Ibid., pp. 31–32, 34, and 43.

8 Ibid., pp. 34 and 204–205.

9 Ibid., p. 33.

10 US Department of Defense, ‘Report to Congress on the conduct of the Persian Gulf War’, ILM, 1992 (3), p. 721.

11 Marc W. Herold (ed.), A Dossier on Civilian Victims of the United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting, March 2002, available at: http://cursor.org/stories/appendix5.htm (last visited 10 May 2010), Appendix 5: ‘The spatial distribution of Afghan civilian casualties caused by the US air war, October 7 – December 6th’.

12 Carl von Clausewitz, On War, N. Trübner, London, 1873, Book 1, ch. 1, para. 24.

13 I. Arreguín-Toft, above note 6, p. 225.

14 Ibid., p. 224.

15 Ibid., p. 213.

16 International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR), The Prosecutor v. Akayesu, Case No. ICTR-96-4-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 2 September 1998, para. 603.

17 International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-AR72, Merits (Appeals Chamber), 2 October 1995, para. 72.

18 Carswell, Andrew J., ‘Classifying the conflict: a soldier's dilemma’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 91, No. 873, March 2009, p. 4CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 ICTY, Tadić, above note 17, para. 70.

20 Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Art. 2(1).

21 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977.

22 Nils Melzer, Targeting Killing in International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2009, p. 248.

23 See International Committee of the Red Cross, Treaty Ratification Table, available at: http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/israel-event-ihl–040509/$File/Treaty-Ratification-Table-IL-competition–2009.xls (last visited 9 May 2010).

24 Ekaterina Stepanova, Terrorism in Asymmetrical Conflict: Ideological and Structural Aspects, Stockholm International Peace Research Report No. 23, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2010, pp. 114–115.

25 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1-A, Judgment (Appeals Chamber), 15 July 1999, paras. 84–141.

26 Ibid.

27 ICTY, Tadić, above note 17, para. 70.

28 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Tadić, Case No. IT-94-1, Judgment (Trial Chamber), 7 May 1997, para. 562.

29 Ibid.

30 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Boškoski, Case No. IT-04-82-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber II), 10 July 2008, para. 193.

31 Ibid., para. 177.

32 Ibid., para. 199.

33 Ibid., para. 200.

34 Ibid., para. 201.

35 Ibid., para. 202.

36 Ibid., para. 203.

37 International Court of Justice (ICJ), Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Judgment, ICJ Reports 1986, para. 218; Supreme Court of the United States, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Secretary of Defense, et al., No. 05-184, Judgment, June 29, 2006, p. 67; ICTY, Tadić, above note 17, para. 102; N. Melzer, above note 22, p. 258; Paulus, Andreas and Vashakmadze, Mindia, ‘Asymmetrical war and the notion of armed conflict: a tentative conceptualization’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 91, No. 873, March 2009, p. 119CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 See Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977, Art. 1(1); Yves Sandoz, Christophe Swinarski, and Bruno Zimmermann (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, ICRC/Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva/Dordrecht, 1987 (hereinafter Commentary), Protocol II, paras. 4447ff.

39 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol II, paras. 4475–4477.

40 ICTR, Akayesu, above note 16, para. 626.

41 Ibid.

42 ICTY, Boškoski, above note 30, paras. 242–249.

43 E. Stepanova, above note 24, p. 105; Rupert Smith, The Utility of Force: The Art of War in the Modern World, Penguin Books, London, 2006, p. 329; B. Steed, above note 1, ch. 9.

44 E. Stepanova, above note 24, pp. 104–134; I. Arreguín-Toft, above note 6, p. 33.

45 The Geneva Declaration on Armed Violence and Development, Global Burden of Armed Violence, Geneva Declaration Secretariat, September 2008, p. 11, available at: http://www.unhcr.org/refworld/docid/494a455d2.html (last visited 1 July 2010).

46 Ibid., p. 22.

47 Ibid., p. 9.

48 See ICRC Ratification Table, above note 23.

49 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 48, 51(1)–(5), 52, and 57.

50 A. J. Carswell, above note 18, p. 151.

51 ICTY, Tadić, above note 17, para. 70; ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Milan Martić, Case No. IT-95-11-I, Rule 61 Decision, 8 March 1996, para. 11; Statute of the International Court of Justice, Art. 38(b); Stewart, James G., ‘Towards a single definition of armed conflict in international humanitarian law: a critique of internationalized armed conflict’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 85, No. 850, June 2003, p. 346Google Scholar.

52 ICTY, Martić, above note 51, para. 11.

53 ICTY, Boškoski, above note 30, para. 245.

54 Geiss, Robin, ‘Armed violence in fragile states: low-intensity conflicts, spillover conflicts, and sporadic law enforcement operations by third parties’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 91, No. 873, March 2009, p. 136Google Scholar.

55 A. J. Carswell, above note 18, pp. 154–159.

56 Ibid., p. 159; I. Arreguín-Toft, above note 6, pp. 151–164; R. Smith, above note 43, p. 330–331.

57 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 48; Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I, ICRC and Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005, (hereinafter Customary IHL Study), Rule 7.

58 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 52(2); Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 8; Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices (Protocol II) to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, 10 October 1980, Art. 2(6); Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, 26 March 1999, Art. 1(f).

59 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 50(3).

60 Ibid., Art. 51(7); GC IV, Art. 28.

61 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 51(7).

62 See also Ibid., Art. 51(8).

63 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 1989.

64 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 15.

65 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 57(2).

66 See Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 2190.

67 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 17.

68 Ibid., Rule 14.

69 Ibid., Rule 16.

70 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, paras. 2194 and 2195.

71 Ibid., para. 2198.

72 Ibid., para. 2195.

73 Ibid., para. 2199.

74 Ibid., para. 2195.

75 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 12(b) and (c).

76 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 57(2)(a)(ii); Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 17.

77 For some examples see Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 2200; Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 17.

78 United Nations Human Rights Council (UNHRC), Human Rights in Palestine and Other Occupied Territories: Report of the United Nations Fact Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict, UN Doc. A/HRC/12/48, 15 September 2009, paras. 698–699.

79 Michael N. Schmitt, War, Technology, and International Humanitarian Law, Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard University Occasional Paper Series No. 4, Summer 2005, p. 23; Infeld, Danielle L., ‘Precision-guided munitions demonstrated their pinpoint accuracy in Desert Storm: but is a country obligated to use precision technology to minimize collateral civilian injury and damage?’, in George Washington Journal of International Law and Economics, Vol. 26, 1992, p. 109Google Scholar.

80 See Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 57(2)(a)(iii); Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 18.

81 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 57(2)(b); Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 19.

82 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 2208.

83 Ibid., para. 2212.

84 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 85(3)(b); Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 155.

85 Quéguiner, Jean-François, ‘Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 88, No. 864, December 2006, p. 978CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

86 Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Precision attack and international humanitarian law’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 87, No. 859, September 2005, p. 450CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

87 Ibid.

88 Ibid.

89 B. Steed, above note 1, ch. 9.

90 Human Rights Watch, Off Target: The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq, New York, 2003, pp. 20, 23, and 38; R. Geiss, above note 54, pp. 798–799.

91 See J.-F. Quéguiner, above note 85, p. 799.

92 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 20; Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 57(2)(c).

93 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 2223.

94 Ibid., para. 2190.

95 Ibid., para. 2224.

96 Ibid., para. 2225.

97 Ibid., paras. 2224–2225.

98 UNHRC, above note 78, paras. 528–532.

99 Ibid.

100 Ibid.

101 Note by the UN Secretary-General, Situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967, UN Doc. A/61/470, 27 September 2006, para. 7; see also Vité, Sylvain, ‘Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 91, No. 873, March 2009, pp. 83–85CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

102 S. Vité, above note 101, pp. 83–85.

103 N. Melzer, above note 22, pp. 365–366.

104 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 1923.

105 Ibid., para. 1935.

106 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 18.

107 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 1979.

108 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 14; Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 51(5)(b).

109 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 51(5)(b); Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 1967.

110 See, for instance, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, 17 July 1998, Art. 8(2)(b)(iv).

111 St. Petersburg Declaration, above note 2, Preamble.

112 ICTY, The Prosecutor v. Stanislav Galić, Case No. IT-98-29-T, Judgment (Trial Chamber I), 5 December 2003, para. 59; Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 85(3)(b); Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 156.

113 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 1978.

114 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 8; see also Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 52(2).

115 Antonio Cassese, The Human Dimension of International Law, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2008, p. 246.

116 Commentary, above note 38, Protocol I, para. 1981.

117 ICJ, Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, Advisory Opinion of 8 July 1996, ICJ Reports, 1996, Dissenting Opinion of Judge Higgins, para. 20.

118 See United Kingdom, Reservation of 28 January 2002, available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/0A9E03F0F2EE757CC1256402003FB6D2?OpenDocument (last visited 15 June 2010): ‘the military advantage anticipated from the attack is intended to refer to the advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of the attack’.

119 See Canada, Reservation of 20 November 1990, available at: http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/NORM/172FFEC04ADC80F2C1256402003FB314?OpenDocument (last visited 15 June 2010).

120 M. N. Schmitt, above note 86, p. 452.

121 Defense Intelligence Agency, ‘Water treatment vulnerabilities’, Washington DC, available at: http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html (last visited 10 May 2010); Gordon, Joy, ‘When intent makes all the difference in the world: economic sanctions on Iraq and the accusation of genocide’, in Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal, Vol. 5, 2002, pp. 70–74Google Scholar.

122 ICTY, Final report to the prosecutor by the committee established to review the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, June 2000, 29 ILM 1257.

123 Ibid., paras. 48–50.

124 Ibid., para. 50.

125 ICTY, Galić, above note 112, para. 58.

126 Ibid., para. 60.

127 UNHRC, above note 78, para. 1313.

128 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 110.

129 Ibid., Rule 110.

130 Ibid.

131 See Ibid., Rules 25, 28, 29, 109, and 110.

132 Ibid., Rule 109.

133 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 55.

134 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 70(3).

135 Ibid., Art. 54(1); Protocol II, above note 38, Art. 14; Rome Statute, above note 110, Art. 8(2)(b)(xxv).

136 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 53.

137 Ibid., Rule 7.

138 Ibid., Rule 54.

139 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 54 (2); Protocol II, above note 38, Art. 14.

140 Protocol I, above note 21, Art. 54(3)(b).

141 Ibid.

142 Dörmann, Knut, ‘Preparatory Commission for the International Criminal Court: the elements of war crimes – part II: other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international and non-international armed conflicts’, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 83, No. 842, 2001, pp. 475–476Google Scholar.

143 Customary IHL Study, above note 57, Rule 21.

144 UNHRC, above note 78, paras. 1324–1325.

145 Ibid.

146 Hague Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Preamble.

147 I. Arreguín-Toft, above note 6, p. 205.

148 Ibid., p. 4.

149 Ibid., pp. 211–213, 220–227.

150 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 3rd edn, Basic Books, New York, p. 187.

151 C. von Clausewitz, above note 12, Book 1, ch. 1, para. 24.

152 Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field (Lieber Code), 24 April 1863, Art. 16.

153 R. Smith, above note 43, part III.