![]() This balancing act allows militaries enough scope to carry out their strategies, while at the same time alleviating suffering and ensuring accountability for acts that could amount to war crimes.Īs such, IHL attempts to limit the destruction of war by providing a guideline for what is appropriate amidst the waging of war, and calls for restraint. Arguably, IHL is suitably ambiguous to permit a broad interpretation, on a case-by-case-basis, while affording protections to those not part of the hostilities. Such killing, however, cannot be unlimited. IHL recognises that the aim of war is to fight and win, and killing is a means towards that end. ![]() ![]() It does not outright forbid armed conflict, or even have a blanket prohibition on the killing of civilians. It is contained in conventions, treaties, customary law and general principles, notably in The Hague Conventions of 18, and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977.Īlthough IHL’s aims are humanitarian, IHL is pragmatic in its acceptance of the realities of armed conflict. IHL is a set of rules that seek to minimise the effects, destruction, and carnage of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. This article will lay out some of the responsibilities that combatants and fighters have towards civilians under the body of international law that regulates warfare: International Humanitarian Law (IHL). To be clear, the deliberate targeting of civilians is a war crime, nevertheless, in certain situations, the foreseen, but incidental killing of civilians is permissible in war. ![]() Given that the laws of war are intended to protect those who are not participating in hostilities during times of armed conflict, it may come as a surprise that civilians can still be lawfully killed in war. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |