Advertisement

Contestation in the Civilian Immunity Norm

  • Betcy Jose
Chapter
  • 237 Downloads
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Political Science book series (BRIEFSPOLITICAL)

Abstract

Efforts to mitigate the harms of war-fighting have a long history in many societies around the world. A common element in these diverse protective efforts is the idea that those uninvolved in war should be shielded from its ill effects, an idea captured in the civilian immunity norm. One of the norm’s prescriptions, the distinction principle, obligates belligerents to distinguish between permissible and impermissible targets and to refrain from intentionally targeting the latter group with lethal force. Civilians fall within this protected group. However, the civilian immunity norm is not absolute: custom and international law do permit soldiers to kill civilians who threaten them. Yet the norm directs actors to temper its exceptions with its primary goal of protecting the maximum number of civilians from the horrors of war.

Works Cited

  1. Acharya A. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. Int Organ. 2004;58(2):239–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Adler E. Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations 1997;3(3):319–63.Google Scholar
  3. Allmand C. War and the noncombatant. In: Keen MH, editor. Medieval warfare: a history. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.Google Scholar
  4. Azam J-P, Hoeffler A. Violence against civilians in civil wars: looting or terror? J Confl Resolut. 2002;46(1):461–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Becker J, Shane S. Secret ‘Kill Lists” prove a test of Obama’s principles and will. New York Times. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&hp#. Last accessed 29 Jan 2016.
  6. Bello EG. African customary humanitarian law. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 1980.Google Scholar
  7. Bennounne K. As-Samalu Alaykum? Humanitarian law in Islamic juris prudence. 15 Mich J Int L. 1993-1994;15:605.Google Scholar
  8. Best G. Humanity in warfare: the modern history of the international law of armed conflict. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; 1980.Google Scholar
  9. Best G. War and law since 1945. NY: Clarendon Press; 1994.Google Scholar
  10. Boehland J. The People’s perspectives: civilian involvement in armed conflict. Center for Civilians in Conflict. 2015. http://www.youblisher.com/p/1135445-The-People-s-Perspectives-Civilian-Involvement-in-Armed-Conflict/. Last accessed 30 Jan 2016.
  11. Boyle MJ. Bargaining, fear, and denial: explaining violence against civilians in Iraq 2004-2007. Terrorism and Political Violence. 2009;21(2):261–87.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bugnion F. The International committee of the red cross and the protection of war victims. Oxford: Macmillian; 2003.Google Scholar
  13. Carter P. Why the recent civilian shootings in Karbala, while tragic, were probably lawful. Findlaw’s Legal Commentary Journal. 2003. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030405_carter.html. Last accessed 24 Mar 2006.
  14. Cassese A. The status of rebels under the 1977 Geneva protocol on non-international armed conflicts. Int Comp Law Quart. 1981;30:2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Chesterman S, editor. Civilians in war. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2001.Google Scholar
  16. Downes AB. Desperate times, desperate measures: the causes of civilian victimization in war. Int Secur. 2006;30(4):152–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Even-Khen HM. Can we now tell what “direct participation in hostilities” is?: HCJ 769/02 the public committee against torture in Israel v. The government of Israel. Isr Law Rev. 2007;40(1):213–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Fenrick WJ. The targeted killings judgment and the scope of direct participation in hostilities. J Int Crim Just. 2007;5(2):332–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ferme MC, Hoffman D. Hunter militias and the international human rights discourse in Sierra Leone and beyond. Africa Today. 2004;50(4):73–95.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Garraway C. To kill or not to kill? Dilemmas on the use of force. J Confl Secur Law. 2010;14(3):499–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gasser H-P. Negotiating the 1977 additional protocols: was it a waste of time? In: Delissen T, editor. Humanitarian law of armed conflict: challenges ahead. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1991.Google Scholar
  22. Gregory D. The death of the civilian? Environ Plann D Soc Space. 2006;24(5):633–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Greenwood C. Customary law status of the 1977 Geneva protocols. In: Delissen AJM, Tanja GJ, editors. Humanitarian law of armed conflict: challenges ahead. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1991.Google Scholar
  24. Greenwood C. A critique of the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions of 1949. In: Durham H, McCormack TLH, editors. The changing face of conflict and the efficacy of international humanitarian law. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1999.Google Scholar
  25. Hartigan RS. Lieber’s code and the law of war. Chicago: Precedent; 1983.Google Scholar
  26. Hartle AE. Atrocities in war: dirty hands and noncombatants. Soc Res An Int Quart. 2002;69(4):963–79.Google Scholar
  27. Hayashi MN. The principle of civilian protection and contemporary armed conflict. In: Hensel HM, editor. The law of armed conflict: constraints of the contemporary use of military force. Burlington: Ashgate; 2005.Google Scholar
  28. Hooghe L. Several roads lead to international norms, but few via international socialization: a case study of the European Commission. Int Organ. 2005;59(4):861–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Horne J. Civilian populations and wartime violence: towards a historical analysis. Int Soc Sci J. 2002;54(174):483–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Humphreys M, Weinstein JM. Handling and manhandling civilians in civil war. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2006;100(3):429–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Johnson JT. The holy war idea in western and Islamic traditions. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press; 1997.Google Scholar
  32. Johnson JT. Maintaining the protection of non-combatants. J Peace Res. 2000;37(4):421–8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Jones A. Gendercide and Genocide. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  34. Kahl CH. In the crossfire or crosshairs? Norms, civilian casualties and U.S. conduct in Iraq. Int Secur. 2007;32(1):7–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kalshoven F. Constraints on the waging of war. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 1987.Google Scholar
  36. Kalyvas S. Wanton and senseless? The logic of massacres in Algeria. Ration Soc. 1999;11(3):243–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kaufman W. What is the scope of civilian immunity in wartime? J Mil Ethics. 2003;2(3):186–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Kellenberger J. Interpretative guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 2009.Google Scholar
  39. Kelsay J. Al-Shaybani and the Islamic law of war. Journal of Military Ethics. 2003;2(1):63–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Kinsella HM. Securing the civilian: sex and gender in the Laws of war. In: Barnett M, Duvall R, editors. Power in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.Google Scholar
  41. Kollman K. Same-sex unions: the globalization of an idea. Int Stud Q. 2007;51(2):329–57.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Laband J. Introduction: African civilians in wartime. In: Laband J, editor. Daily lives of civilians in wartime Africa: from slavery days to Rwandan genocide. Westport: Greenwood Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  43. McDonald A. The challenges to International Humanitarian Law and the principles of distinction and protection from the increased participation of civilians in hostilities. Center for International and European Law. 2004. http://www. asser. nl/default. Last accessed 29 Jan 2016.Google Scholar
  44. McKeogh C. Innocent civilians: the morality of killing in war. New York: Palgrave; 2002.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Melzer N. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 2009.Google Scholar
  46. Munoz-Rojas D, Fresard J-J. The roots of behavior in war: understanding and preventing IHL violations. Int Rev Red Cross. 2005;86(853):189–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Nabulsi K. Evolving concepts of civilians and belligerents: one hundred years after the Hague peace conference. In: Chesterman S, editor. Civilians in war. Boulder: Lynne Riener; 2001.Google Scholar
  48. Nielsen K. Violence and terrorism: its uses and abuses. In: Leiser BM, editor. Values in conflict. New York: Macmillian; 1981.Google Scholar
  49. Pape RA. The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2003;97(3):343–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Provost R. The International Committee of the red Widget? The diversity debate and international humanitarian law. Isr Law Rev. 2007;40:614.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Queguiner, J-F. Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Report Prepared by the International Committee for the Red Cross. 2003. http://www.cicr.org/Web/ara/siteara0.nsf/htmlall/participation-hostilities-ihl-311205/$File/Direct_participation_in_hostilities_Sept_2003_eng.pdf. Last accessed 29 Jan 2016.
  52. Rogers APV. Law on the battlefield. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2004.Google Scholar
  53. Schmitt MN. The principle of discrimination in the 21st century warfare. 2 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 143 1999.Google Scholar
  54. Schmitt, MN. War, technology and international humanitarian law. Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research Occasional Paper Series 2005 4.Google Scholar
  55. Schneider G, Bussman M, Ruhe C. The dynamics of mass killings: testing time-series models of one-sided violence in the Bosnian civil war. International Interactions: Empirical and Theoretical Research in International Relations. 2012;38(4):443–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Shannon VP. Norms are what states make of them: the political psychology of norm violation. Int Stud Q. 2000;44:293–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Sjoberg L. Gendered realities of the immunity principle: why gender analysis needs feminism. Int Stud Q. 2006;50(4):889–910.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Slaughter A-M, White WB. An international constitutional moment. Harv Int Law J. 2002;43:1.Google Scholar
  59. Slim H. Killing civilians: method, madness and morality in war. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008.Google Scholar
  60. Valentino B, Huth P, Balch-Lindsay D. ‘Draining the sea’: mass killing and guerrilla warfare. Int Organ. 2004;58(2):375–407.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Van der Wolf R, der Wolf JV. Laws of war and international law. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publications; 2004.Google Scholar
  62. Viljoen F. Africa’s contribution to the development of international human rights and humanitarian law. Afr Hum Rights J. 2001;1:18.Google Scholar
  63. Weinstein JM. Inside rebellion: the politics of insurgent violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.Google Scholar
  64. Wilson H. International law and the use of force by National Liberation Movements. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1988.Google Scholar
  65. Wood RM, Kathman JD. Too much of a bad thing? Civilian victimization and bargaining in civil war. Br J Polit Sci. 2014;44(3):685–706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Betcy Jose
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Colorado DenverDenverUSA

Personalised recommendations