Many have interpreted the Goldstone report, as it has become known, as yet another battle in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, waged by other means. But the report addressed a more far-reaching issue -- namely, the difficulty of distinguishing civilians from combatants in modern urban warfare.
Two recent books explore that dilemma by examining the relationship between the laws of war and civilian protection during battle. In Moral Dilemmas of Modern War,
From two widely different perspectives, the books cast doubt on the value of the existing international regulations presumably designed to mitigate war's impact on civilians. But a closer look suggests that these authors overstate the tensions between the laws of war and the modern battlefield and underestimate just how well the existing statutes are working. Although the laws of war require strengthening, they constitute a firm foundation on which to better protect civilians.
TOO MUCH OR TOO LITTLE?
The current laws of war regarding civilian protection resulted from a process of treaty development that included nineteenth-century agreements to safeguard the sick and wounded, which were gradually extended in the twentieth century to prisoners of war and then to civilians caught in conflict. A cardinal rule of the existing framework insists that civilians may not be deliberately targeted, unless they participate directly in hostilities. The laws stipulate that military forces must direct their operations toward combatants and military objectives only and must conduct themselves in a manner that allows their adversaries to distinguish them from civilians -- by wearing uniforms, for example, or carrying arms openly. The drafters of the Geneva Conventions carefully delineated combatants and civilians to assist militaries in distinguishing between them. In addition, the conventions state that when in doubt, military forces should assume the targets are civilians and that some number of combatants among a civilian population does not render that civilian population a legitimate target.
Gross argues that this legal structure unfairly favors insurgents on the modern battlefield. Many of today's wars are fought in dense urban environments, largely between uniformed state militaries and guerrillas in civilian clothing. The problem, he believes, is not that the rules inadequately protect civilians but that they provide too much protection for nonstate armed groups in this new type of war, on the mistaken assumption that civilians are always innocent bystanders. This hobbles Western militaries in their attempts to protect those considered by Gross to be "truly innocent" civilians -- those who reside in democracies and are subject to guerrilla violence and terrorism.
Many civilians in modern wars are agents and not just bystanders, as Gross correctly points out: they aid and abet insurgents by storing their weapons, producing their propaganda, providing them with food and shelter, and even agreeing to act as civilian shields. It is no surprise to him, then, that powerful states such as
By contrast, Rockel, Halpern, and other contributors to their volume are far more critical of powerful governments' records in war. Whereas Gross emphasizes moral asymmetry in modern war -- highlighting the distinction between democratic armies defending their citizens and guerrillas who attack civilians using the cover of their own countries' populations -- Rockel and Halpern focus on the asymmetry of force between powerful state militaries and their weaker guerrilla adversaries. They claim that the West's callous indifference to "unintended" civilian casualties in the developing world today is analogous to its historical record of atrocities in imperial wars, which often involved depredations against civilians. Just as colonial states in those wars used dehumanizing euphemisms, such as calling natives "savages," to legitimize their actions, modern Western militaries unacceptably justify and sanitize civilian casualties by invoking the concept of "collateral damage" -- a military term used to describe regrettable but unintended, and therefore lawful, casualties of war. The notion that civilian deaths are permissible if unintended, the authors argue, has allowed militaries to whitewash the destructiveness of their operations. In other words, the existing laws of war, which prohibit intentional civilian targeting but permit "accidental" civilian deaths, are part of the problem.
Both books are thus skeptical about the ability of the existing laws of war to balance national security and the protection of civilians. As interpreted by the Goldstone report, international law appears to handicap states' ability to target insurgents who purposefully operate in civilian areas -- revealing, according to Gross, the inability of the current system to adapt to new modes of war. Meanwhile, in their book, Rockel, Halpern, and the other contributors argue that the existing body of laws protecting civilians during wartime actually sanctions their deaths at the hands of states operating behind the shield of "collateral damage." Do the laws of war, then, need to be adapted to the current era, and if so, how?
STRIKING A BALANCE
In outlining the limitations presented by the laws of war in addressing modern conflicts, Gross argues that the current legal framework for civilian protection must change to meet state interests. He is sympathetic to the new tendency among Western states to broaden the scope of acceptable military targets to include civilians who assist insurgents. Yet this is a deviation from the existing norm by states seeking to pursue their interests outside the bounds of the law. Were this trend adopted as a new legal standard, it would be nothing less than an abandonment of the current rules, weakening civilian protection rather than strengthening it.
Moreover, underlying Gross' belief that the laws of war must change to meet states' needs is the historically flawed notion that modern combat presents unique challenges. The kinds of asymmetries in the warfare he writes about are hardly unprecedented. The laws of war have in fact already adapted to many of the questions that, according to Gross, have been raised for the first time by recent wars. The current framework distinguishes, for example, between civilians who support warring factions by providing food and shelter, who are not automatically rendered legitimate targets, and civilians who take up arms themselves, who do lose their immunity. Gross points out that these rules place critical restraints on the actions of state militaries. But he overstates the case when he suggests that the laws of war tie their hands completely. To Gross, there seem to be only two options for state forces engaged in asymmetric wars: bend the rules by fighting guerrillas with an expanded notion of legitimate targets, or prepare to lose.
Yet a third option exists: militaries can choose to place their uniformed men and women in harm's way rather than cede the moral high ground by placing civilians in greater danger. When Gross describes the fundamental dilemma of asymmetric war as "who do we bomb when there are no more accessible military targets?" he assumes that states must deploy aerial firepower to defeat their unconventional enemies. But this is not the only tool in the arsenals of Western states. To combat insurgents and protect civilians simultaneously, governments could choose to use ground troops, which are arguably better equipped to discriminate between innocent bystanders and insurgents and their accomplices. Although militaries risk significantly higher casualties by deploying their troops rather than dropping precision bombs, this sacrifice is precisely what the logic of just war requires: that civilians not become more expendable than a country's armed forces.
Gross is not alone in his undue cynicism about the existing principles. Rockel and Halpern argue that the very idea of "collateral damage," a tenet of the existing laws of war, increases military leaders' apathy toward the consequences of their operations and encourages crimes against civilians. But in making this claim, the authors conflate "collateral damage," which describes regrettable yet lawful casualties of war, and "war crimes," which result when governments deliberately target civilians. For example, many of their book's chapters detail atrocities to which the concept of "unintended casualties" does not apply, such as sexual violence. Moreover, nothing in the case studies shows even a correlation, much less a causal relationship, between the invention of the euphemism "collateral damage" during the Cold War and a purported rise in unintended civilian casualties. In fact, U.S. government documents disclosed by the whistleblower Web site WikiLeaks last October suggest the opposite: in those papers, U.S. troops appeared to invoke the risk of collateral damage to justify their failure to fire at legitimate military targets.
Inventing Collateral Damage does successfully document the brutalities of warfare before the 1949 Geneva Conventions. If anything, however, this suggests that the treaties' norms may have reduced such horrors since World War II. In fact, according to
But Rockel and Halpern are right to note that although the international community has worked to reduce intentional civilian targeting, it has been too complacent about reducing unintended civilian casualties. Protection for civilians against the effects of lawful military operations remains scant, and international discussion about increasing those safeguards has been minimal. Many of the contributors to Inventing Collateral Damage suggest that such complacency renders the entire effort to regulate war an exercise in hypocrisy. Yet as in the case of Gross' concerns, a more pragmatic approach would be to explore options for strengthening, expanding, and clarifying the existing rules.
STRENGTHENING CIVILIAN PROTECTION
Although Moral Dilemmas of Modern War and Inventing Collateral Damage suggest otherwise, the laws of war have never been static and have often improved to reflect changing times. Points of confusion in the law regarding civilians can be clarified today through the same process that has been used to ban land mines or protect displaced persons in recent years. Specific rules will need to be worked out by states, but nongovernmental organizations and legal experts are proposing many ideas about what these rules could look like.
First, any international effort to reduce and respond to the civilian costs of war will need a mechanism for measuring and categorizing casualties of war. The
Governments should additionally reconsider whether certain weapons, such as high-yield explosives, can really be considered discriminate when deployed in urban areas. A 2010 report by Landmine Action demonstrates that civilian casualties caused by these devices -- artillery shells, bombs, and mortars among them -- are exceedingly high in populated areas, and especially so among children. The damage is even greater when the secondary impacts of urban warfare are considered, including disease, malnutrition, and economic ruin. If the goal is to better protect civilians from the incidental effects of war, limits on the use of such weapons, at least in urban areas, may be required.
Yet even new regulations governing the deployment of explosives in populated areas would still likely leave some civilians in the crossfire. And in such cases, the Campaign for Innocent Victims in Conflict, a
Even if no new laws are developed in the near future, military planners, government officials, and lawyers could reduce civilian casualties by simply modifying their interpretations of the existing legal doctrines. To begin, clarifying the notion of what constitutes direct civilian participation in hostilities would help states more accurately judge when civilians remain protected and when they have lost their immunity.
Additional questions in need of resolution include how to determine whether, in the words of international treaties, a government has taken "all feasible precautions" to prevent civilian harm and whether it has inflicted "excessive" civilian casualties in relation to its military gains. The current laws of war leave these issues to states' discretion, but governments could collaborate to limit the gray area between civilian deaths considered unfortunate and those deemed unlawful. New or clarified rules will need to balance humanitarian principles in war with the human security costs of doing too little in cases in which insurgents or terrorists prey intentionally on the innocent. Many militaries are already grappling not just with how to weigh civilian casualties against military necessity but also with how to balance the risk of civilian casualties during a given strike against the benefits that such a strike could provide to those civilians by neutralizing predatory militias.
Some might argue that further innovations in the laws of war are unlikely. But the international rules that are now taken for granted -- say, the right of wounded soldiers to receive aid from neutral humanitarians on the battlefield -- once seemed just as far-fetched. And reconsiderations of humanitarian law have often occurred in times of systemic crisis such as these, when the human costs of the mismatch between existing laws and changing times become clear. One such transformation took place in the 1970s, when the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions were established. States recognized that the most recent
Collateral damage in modern warfare, too, can be minimized by more clear-cut regulations. Governments should work to reduce both long-term and short-term civilian harm in war, atone for lawful as well as unlawful deaths, and cooperate to bring nonstate actors that target civilians to justice. But to achieve this, states must work together to strengthen the rules themselves. And assessments of the existing laws of war should be balanced and forward-looking rather than cynically pessimistic. It is well within the power of the international community to strengthen civilian protection in the twenty-first century.
CHARLI CARPENTER is Associate Professor of International Affairs at the University of Massachusetts-Amherst.
- A G-Zero World: New Economic Club Will Produce Conflict Not Cooperation
- The Post-Washington Consensus
- Currency Wars: Then and Now
- Currencies Are Not the Problem
- The Advantages of an Assertive China
- China's Search for a Grand Strategy
- Will China's Rise Lead to War?
- Getting China to Sanction Iran
- How al Qaeda Works
- Fighting the Laws of War
- Cambodia: A Temple and a Tempest
- A Welcome Foreign Policy Caution
- A Politically 'Comatose' Middle East Awakens
- New Regimes in Arab World Could Highlight American Hypocrisy
- Egypt in Danger of Becoming America's Greatest Middle East Enemy
- Middle East Unrest Spreads to Libya
- The Tunisia Effect
- The Arab Revolt
- Far East and Middle East: A Study in Contrasts?
- Arms Sales for India
- The Indian - Pakistani Divide
- Iraq: From Surge to Sovereignty
- Doing Multiculturalism Right
- Germany's Immigration Dilemma
- World's Top Ten Circular Buildings and Structures
- Freedom Fever
- Revolution and the Muslim World
- Discovering Fire
- A Truth More Powerful Than an Army
- Egypt's Dim Future
- Demographics of Arab Protests
- In New Arab World United States Cannot Straddle Fence Much Longer
- The Wealth Gap Around the World
- Revisionist History of Bush Democracy Agenda Doesn't Hold Up
- What the Egyptian Uprising Means for Investors
- The Real 'Realism' on Israel
- Shaky Restart to Inter-Korean Talks
- The Threat of Civil Unrest in Pakistan and the Davis Case
- Davos Man and the Real World
- From Davos to D.C., A Crossroads Moment for the World
- The 10 Countries With the Most Debt
- Egypt: The Distance Between Enthusiasm and Reality
- Egypt Revolt Part of a Long History of Uprisings
- Hope Amid the Chaos in Cairo
- Egypt's Uphill Economic Struggles
- The United States - Egypt Breakup: Washington's Limited Options in Cairo
- Egypt a 'Textbook' Foreign Policy Dilemma
- Egypt's Widening Discontent
- Egypt Aflame
- Obama Meets Foreign Policy Test in Egypt
- Tunisia: Moment in the Sun
- Hunger Fuels Discontent in Middle East
- No Justice, No Peace
- American-Israeli Policy To Be Tested By Arab Uprisings
- Israel, Turkey and Iran: Neighbourly Strain
- Israel: Testing Times
- Syria: Washington's New Direction
- Russia: A 21st Century Alliance?
- Russia: Podium Pressure and the 2014 Winter Olympics
- Montenegro: The Survivor Exits
- Kosovo: A Way To Go
- Belarus: Back in the Freezer
- Korea: A Glimmer of Hope
- Humanitarian Workers: Aid for the Aid Givers
- U.S. Officials Talk Tough With China
- Obama Presses Hu Jintao to Let U.S. Banks Into China
- Obama Served Peace Prize too Early
- America's China Syndrome
- Tunisia's Lessons for Repressive Regimes
- Tunisia: A Popular Uprising But Then What?
- Unrest in Tunisia and Ivory Coast Send Tremors Through Africa
- Afganistan: Nurturing a Narco-State
- Top Global Risks of 2011
- China and United States Need Overarching Concept for Interaction
- China's Growing Military Might Poses Many Policy Questions
- Britain and China: Then and Now
- How Repressive Regimes Use the Internet to Keep Power
- Islam's Hijackers and Hijackees
- WikiLeaks: Diplomacy as Usual
- Africom: Soft Power Warriors
- Nigerian Elections: Levelling the Playing Fields
- Nigerian Elections: Changing of the Old Guard?
- Sudan: Beyond Southern Sudan
- Afghanistan: Deadly Addiction
- The Euro: Until Death Do Us Part
- Russia: Rewriting History
- Gulf States Should Take a DIY Approach With Iran
- Back to 'Normal' in the Middle East
- America: Uneasy Engagement
- America: Flying Into Turbulence
- Obama and Human Rights: Continuity and Change
- Western Economy on Suicide Watch?
- South America Enters Middle East Quagmire
Available at Amazon.com:
Copyright 2011 COUNCIL ON FOREIGN RELATIONS. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. DISTRIBUTED BY TRIBUNE MEDIA SERVICES