International Humanitarian Law Oral Presentation Module Name: UJGT8E-15-M Student No:

CONTENT Actions taken by Aland Commander Laws of International Armed Conflict Precautions Principles I.C.C. Rome Statute Conclusion

Actions taken by ALAND Commander Estimates that it is too dangerous for Aland combatants to enter Backyard. Decides to shell the part of Backyard closer to his unit as a matter of military necessity. Orders members of his unit to verify evacuation of Blurb combatants, who fire on Aland combatants as they enter Backyard. Orders siege of Backyard which contains cultural property. Orders destruction of Backyard from a distance after failure of the siege to bring about surrender of Blurb combatants.

L. O. I. A. C. Geneva Convention 1 Do Aland’s Commander’s actions respect wounded and sick enemy combatants in the field? Geneva Convention 4 Is there sufficient evidence that Blurb’s civilians were protected from military attacks? Additional Protocol 1 ICRC Study on Customary International

Precautions in attack Precautions should have been taken before the shelling, siege and destruction of the Backyard by Aland. E.g. Art. 57 (2)(a), AP1 & Rule 18, CIL asserts ‘feasible precautions’ must be taken by combatants before an attack, e.g. verifying military objects are being targeted and minimising collateral damage. Precautions should be taken to verify military objectives in the destruction of Backyard E.g. Art. 57(3), AP1 ‘military object selected for targeting should cause least collateral damage’

Principle of Military Necessity “military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage” Article 52(2) AP I & Rule 8, CIHL

Principle of Unnecessary Suffering Criteria for ordering siege of Backyard do not meet provisions of Art. 54(5), AP1… Aland was not defending its territory from invasion by Blurb. Arts.12-15, GC1 obliges combatants to respect wounded and sick combatants. CIL: Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission deemed siege warfare to be prohibited.

Principle of Distinction Excessive collateral damage to Backyard including destruction of cultural property is a serious breach of l.o.i.a.c. Art. 49, GC IV Art.52 (3), AP1 Rule 50 CIHL Art. 27 (1) & 56, HR IV

Principle of Discrimination No formal advance warnings were given to Blurb by Aland before shelling, siege and destruction of Backyard. Art , GC IV prohibits indiscriminate destruction of civilian objects. Art. 51 (4), AP1 prohibits indiscriminate military attacks, not directed at specific military targets resulting in excessive loss of civilian lives.

Principle of Proportionality Disproportionate collateral damage caused by the shelling and destruction of Backyard is illegal. Art. 50/ 51/130/147 of GC 1-IV respectively prohibit wanton, excessive destruction of civilian objectives in military attacks. E.g. Art. 3 (b) ICTY Statute states ‘wanton destruction of civilian objectives constitute a war crime for which an individual may be prosecuted’. ICC Statute & national legislation of many states including the UK, USA, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Australia also make it a war crime to violate principle of proportionality

Principle of Humanity No evidence of warnings by Aland for Blurb to evacuate Backyard’s civilian pop’n. Art. 17, GC IV obliges bellingerent parties conclude agreements for the removal of the wounded and other protected persons from besieged areas. Art. 54, AP 1 prohibits starvation of civilians as a means of warfare. Art. 103, CIL prohibits collective punishment.

Were the decisions of the Aland Commander legitimate acts of warfare? For 1.Military precautions should have been taken by Blurb to reduce collateral damage. 2.Use of the civilian pop’n of Backyard as human shields by Blurb was illegal. 3.Attack on Aland unit is evidence of military necessity for shelling of Backyard. Against 1.Excessive and indiscriminate attacks on civilians and civilian objectives constitute a war crime. 2.Collective punishment e.g. reprisal attacks is prohibited. 3.Siege warfare is prohibited. 4.Military attacks on cultural property which are prohibited.

1998 Rome Statute of the I.C.C Serious Violations/War Crimes 1.Siege of Backyard violates Art. 7 2.i) Order to destroy Backyard violates Art. 8 (2) (a) (iv) ii) destruction of cultural property violates Art. 8 (2) (b) (ix)

Conclusion The siege and destruction of Backyard constitute serious violations of jus in bello, for which Aland’s Commander can be prosecuted as a war criminal.

Bibliography Dinstein, Yoram, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (2nd Edn. Cambridge University Press 2010) International Committee of the Red Cross, Treaties and Customary Law, accessed 21 Februray International Committee of the Red Cross: Advisory Service on international Humanitarian Law, Statute of the International Criminal Court (1998) Kalshoven, F. and Zegveld, L., Constraints on the Waging of War; An Introduction to International Humanitarian Law (4th Edn..Cambrige University Press 2011)