8

The question is motivated by the Israel-Palestine conflict, but it may be asked/answered in general. I am wondering if Geneva conventions or any other international regulation forbid a country (Israel in this case) to attack or kill civilians and especially children if the other part uses them as human shields.

  • 2
    Are anybody using children as human shields? Yes, Israel used children as human shields in the last conflict, by forcing them to go infront of their troops as they cleared-out areas and by forcing them to stay in a house IDF used as a command central (Amnesty - look at WikiPedia), but this time? People in Gaza is virtually jailed, they've got nowhere to go... And when Israel aim is to drive the people off and take their land, when the Palestinians are the target, where else can a resitance-movement oppose them, if not on this land? Israel choose to bomb schools, hospitals and houses! – Baard Kopperud Jul 28 '14 at 11:15
  • 3
    @BaardKopperud - I think you missed the part of the question where the OP is asking about international law about killing children used as shields. Whether or not any given side has done so is irrelevant to the question. – Bobson Jul 28 '14 at 14:31
  • 2
    @BaardKopperud I'm not saying that someone is using anybody as human shields. The motivation of the question is based on the fact that some people are saying that there are human shields in Palestine, although the scope of the question is not limited to Palestine issue. – drake Jul 29 '14 at 20:43
15

No, it does not forbid it.

The Geneva Convention establish the standards of international law for the humanitarian treatment of war

Geneva Convention IV Article 28 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”

The loss of civilian life must be proportional to the military advantage gained.

Additional Protocol I Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I prohibits an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.

Subjecting civilians to military attacks by using them as human shields would make Hamas guilty of war crimes.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II does not explicitly mention the use of human shields, but such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that “the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations”.[9] It is significant, furthermore, that the use of human shields has often been equated with the taking of hostages,[10] which is prohibited by Additional Protocol II,[11] and by customary international law (see Rule 96). In addition, deliberately using civilians to shield military operations is contrary to the principle of distinction and violates the obligation to take feasible precautions to separate civilians and military objectives (see Rules 23–24).

1

The Customary international law is made up of rules that come from "a general practice accepted as law" and that exist independent of treaty law. Customary international humanitarian law (IHL) is of crucial importance in today’s armed conflicts because it fills gaps left by treaty law in both international and non-international conflicts and so strengthens the protection offered to victims. The 161 rules of customary international humanitarian law worked out by the ICRC gives a very clear answer: NO.

Rule 89 mentions that “Murder is prohibited”. You can read the whole Rule in this web address: http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter32_rule89

Children are hors de combat, since the Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions defines it as a person is 'hors de combat' if:

(a) he is in the power of an adverse Party; (b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or (c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself; provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

However, in this case, children are children and they are in their own houses.

  • 2
    Not sure where your quote above is supposed to come from, but Rule 89 [Murder] states, "As discussed in the chapters that deal with the conduct of hostilities, unlawful killings can result, for example, from a direct attack against a civilian (see Rule 1), from an indiscriminate attack (see Rule 11) or from an attack against military objectives causing excessive loss of civilian life (see Rule 14), all of which are prohibited by the rules on the conduct of hostilities." Which pretty much agrees with my answer.... – user1873 Jul 28 '14 at 13:34
  • 1
    ... Those homes contain rockets that would be fired at Israel, and the people are even warned ahead if time to leave. Only countries like Israel and the USA [we dropped leaflets over Nagasaki/Hiroshima] warn civilians before we fire. – user1873 Jul 28 '14 at 13:42
  • 1
    @user1873 - in addition to rockets, those houses are used as entrances to terror-purposed tunnels, and weapons caches, and are used as strongpoints by Hamas fighters. – user4012 Jul 28 '14 at 16:59
  • For those wanting more info about leaflets over Nagasaki/Hiroshima, see commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:OWI2106front.jpg – Andrew Grimm Sep 14 '14 at 12:48
  • Hmm - it's saying that Hiroshima was not warned at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/… – Andrew Grimm Sep 14 '14 at 12:52

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .