Is it ever legal for an army to target civilians?

Question

I'm just the average Joe here with no knowledge of wars or politics, so please bear with my simple question.

I've been watching the news in Ukraine and there's something I cannot understand. I see day-to-day news of missiles hitting non-military targets in Ukraine (shopping mall today) and I was wondering if this is legal according to any war treaties.

I thought armies fought against armies only, but it seems I'm clearly mistaken.

Is there any provision in the Geneva Conventions or any other one that address this circumstance, or this is just normal, expected warfare?

Answer 1

The title is somewhat badly phrased in relation to what the body asks. Because civilians can die in war without being (deliberately) targeted, aka the fabled "collateral damage".

This is certainly not the last word on the matter, but Wikipedia quotes this answer from the office of the ICC prosecutor:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes: Intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated; Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are “clearly” excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
(a) the anticipated civilian damage or injury;
(b) the anticipated military advantage; and
(c) whether (a) was “clearly excessive” in relation to (b).

As you can see, there's a fair bit of room of interpretation for what are "clearly" excessive civilian casualties. Hopefully someone can illustrate this with case law.

As for hitting shopping malls... well, it depends if they are still used as such. I'm fairly reluctant to link to Russian MoD videos, but in one such one can see a military vehicle parked in front of what seems to be an office building-mall complex before it's blasted by what's probably a ballistic missile. (You can also see the aftermath in other videos; i.e. facade of the building is gone.) There's also a Wikipedia article on that strike. Now whether Russia has real-time intelligence on every target of that kind before striking it... who knows...

Answer 2

The answer to the title question is, broadly, 'yes'. Before going into that, I'll point out that it's not legal for Russia to directly attack the shopping mall, but they claim that they hit a neighbouring weapons depot which triggered the fire.

Now to the question. The laws of war prohibit intentional targeting of civilians, but the definition of 'civilian' is crucial. The definition in the Geneva conventions is:

1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4 A (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.

Article 4A goes on to exclude the armed forces, militias, and "Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war."

Under this definition it's easy to think of examples where an army would target a civilian: e.g. spies, terrorists, or someone is conducting covert sabotage against them.

Finally, it's illegal to provide aid to the foreign power, so someone who does that can be (and has been, in the current war) targeted.

Answer 3

The question is to target, so illegal. You cannot just configure the rocket to fly into that you think is a working shopping mall full of civilians, for propaganda purposes to scare the G7 meeting and also the rest of the world. Some sources claim indeed Russia did exactly that. Would not be very good. The rocket must be set to fly into legitimate military target.

There are also rules about which weapons are appropriate to use near civilians. For instance, the X-22 (Kh-22) is the ancient 1962 design, highly inaccurate Soviet rocket, designed for destroying ships (source). There was the legitimate target (machine repair factory and not a ship) 500 m. away (source) from the shopping center, and the attacker likely just missed. Using such "high precision" weapons near civilians and not for they intended purpose may be illegal if there are modern rockets at hand. If not, may be complex to decide should one stop attacks or use that is still in they disposition. They now claim the fire spread from legitimate target into the shopping center but western analytics think it is too far to look convincible.

The requirement to strike the legitimate target in the immediate vicinity of the shopping center outside the usual opening hours of the center looks appropriate and proportional (source).