Why isn't bombing cities under any circumstance a war crime? Same applies to launching attacks from cities

Question

While there are rules in place, I think within the Geneva Conventions, regarding the protection of civilian infrastructure, the legal interpretation and application can vary. Deliberately targeting cities, even for military reasons, goes against the Conventions.

However, the rules provide too much leeway for armies to avoid clearly classifying their attacks as war crimes

So, I wonder, why isn't the bombing of cities under any circumstance considered a war crime, full stop? The same question applies to attacks launched from cities.

I specifically mean using heavy weapons such as rockets, bombs, artillery, etc., as I understand that sometimes warfare occurs in cities. In such cases, only light weapons that don't cause severe damage to cities should be used.

Answer 1

The short answer is that any military effort relies on production and distribution, which is largely carried out by civilians in urban areas. If a nation needs to produce military ordinance or subsistence materials for combat troops, these will often be processed in or near cities, where wealth, infrastructure, and workers are concentrated. Mass production in the countryside faces logistical problems: deficits in shipping, rail-lines, power availability, housing and amenities for workers, etc. The Geneva Convention did not wish to restrict nations from attacking military supply and production — an essential part of modern warfare — but did wish to minimize civilian casualties. Hence the somewhat mealy-mouthed language.

Unfortunately, the Geneva Convention was written with formal warfare between states in mind, and isn't too clear on guerrilla warfare, terrorism, or non-state military actions. But it's safe to say that the framers of the Geneva Convention did not wish to create a haven for combatants who might establish themselves within cities to hide behind civilians. Warfare has changed radically since the 1950s, and the rules are notably dated.

Answer 2

There is the concept of declaring a city about to be occupied an open city. Attacking an open city is not acceptable, but neither is defending it or using it as a base for attack. Looking at this the other way around, a city which is defended or which is used as a base of attack cannot claim immunity from counterattack.

Answer 3

There is a real risk in creating laws that do not achieve a minimum threshold of actual buy-in and compliance.

For examples, you could refer to the US Prohibition.

Or the Hague 1899 Convention expecting submarines to surface and hail vessels before attacking them.

Cities, in the 20th and 21st century are important areas to pin defenses on during high intensity warfare, analogous to castles in medieval times.

• buildings afford cover. This has been the case from Stalingrad to Mariupol. Would you want to go back in time and tell the USSR to not fight in Stalingrad?

• cities are nexus points for road and rail networks, so often can't be bypassed.

It is therefore unrealistic to expect all defending armies to forego their use. And equally unrealistic to expect attackers to consider them off-limits. By doing this clear, deliberate, avoidable, acts which do contradict the laws of war get normalized and pressure for enforcement drops.

Best to define realistic cut offs for war crimes. And then actually investigate them and prosecute offenders. In the case of cities, a lot of what IHL pertains to is evacuating civilians and not targeting civilians.

Not like there isn't any ground to investigate currently-sanctioned events in the context of this war.

p.s. About the comments. This answer is not interested in justifying or rationalizing the strategic air bombing campaigns in WW2. It is concerned - see my 2 bullet points - with urban operations against cities, in the context of a ground advance against urban chokepoints. As Mariupol, as Stalingrad, as Gaza. A lot of WW2 bombings could be considered war-crimes territory, with a, sizable, defense being mountable on the exceptionalism of fighting the Nazi regime. So, please don't pipe up too much about Dresden, Hamburg, Rotterdam, etc... Those were not war circumstances that I am defending. At least not in "regular" wars.

Answer 4

Because if you make the main objective of a war illegal, no one will care about your law. Wars are fought for control over territories, and you hold territory by holding the administrative centers of those territories (and cities are also major transportation hubs crucial for any war, as other answers stated)

Whether countries will abide to treaties and conventions is a game theory question. How much is it worth, and how much would it hinder the war effort?

• For example, if the regulation is about not shooting at enemy medics, then it's worth abiding to. They won't get any significant advantages by shooting at enemy medics, and it would be beneficial to abide to such a regulation: the enemy won't shoot at their medics either, and violating such a regulation would lead to diplomatic difficulties and lost international prestige.

• However, if it's about not being able to accomplish the main objectives of the war, then they just won't care about the regulations.

Summarized, just because you outlaw wars, it won't stop wars from happening. However if the regulations limit things in a way to reduce suffering without hindering the achievement of the main objectives of a war, then countries will be more likely to respect them.

Answer 5

It's generally acknowledged that deliberate and indiscriminate targeting of cities, even with a military objective, can be viewed as contrary to the principles of the laws of war.

There is no need for weasel words. Indiscriminate attacks are explicitly forbidden in Article 51 of the 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions:

4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are:

   (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective;

   (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

   (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol;

   and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

That is, indiscriminate attacks are war crimes, regardless of where they happen.

So, I wonder, why isn't the bombing of cities under any circumstance considered a war crime, full stop?

Bombing entire cities is an indiscriminate attack and therefore a war crime.

What is allowed is bombing military targets within cities, provided your aim is good enough to meet the standard of proportionality as set out in paragraph 5b of article 51:

5. Among others, the following types of attacks are to be considered as indiscriminate:

   (a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and

   (b) 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.

That is, you may engage military targets in cities as long as incidental suffering of civilians is not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".

Now, you are correct that this is a judgement call. However, there is a lengthy commentary, as well as some case law, which I can not reproduce here in their entirety.

One paragraph of this commentary is relevant to your question though:

The delegation which voted against justified its vote by arguing that the article could seriously hinder the conduct of military operations against an invader and compromise the exercise of the right to self-defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. According to this delegation, the provisions relating to indiscriminate attacks should not be such as to prevent a State from defending its territory against an invader, even if this were to entail losses in its own population. Several delegations made similar statements.

That is, there were concerns that outlawing combat in cities would "seriously hinder the conduct of military operations against an invader". I think that explains why the diplomatic conference chose not to outlaw urban combat entirely, but permitted it as long as attacks meet the standards of distinction, proportionality, and precaution.

I specifically mean using heavy weapons such as rockets, bombs, artillery, etc., as I understand that sometimes warfare occurs in cities. In such cases, only light weapons that don't cause severe damage to cities should be used.

That's pretty much what the Geneva Conventions say. The only difference is that the Geneva Conventions only protect civilians and civilian objects, not cities entire. Military objectives in cities may be attacked as long as the attack is carried out with sufficient distinction, proportionality, and precaution to avoid excess injury to civilians. In practice, this means that weapons must not leave craters greater than the target. But if a city contains a sufficiently large military target (say, a military base), the use of heavy weaponry is allowed as long as it can be expected to be mostly on target.

Answer 6

The objective of the Fourth Geneva Convention wasn't to protect civilians at all costs.

It was to discourage mass slaughter of enemy population for vindictive or genocidal reasons. This practice used to be common in Antiquity, subsided somewhat late in the Renaissance, and came into vogue again during WWII.

The language is deliberately worded to restrict excessive casualties, which are casualties not required to achieve the military objective.

During WWII, both sides have engaged in deliberate destruction without a military objective, such as the razing of Warsaw by Germany during their retreat, or the bombing of Nagasaki by the US, or a number of lesser-known acts. The Fourth Convention sought to reduce this.

One could argue that any offensive war can count as a crime under modern international law, at least for the losing side, but criminalizing war itself wasn't the conventions' intent. And any war results in a large number of civilian casualties. Cities are valuable military objectives due to their industrial and defensive utility, so large-scale war tends to revolve around controlling them.