Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule23
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 09:08:06+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice on the removal of military objectives from the vicinity of medical units, see Rule 28. For practice on the use of human shields, see Rule 97.
Article 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states that the parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible “avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas”.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 58(b). Article 58 was adopted by 80 votes in favour, none against and 8 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 214.
Article 3 of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding states that the two parties commit to ensuring that “civilian populated areas and industrial and electrical installations will not be used as launching grounds for attacks”.
Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, concluded between the United States of America, Israel and Lebanon, in consultation with Syria, 26 April 1996, also known as the Grapes of Wrath Understanding, Article 3.
Second Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March 1999, Article 8.
Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers Incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, drafted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, September 1956, submitted to governments for their consideration on behalf of the 19th International Conference of the Red Cross, New Delhi, 28 October–7 November, Res. XIII, Article 11.
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 6.
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.5.
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 5.4.
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.07(2).
Defences and defensive positions should also be sited, if practicable, to avoid or minimise collateral damage. Ideally, all military objectives, including defensive positions, should be sited outside heavily populated areas. As in offensive operations, where a location or object may be equally successfully defended from any one of several defensive positions, LOAC requires that the defence should be conducted from the position which would cause the least danger to civilians and civilian objects.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 553.
The manual requires commanders to refrain from “locating military objectives within or near densely-populated areas”.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 556(b).
Defences and defensive positions should also be sited, if practicable, to avoid or minimise collateral damage. Ideally, all military objectives, including defensive positions, should be sited outside heavily populated areas. As in offensive operations, where a location or object may be equally successfully defended from any one of several defensive positions, the LOAC requires that the defence should be conducted from the position which would cause the least danger to civilians and civilian objects.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 5.58.
The manual also requires commanders to refrain from “locating military objectives within or near densely-populated areas”.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 5.61.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 12.
Defence shall be organized, as far as possible, outside inhabited areas … When a choice is possible between several defence positions for obtaining an equivalent military advantage, the position to be selected shall be that which would cause less danger to civilian persons and objects … Military units, except medical units, shall move or stay preferably outside populated areas, when their presence, even temporary, could endanger civilian persons and objects. Even a temporary military presence can create a dangerous situation for the civilian areas and persons. Units located in or close to populated areas shall be so deployed as to create the least possible danger to civilian areas.
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 15.
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 63; see also Part I bis, pp. 10, 23 and 86.
The Regulations also states: “Sufficient distance must be maintained between these [cultural] objects and military objectives. Moreover, they must be located at sufficient distance from important industrial centres or any important military objective”.
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 87.
The Regulations also states with respect to “units and means of medical transport” that “they must be removed from military objectives”.
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 5.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-4, § 30(b).
b. avoid locating legitimate targets within or near densely populated areas.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 421.1.b.
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section 1.
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Sections 3 and 4.
… [P]ersons participating in the preparation or conduct of defensive operations must take into account the following demands defined by the law of armed conflict.
So far as possible, defensive positions shall be chosen and installed well away from populated areas. If there is a choice between several defensive positions offering an equivalent military advantage, those which probably represent the least danger to civilians or civilian objects will be chosen.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 1ère année, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 49; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 71–72.
- avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 29.
Where there are tactically equivalent alternatives, the defence position shall be chosen so as to cause the least danger to civilian persons and objects. Movements and/or halts of military units near civilian objects shall be limited to a minimum.
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 42.
57. Within tactically equivalent alternatives, the defence position shall be chosen so as to expose civilian persons and objects to the least danger.
63. Movement and stay during movement near civilian objects shall be restricted to the minimum duration possible.
64. The location of combat units shall be chosen so as to avoid the close vicinity of military objectives and civilian persons and objects.
(b) larger military objectives are to be placed in the vicinity of less important concentrations of civilian persons and of smaller civilian objects.
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, §§ 57 and 63–65.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11.2.
Where there are tactically equivalent alternatives, the defence position shall be chosen so as to cause the least danger to civilian persons and objects. Movements and/or halts of military units near civilian objects must be limited to a minimum.
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, pp. 67–68.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) prohibits “mingling military targets among civilian objects, as for instance, a military force located within a village or a squad of soldiers fleeing into a civilian structure”.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 38.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states that “it is prohibited to scatter military targets among civilian installations in an attempt to prevent an attack on them”.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 27.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
b) larger military objectives are to be placed in the vicinity of less important concentrations of civilian persons and of smaller civilian objects.
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, §§ 57 and 63–65.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 2.
Defence shall be organized primarily outside populated areas … When a choice is possible between several defence positions for obtaining a similar military advantage, the position to be selected shall be that which would cause the least danger to civilian persons and objects, if attacked … Military units, except medical units, shall move or stay preferably outside populated areas, when their presence, even temporary, could endanger civilian persons and objects. Movements which have to pass through or close to populated areas shall be executed rapidly. Interruptions of movements (e.g. regular stops after given periods of time, occasional stops) shall, when the tactical situation permits, take place outside populated areas or at least in less densely populated areas. Even a temporary military presence can create a dangerous situation for the civilian areas and persons. Units located in or close to populated areas shall be so deployed as to create the least possible danger to civilian areas (e.g. at least physical separation; appropriate distance between militarily used houses and other buildings). For a longer presence in civilian areas, additional danger reducing measures shall be taken by the competent commander (e.g. clear and, where necessary, marked limit of unit’s location, restricted and regulated access to the location, relevant instructions to members of the unit and appropriate information to the civilian population.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, pp. 9–10.
31. Among tactically equivalent defence positions, that position must be chosen which exposes civilian persons and objects the least to danger.
41. Movements (and stops during movements) in the vicinity of civilian objects shall be limited to the minimum.
42. The placement of combat units must be chosen in order to avoid proximity between military objectives and civilian objects.
b) larger military objectives must be placed in the vicinity of smaller concentrations of civilian persons and objects.
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 6-O, §§ 31 and 41–43.
avoiding the placement of military objectives in or near densely populated areas … Although the physical separation of civilians and civilian objects from military objectives is an obvious measure for the protection of the population, it is nevertheless a measure that will often encounter great difficulties in densely populated areas. It is essential that the civilian population is not used as a human shield for military operations.
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-12, § 10.
This is about the measures which a party to an armed conflict must take against the consequences of attacks on military objectives in the area under its control.
- to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0549.
The manual further states that “the positioning of military objectives near cultural property should be avoided”.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0530.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1046.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 519(1)(b).
As regards the conduct of defence, it shall be organised primarily outside populated areas … Similar to when conducting an attack, where a choice is possible between general defence positions, the position to be selected shall be that which would cause the least danger to civilian persons and objects … Movements and locations presupposes that military units, except medical units, shall move or stay preferably outside populated areas if their presence would endanger civilian persons and objects. Movements which have to pass through populated area[s] shall be executed rapidly. Where it becomes expedient to locate military units temporarily near populated areas, such units shall be deployed so as to create the least possible danger to civilian areas. For longer lasting military locations, additional danger reducing measures shall be taken by the competent commander.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 44, § 15.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Defending forces must minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent feasible by … avoiding the location of military objectives within or near densely populated areas”.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 30; see also §§ 97.e, 107.a and 107.b.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 30.p.
The manual further states that “it is prohibited to fire mortars from areas with a high concentration of civilians”.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 26.g.(3).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Defending forces must minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent feasible by … avoiding the location of military objectives within or near densely populated areas”.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 31, p. 245.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 57, p. 425.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 98(a), p. 196.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) requires that commanders, in peacetime, “avoid deploying military objects in or near densely populated areas”.
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 14(a).
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 54.
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 50(h).
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) lists among the required precautionary measures to be taken in defence the duty to “do everything possible to organize defence outside densely populated areas”.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, División de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 2.3.b.(4).
The manual further specifies that armed forces must “to the extent possible … avoid locating military objectives within densely populated areas”.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, División de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 4.5.a.(2).
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(4).
The manual further states: “To the extent possible … military objectives must not be sited in densely populated areas”.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 4.5.a.(2); see also § 11.3.b.(2).
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) refers to the obligation enshrined in Article 58(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to “avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas” and notes that “the expression ‘endeavour’ is not used in this case, which gives the rule greater force than that of Article 58(a)”.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 74.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 29(3); see also Article 151(2)(b) and (3).
165 The following precautionary measures must be taken into consideration when making decisions, when issuing orders and in particular when conducting military operations.
2 avoid[s] locating military objectives or positions within or near densely populated areas.
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 165 and 170(2).
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 12.
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 15.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that, in the conduct of defensive actions, “[d]efence shall be primarily organized outside of densely populated areas”.
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 2.3.2.1.
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 14, § 4(d).
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.36.
As a corollary to the principle of general civilian immunity, the parties to a conflict should, to the maximum extent feasible, take necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians, and civilian objects under their authority against the dangers resulting from military operations. Accordingly, they should endeavor … to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. It is incumbent upon states, desiring to make protection of their own civilian population fully effective, to take appropriate measures to segregate and separate their military activities from the civilian population and civilian objects. Substantial military advantages may in fact be acquired by such separation.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 5-4(a).
The failure of states to segregate and separate their own military activities, and particularly to avoid placing military objectives in or near populated areas and to remove such objects from populated areas, significantly and substantially weakens effective protection for their own population. A party to a conflict which places its own citizens in positions of danger by failing to carry out the separation of military activities from civilian activities necessarily accepts, under international law, the results of otherwise lawful attacks upon valid military objectives in their territory.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 5-4(b).
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment].
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 58(b), is a punishable offence.
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment.
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).
The precautionary principle is the cornerstone of a number of specific rules which are considered to have attained customary status and to be applicable in internal armed conflicts … Among these rules is … the obligation to avoid, to the extent feasible, locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas.
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, pp. 99–100.
On the basis of an interview with a retired army general, the Report on the Practice of Botswana states that it is Botswana’s practice to separate military camps from civilian areas.
Report on the Practice of Botswana, 1998, Interview with a retired army general, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.1.
The Report on the Practice of Colombia states that if the location of police units may generate danger for the civilian population, their redeployment is considered advisable.
Report on the Practice of Colombia, 1998, Chapter 1.7.
According to the Report on the Practice of Egypt, Egypt considers that parties to a conflict are required to take precautions against the effects of attack, in particular to refrain from placing military objectives within or near populated areas.
Report on the Practice of Egypt, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
In 1996, the Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, consisting of France, Israel, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United States, pleaded with combatants to respect the precautionary measure of separating military objectives from densely populated areas, re-emphasizing that artillery fired from populated areas endangered civilians. The Monitoring Group also asked combatants to take all necessary precautions during military operations launched from the vicinity of populated areas.
Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, Fourth and fifth meetings, 22–25 September and 14–18 October 1996.
Guinea, Speech of the Prime Minister before the National Transitional Council on general policy matters, 18 March 2011, p. 10.
Iraq, Message from the President of Iraq, annexed to Letter dated 10 June 1984 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/16610, 19 June 1984, p. 2.
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
Operating with cruel indifference to the fate of innocent Lebanese civilians, Hizbollah and other terrorist organizations continue to use civilian centres as bases of operation. Therein lies the true cause of the suffering of the civilian population of southern Lebanon.
Israel, Letter dated 27 January 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/23479, 27 January 1992, p. 2.
The Report on the Practice of Israel states: “The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] endeavours, to the maximum extent possible, not to place military objectives within or in the vicinity of densely populated civilian areas.” The report remarks, however, that demographic changes have sometimes caused certain longstanding military bases to end up in mainly civilian areas. The IDF General Headquarter in Tel Aviv is cited as an example.
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
The deliberate placement of missile launchers and stockpiles of weapons in the heart of civilian centers, frequently inside and beneath populated apartment blocks, means that [the risk of collateral injury to civilians] is tragically high. This dilemma posed by this violation of the fundamental humanitarian principle of distinction between combatants and civilians has been exceptionally acute in densely populated areas in south Beirut, where Hizballah has deliberately located its headquarters and terrorist strongholds.
Israel, Responding to Hizbullah Attacks from Lebanon: Issues of Proportionality, Legal Background, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, 25 July 2006, § 4.
The parties in control of the territory where the hostilities take place also have obligations under the Law of Armed Conflict to minimise civilian harm, including with regard to their own population. Thus, the parties to the conflict “shall, to the maximum extent feasible, take the other necessary precautions to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control against the dangers resulting from military operations.” [1977 Additional Protocol I, Article 58(c)]. This means they should “avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas” [1977 Additional Protocol I, Article 58(b)]. … To do the opposite – to place weapons systems in or near apartment buildings, schools, mosques or medical facilities … – violates the Law of Armed Conflict, because such tactics inevitably increase civilian casualties beyond what otherwise might occur in connection with an attack on a legitimate military target.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 139.
The Report on the Practice of Jordan refers to the existence of “a legal obligation under Jordanian practice prohibiting the location of military objectives in densely populated areas”.
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.7.
The report considers it “regrettable that military installations are sometimes located in the vicinity of densely populated areas”.
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
The Report on the Practice of Kuwait states that, with the growth of populations and the development of towns, the Kuwaiti authorities find themselves obliged to remove military sites from urban agglomerations.
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
The Report on the Practice of Lebanon notes that, according to an adviser of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, it is forbidden for resistance movements to maintain a military presence in populated areas. It is also prohibited to use such areas as the starting point of a military operation. The adviser thought that the same principles should also apply to Israel, whose military forces should remain outside the towns and villages.
Report on the Practice of Lebanon, 1998, Interview with an adviser of the Lebanese Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Chapter 1.7.
The Report on the Practice of Malaysia considers that permanent and operational military camps may not be located within or near densely populated areas. The report notes, however, that at present, owing to the development of surrounding areas, many permanent and operational military camps are situated within or near densely populated areas.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
This provision does not constitute a restriction on a State’s military installations on its own territory. We consider that military facilities necessary for a country’s national defence should be decided on the basis of the actual needs and other considerations of that particular country. An attempt to regulate a country’s requirements and the fulfilment of those requirements in this connexion would not conform to actualities.
Republic of Korea, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, pp. 234–235.
In 2005, Switzerland withdrew its reservations to Articles 57 and 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Switzerland, Withdrawal of reservations to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 17 June 2005.
Combatants in civilian attire who blend in with the civilian population, thereby deliberately placing civilians and civilian objects in danger, are in flagrant contradiction with the obligation that international law imposes on all parties to a conflict to take all feasible measures to ensure the protection of the persons and objects concerned.
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Section 3.3, p. 12.
The Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic asserts that the Syrian Arab Republic considers Article 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to be part of customary international law.
Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
The noble Lord asked if the bombing of civilians was not contrary to the Geneva Convention. The answer to that is no. We attacked targets accepted as legitimate in international law. Iraq’s stationing of military targets in civilian areas was contrary to the rules of war.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by a government spokesman, 6 March 1991, Hansard, Vol. 526, col. 1485.
It is impossible to avoid all damage to civilian areas, especially when the North Vietnamese deliberately emplace their air defense sites, their dispersed POL, their radar and other military facilities in the midst of populated areas, and, indeed, sometimes on the roofs of government buildings.
United States, Department of Defense, Statement on targeting policy in Vietnam, 26 December 1966, reprinted in Marjorie Whiteman, Digest of International Law, Vol. 10, Department of State Publication 8367, Washington, D.C., 1968, p. 427.
United States, Letter from Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense Goulding to US Representative Ogden Reid from New York, 30 December 1966, reprinted in Marjorie Whiteman, Digest of International Law, Vol. 10, Department of State Publication 8367, Washington, D.C., 1968, p. 428.
The principle [contained in paragraph 1(c) of UN General Assembly Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of 1969 that a distinction must be made at all times between persons taking part in the hostilities and members of the civilian population to the effect that the civilians be spared as much as possible] addresses primarily the Party exercising control over members of the civilian population. This principle recognizes the interdependence of the civilian community with the overall war effort of a modern society. But its application enjoins the party controlling the population to use its best efforts to distinguish or separate its military forces and war making activities from members of the civilian population to the maximum extent feasible so that civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects incidental to attacks on military objectives, will be minimized as much as possible.
United States, Letter from J. Fred Buzhardt, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, to Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Refugees of the Committee on the Judiciary, 22 September 1972, AJIL, Vol. 67, 1973, p. 123.
The obligation of distinguishing combatants and military objectives from civilians and civilian objects is a shared responsibility of the attacker, defender, and the civilian population as such … A defender must exercise reasonable precaution to separate the civilian population and civilian objects from military objectives.
United States, Message from the Department of the Army to the legal adviser of the US Army forces deployed in the Gulf, 11 January 1991, § 8(E), Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
(d) In one case, military engineering equipment used to traverse rivers, including mobile bridge sections, was located in several villages near an important crossing point. The Iraqis parked each vehicle adjacent to a civilian house.
United States, Letter dated 5 March 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22341, 8 March 1991, pp. 2–3.
Historically, and from a common sense standpoint, the party controlling the civilian population has the opportunity and responsibility to minimize the risk to the civilian population through the separation of military objects from the civilian population … The defending party must exercise reasonable precautions to separate the civilian population and civilian objects from military objectives, and avoid placing military objectives in the midst of the civilian population.
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 625.
The obligation to take reasonable measures to minimize damage to natural resources and cultural property is shared by both an attacker and a defender … The defender has certain responsibilities as well, not the least of which is to take all reasonable measures to separate military objectives from civilian objects and the civilian population. Regrettably, in conflicts such as the Korean and Vietnam Wars, as well as the 1991 Persian Gulf War, the armed forces of the United States have faced opponents who have elected to use their civilian populations and civilian objects to shield military objectives from attack. Notwithstanding such actions, U.S. forces have taken reasonable measures to minimize collateral injury to civilians and damage to civilian objects while conducting their military operations, often at increased risk to U.S. personnel.
United States, Department of Defense, Report to Congress on International Policies and Procedures Regarding the Protection of Natural and Cultural Resources During Times of War, 19 January 1993, p. 203.
Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
The Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe states that the provisions of Article 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I would be regarded as customary by Zimbabwe because of its adoption of the Geneva Conventions Amendment Act which incorporates the 1977 Additional Protocol I into Zimbabwe’s law and practice.
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 1.7.
Most of the above-described hostilities have taken place near IDF/DFF [Israel Defense Force/De Facto Forces] positions that are close to population centres and in areas where UNIFIL’s deployment overlaps the Israeli-Controlled Area (ICA). In order to reduce hostilities, to avoid further hardship to the civilian population and to prevent additional UNIFIL casualties, I have proposed to the Government of Israel that it withdraw IDF/DFF personnel from the most affected positions, which would then be taken over by UNIFIL. I am convinced that, as in the case of Tallet Huqban in October 1987 (S/19445), such a move would have a beneficial effect.
UN Secretary-General, Special report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/23255, 29 November 1991, § 9.
The Secretary-General resubmitted his proposal to the Israeli Government in 1992.
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/24341, 21 July 1992, § 31.
In its judgment in the Kupreškić case in 2000, the ICTY Trial Chamber noted that Article 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I was now part of customary international law, not only because it specified and fleshed out general pre-existing norms, but also because it did not appear to be contested by any State, including those who had not ratified the Protocol.
ICTY, Kupreškić case, Judgment, 14 January 2000, § 524.
The prescriptions of … [Article 58 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] (and of the corresponding customary rules) must be interpreted so as to construe as narrowly as possible the discretionary power to attack belligerents and, by the same token, so as to expand the protection accorded to civilians.
ICTY, Kupreškić case, Judgment, 14 January 2000, § 525.
As suggested by the Defence, the parties to a conflict are under an obligation to remove civilians, to the maximum extent feasible, from the vicinity of military objectives and to avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas. However, the failure of a party to abide by this obligation does not relieve the attacking side of its duty to abide by the principles of distinction and proportionality when launching an attack.
ICTY, Galić case, Judgment, 5 December 2003, § 61.
ICTY, Dragomir Milošević case, Judgment, 12 December 2007, § 949.
440. When a choice is possible between several defence positions for obtaining a similar military advantage, the position to be selected shall be that the defence of which would cause the least danger to civilian persons and objects.
446. When the tactical situation permits, defence measures which may affect civilian persons shall be announced by effective advance warning (e.g. for evacuation of specific houses or areas, for removal and shelter).
448. Military units, except medical units, shall move or stay preferably outside populated areas, when their presence, even temporary, could endanger civilian persons and objects.
450. Interruptions of movement (e.g. regular stops after given periods of time, occasional stops) shall, when the tactical situation permits, take place outside populated areas or at least in less densely populated areas.
451. Even a temporary military presence can create a dangerous situation for the civilian areas and persons. Units located in or close to populated areas shall be so deployed as to create the least possible danger to civilian areas (e.g. at least clear physical separation: appropriate distance between militarily used houses and other buildings).
452. For longer lasting locations in civilian areas, additional danger-reducing measures shall be taken by the competent commander (e.g. clear and where necessary marked limit of unit’s location, restricted and regulated access to location, instructions to members of the unit and appropriate information to the civilian population).
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 439, 440, 446 and 448–452.
In an appeal issued in 1979 with respect to the conflict in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe, the ICRC specifically requested that the Patriotic Front “clearly separate civilian establishments, particularly refugee camps, from military installations”.
ICRC, Conflict in Southern Africa: ICRC appeal, 19 March 1979, § 7, IRRC, No. 209, 1979, p. 89.
Institute of International Law, Edinburgh Session, Resolution on the Distinction between Military Objectives and Non-military Objects in General and Particularly the Problems Associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction, 9 September 1969, § 5.

References: § 6
 § 2
 § 4
 § 553
 § 556
 § 5
 § 5
 § 30
 § 421
 § 11
 § 10
 § 0549
 § 0530
 § 1046
 § 519
 § 15
 § 30
 § 30
 § 26
 § 31
 § 57
 § 98
 § 14
 § 54
 § 50
 § 2
 § 4
 § 2
 § 4
 § 11
 § 2
 § 4
 § 5
 § 5
 § 5
 § 25
 § 36
 § 108
 § 4
 § 139
 § 8
 § 9
 § 31
 § 524
 § 525
 § 61
 § 949
 § 7
 § 5