Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule24
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:58:17+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning the evacuation of the civilian population for security reasons, see Rule 129, Section B.
Article 58(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states that the parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible, “without prejudice to Article 49 of the Fourth Convention, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives”.
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(a). 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.
The parties to the conflict shall, so far as possible, take all necessary steps to protect the civilian population subject to their authority from the dangers to which they would be exposed in attack – in particular by removing them from the vicinity of military objectives and from threatened areas. However, the rights conferred upon the population in the event of transfer or evacuation under Article 49 of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 are expressly reserved.
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) requires commanders to remove civilians and civilian objects under their control “from the vicinity of military objectives”.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 556(a).
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) requires commanders to remove “civilians and civilian objects from the vicinity of military objectives”.
Civilian persons and objects must be separated from military objectives as far as possible … Civilian persons removed from the vicinity of military objectives shall be taken preferably to locations they know and which present no danger for them.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “civilians and civilian objects 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. 64.
On the approach of the enemy or of combat towards zones of civilian habitation, the civilian population must be evacuated towards zones free of combat. The means and organization of this evacuation are the responsibility of the national civilian and military authorities. All persons must be evacuated, with priority given to women and children.
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 67, § 242(1).
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 187, § 492.B.
To protect civilians, the parties to a conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of legitimate targets.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-4, § 30(a).
a. endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of legitimate targets.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 421.1.a.
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police): “Civilians must be evacuated from zones located in proximity to military objectives”.
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; see also Chapter III, Section 3.
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 3.
So far as possible, civilians must be removed from military objectives. The military shall warn the civilian population in advance and help in their evacuation. If possible, civilians shall be taken to places they know and which are not dangerous to them. Cooperation between civilian and military authorities may be necessary to provide food, methods of transport, or even accommodation for these civilians. Whenever it is possible, children should be evacuated with the families.
The civilian population can choose to stay in a town under siege. In this case, the defenders have considerable responsibilities as regards protection. They must ensure that the civilian population is removed from the vicinity of military objectives and is not used as a human shield.
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, pp. 49–51; 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 and 72–73.
- endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from legitimate objectives.
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, § 59.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 1.4.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 5.2.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 39.
- An attempt should be made to move the civilian population away from military targets by distributing leaflets, issuing warnings through loudspeakers, giving sufficient notice of an attack, etc, unless there are overriding, compelling military needs (immediate attack, surprise attack).
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 59.
Civilian persons and objects shall be removed from military objectives. To that end, commanders shall seek the co-operation of the civilian authorities … Civilian persons removed from the vicinity of military objectives shall be taken preferably to locations they know and which present no danger for them. Civilian objects shall be removed primarily to locations outside the vicinity of military objectives.
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 6-O, § 33.
trying to evacuate the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects from the vicinity of military objectives … 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.
- to endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects from the vicinity of military objectives.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 519(1)(a).
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) considers that one of the aims and objectives of the 1949 Geneva Conventions is “to evacuate and prevent that civilians and civilian objects in conflict zones are attacked”.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 6, § 6(d).
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Defending forces must minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent feasible by … removing the civilian population from the vicinity of military objectives”.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 30.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 30.a.
When civilians are moved away from military objectives, they should preferably be taken to locations they are familiar with and which pose no danger to them.
Civilian objects should preferably be moved to locations that are not in the vicinity of military objectives.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 30.r and s; see also § 106.
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Defending forces must minimize civilian casualties to the maximum extent feasible by … removing the civilian population from the vicinity of military objectives”.
The manual also states: “It is prohibited to use civilian objects to shield military operations”.
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(a), 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, § 31(r)–(s), p. 247.
To the greatest possible extent … the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects in the territory controlled by the military command shall be evacuated from the areas adjacent to military objectives.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) lists among the required precautionary measures to be taken in defence the duty “to remove, as far as possible, civilian persons or objects under military control from the vicinity of military objectives”.
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) and 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); see also § 4.5.a.(2).
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. 73.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “To the extent possible, that is, as far as the interests of Swiss national defence allow, … civilians close to military objectives will be removed”.
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)(a) and (3).
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organisation of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rule 6.
1 must endeavour, to the extent possible, to remove civilians and civilian objects from the vicinity of military works and objectives.
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(1). The German version of § 170(1) notes: “must endeavour, to the extent practically [praktisch] possible, to remove civilians as well as civilian objects [sowohl Zivilpersonen als auch zivile Objekte] from the vicinity of military objects and objectives [von militärischen Objekten und Zielen]”.
Civilian persons and civilian objects shall be removed from the locations of military objectives. To that end commanders (commanding officers) shall take all measures to interact with local authorities.
Removal of civilians from areas located near military objectives shall be performed to safe areas known to them.
If circumstances permit, effective warning of the defensive actions affecting the civilian population shall be made in advance (e.g. for evacuation of persons from certain buildings or areas).
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Parties to a conflict are required, to the maximum extent feasible, to … endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives”.
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 remove civilians from the proximity of military objectives … 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.
A party to an armed conflict has an affirmative duty to remove civilians under its control as well as the wounded, sick, shipwrecked, and prisoners of war from the vicinity of targets of likely enemy attacks.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 11.2.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 8.3.2.
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 58(a), is a punishable offence.
1. If the Commissioner for Cultural Affairs deems that it is especially necessary to protect important cultural properties … important tangible folk cultural properties … or historic sites, places of scenic beauty and natural monuments … from destruction, damage, or other harm caused by armed attack disaster, the Commissioner may order or recommend owners, management representatives … or local governments or corporations managing important cultural properties … to change the locations or method of management of the important cultural properties etc. and take other necessary measures to protect them.
4. … [I]f owners etc. of national treasures … or special historic sites, places of scenic beauty and natural monuments … do not comply with the order, or the Commissioner for Cultural Affairs deems that it is not appropriate to have the owners etc. implement measures to protect national treasures or special historic sites, places of scenic beauty and natural monuments from destruction, damage or other harm, the Commissioner may implement necessary measures by himself/herself.
Japan, Civil Protection Law, 2004, Article 125(1) and (4).
1. Keep Basilan and Sulu operations firmly controlled to minimize civilian casualties, with NDCC [National Disaster Coordinating Council] help in evacuating them.
Philippines, General Order No. 7, 2007, preamble and Section 1.
[The principles of distinction, limitation and proportionality] are found throughout IHL. Regarding the protection of victims in international or non-international armed conflicts, they materialize in concrete rules, such as … [the one] that: … binds the parties to a conflict to … take the precautionary measure against the effects of attacks of removing the civilian population and civilian objects from the vicinity of military objectives.
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 of the parties to a conflict to remove, to the extent feasible, civilian persons and objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives.
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 99.
- All parties must ensure that civilians can leave the conflict zone safely.
… Australia calls on the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] to allow civilians caught in the conflict zone to leave.
Australia, House of Representatives, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Ministerial statement: Situation in Sri Lanka, Hansard, 5 February 2009, p. 623.
[T]here remains much human suffering among the civilians trapped in the conflict zone. Reports of abuses from within the conflict zone include accounts of civilians forced by the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] to stay in its territory. … Australia urges the LTTE to allow civilians caught in the conflict zone to leave.
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 the removal of the civilian population and civilian objects from the vicinity of military objectives.
A serious source of concern to us has been the condition of the civilians and internally displaced persons (IDPs), mostly Tamil, caught up in the zone of conflict. Estimates on the number of civilians trapped vary, but 70,000 or so are estimated to be there now. The LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] were reportedly using them as human shields.
I personally visited Colombo on 27th January. In my discussions with Sri Lankan President His Excellency Mahinda Rajapaksa, I stressed the need to give an opportunity to civilians and IDPs caught up in the conflict to emerge from the LTTE held areas, and suggested a pause in hostilities to provide the necessary environment. On 29th January 2009, the Sri Lankan President announced a 48-hour period for civilian safe passage to secure areas. He also appealed to the LTTE to allow civilians to leave and assured the safety and security of the civilians who did so.
In the last two weeks, nearly 35,000 civilians have come out of LTTE-held areas. Sadly some of those escaping from the conflict have been caught in cross-fire and, in recent incidents have been stopped and even killed by LTTE cadres. As the conflict enters what may be the final phase of military operations, the LTTE would best serve the interest of the Tamils by immediately releasing all civilians and laying down arms.
The Government of India is ready to facilitate the evacuation of civilians trapped in the area of conflict, working with the Government of Sri Lanka and the ICRC who would take responsibility for the security, screening and rehabilitation of these internally displaced persons.
India, Statement by the Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Finance during a debate in the Lower House of Parliament (Lok Sabha) on the situation in Sri Lanka, 18 February 2009.
External Affairs Minister of India visited Sri Lanka on 27th January 2009. … He also took up India’s concerns for the safety, security and welfare of the civilians with President Mahinda Rajapaksa. He emphasized the need for the Sri Lankan Government to give an opportunity for the civilians and internally displaced persons to come out of the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] held areas. He was assured that the Government of Sri Lanka would take all necessary measures to minimize the effects of the conflict on Tamil civilians including providing uninterrupted relief supplies, respecting and expanding safe zones and preventing civilian casualties. Subsequently, on 29th January 2009, President Rajapaksa announced a 48 hour period for civilians to leave the conflict zone, appealed to the LTTE to allow the civilians to leave, and assured the safety and security of civilians who did so.
India, Answer by the Minister of External Affairs to written question 216 in the Lower House of Parliament (Lok Sabha) regarding Sri Lanka, 18 February 2009.
Government of India’s strong concerns for the safety, security and welfare of Sri Lankan Tamil civilians caught up in the conflict in Northern Sri Lanka have been taken up with the Sri Lankan Government, including at the highest levels. During the visit of the External Affairs Minister to Sri Lanka on 27th January 2009, he emphasized the need for the Sri Lankan Government to give safe passage to civilians and internally displaced persons to come out of the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] held areas, to respect and expand safe zones, and to provide relief supplies.
India, Answer by the Minister of External Affairs to written question 1052 in the Upper House of Parliament (Rajya Sabha) regarding Sri Lanka, 26 February 2009.
There are reports that over 70,000 civilians are trapped in the conflict zone in Sri Lanka and there is acute shortage of food, water and medicines. Many innocent lives have been lost in the conflict zone. The Government of India has repeatedly expressed its concern for the security and passage to safe zones of the civilian population.
It is reported that the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] has offered a ceasefire. While this may fall short of a declaration of willingness to lay down arms, it is our view that the Government of Sri Lanka should seize the opportunity presented by the offer to bring about a pause in the hostilities. The Government of India would, therefore, appeal to the Government of Sri Lanka to immediately work out safe passage for trapped civilians to secure locations. This would require the cooperation of the LTTE.
The pause in hostilities must be utilised to facilitate the movement of Tamil population out of the war-affected areas to secure locations where proper rehabilitation is possible and international aid organisations, as also the ICRC, have free access and scope to provide medical and other forms of humanitarian aid. Government of India is making arrangements to send an emergency medical unit and medicines to render medical assistance to internally displaced persons in Northern Sri Lanka.
India, High Commission of India, “Statement of Minister of External Affairs H.E. Mr Pranab Mukherjee on appeal to Government of Sri Lanka to work out safe passage for trapped civilians”, Press Release, 28 February 2009.
India is deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka. The continuing conflict has taken a heavy toll on Tamil civilians and internally displaced persons caught in the cross fire. The Government of India has repeatedly expressed its concern for their security and sought to ensure safe passage to secure zones for the civilian population.
We had welcomed the announcement by Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapakse of a cessation of hostilities for the Tamil and Sinhala New Year over the last two days. The Government of Sri Lanka must extend this pause in hostilities to prevent further casualties and enable trapped civilians to leave the area to secure locations … While is incumbent on the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam] to release all civilians and IDPs [internally displaced persons] under their control, the Government of Sri Lanka cannot be oblivious to the evolving human tragedy and the fate of the Tamil civilian population caught up in the so-called No Fire Zone.
India, Statement by the Minister of External Affairs on the situation in Sri Lanka, 17 April 2009.
On the basis of the reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states: “The Iraqi Armed Forces undertook, in numerous instances, to evacuate the civilian population living inside the occupied territories, in order to safeguard them in the instances where counter attacks were expected to take place by the Iranian forces.” With respect to measures taken inside Iraqi territory, the report cites the following examples: construction of shelters and keeping civilians away from the areas of military operations.
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Reply by the Iraqi Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, July 1997, Chapter 1.7.
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 … [that] in anticipation of hostilities, they must “endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives.” [1977 Additional Protocol I, Article 58(a)] To do the opposite – to … encourage civilians to gather in areas that are likely military targets – 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.
The Report on the Practice of Jordan refers to the legal obligation to remove endangered civilian persons and objects from the vicinity of military targets. It gives the example of the evacuation of civilians from a dangerous zone (though not a military objective) when in 1968 Jordan ordered the evacuation of civilians who had fled the West Bank in 1967 and lived in areas between Jordan and Israel. The evacuation was aimed at protecting the civilians from intensive military operations.
The Report on the Practice of Kuwait states that in practice Kuwait has made every possible effort to remove the civilian population from the vicinity of military objectives. During the “crisis” in February 1998, the Kuwaiti authorities deemed the border area a possible theatre of military operations and evacuated civilians from the vicinity.
Report on the Practice of Kuwait, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.7.
The Report on the Practice of Malaysia refers to the obligation to remove all civilians from the vicinity of military objectives.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.7.
The FDFA is extremely concerned about the situation in Syria, notably intensified fighting in the city of Kusair.
The FDFA appeals again to all parties to the conflict to respect their obligations under international law and take all measures to protect the civilian population as well as all people who are not involved in the fighting.
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Situation in the Syrian city of Al-Kusair – Statement of the FDFA”, Press Release, 3 June 2013.
Switzerland, Statement by the representative of Switzerland during an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the situation of human rights in Syria at the 23rd Session of the UN Human Rights Council, 4 June 2013.
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. An attacker must exercise reasonable precautions to minimize incidental or collateral injury to the civilian population, consistent with mission accomplishment and allowable risk to the attacking force. A defender must exercise reasonable precaution to separate the civilian population and civilian objects from military objectives. Civilians must exercise reasonable precaution to remove themselves from the vicinity of military objectives or military operations. The force that has control over the civilians has an obligation to place them in a safe place.
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, evacuation of the civilian population from near immovable military objects, and development of air raid precautions … 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.
Iraqi authorities elected not to move civilians away from objects they knew were legitimate military targets, thereby placing those civilians at risk of injury incidental to Coalition attacks against these targets, notwithstanding the efforts by the Coalition to minimize risk to innocent civilians … The Government of Iraq elected not to take routine air-raid precautions to protect its civilian population. Civilians were not evacuated in any significant numbers from Baghdad, nor were they removed from proximity to legitimate military targets. There were air raid shelters for less than 1 percent of the civilian population of Baghdad … The Government of Iraq was aware of its law of war obligations. In the month preceding the Coalition air campaign, for example, a civil defense exercise was conducted, during which more than one million civilians were evacuated from Baghdad. No government evacuation program was undertaken during the Coalition air campaign.
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, pp. 623 and 625–626.
It is the opinio juris of the United States that parties to a conflict should, to the maximum extent feasible, segregate and separate their military activities from the civilian population to protect the latter. Alternatively, where feasible, it may be necessary to remove civilians from the vicinity of military operations in order to protect them from the effects of attacks.
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.
In its judgment in the Dragomir Milošević case before the ICTY in 2007, the Trial Chamber stated: “The parties to a conflict are under an obligation to remove civilians, to the maximum extent feasible, from the vicinity of military objectives”.
Civilian persons and objects shall be removed from military objectives. To that purpose commanders shall seek the cooperation of the civilian authorities … The removal of civilian persons from the vicinity of military objectives shall take place preferably to locations they know and which present no danger for them. The removal of civilian objects shall take place primarily to locations outside the vicinity of military objectives … When the tactical situation permits, effective advance warning shall be given (e.g. for the removal and/or shelter of civilian persons).
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 439, 443, 444 and 449.
All feasible precautions shall be taken to avoid injuries, loss and damage to the civilian population; … civilians must, in particular, be kept out of dangers resulting from military operations and … their evacuation shall be organized or facilitated, wherever required and insofar as the security situation permits.
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § II, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, pp. 503–504.
All feasible precautions shall be taken to avoid injury or losses inflicted on the civilian population and damage to civilian objects; civilians must, in particular, be kept away from dangers resulting from military operations and their evacuation must be organized or facilitated where safety conditions so require or permit.
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § II, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
According to the Report on SPLM/A Practice, the SPLM/A has on many occasions successfully warned and removed the civilian population to safe places when attacks by the Sudanese Government were imminent. For example, in March 1993, it instructed a considerable number of minors to move away from the town of Pochalla.
Report on SPLM/A Practice, 1998, Chapter 1.7.
In addition, according to the same report, it has been SPLM/A practice to establish camps for refugees and displaced civilian populations away from army encampments and barracks.

References: § 556
 § 242
 § 492
 § 30
 § 421
 § 59
 § 1
 § 5
 § 59
 § 33
 § 519
 § 6
 § 30
 § 30
 § 30
 § 106
 § 31
 § 31
 § 2
 § 4
 § 170
 § 11
 § 8