Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule5
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 05:08:44+00:00

Document:
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.
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 50. Article 50 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 161.
Article 25(1) and (2) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided that “any person who is not a member of armed forces is considered to be a civilian” and “the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians”.
Paragraph 1 of Article 25 was amended and both paragraphs were adopted by consensus in Committee III of the CDDH.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/215/Rev.1, 3 February–18 April 1975, p. 290, § 121.
The approved proposals provided that “a civilian is anyone who is not a member of the armed forces or of an organized armed group” and “the civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians”.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/215/Rev.1, 3 February–18 April 1975, p. 320.
Eventually, however, these draft provisions were deleted in the plenary by consensus.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 135.
The phrase “civilian population” within the meaning of this Convention shall include all those not enlisted in any branch of the combatant services nor for the time being employed or occupied in any belligerent establishment as defined in Article 2.
Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War, adopted by the International Law Association, Fortieth Conference, Amsterdam, 29 August–2 September 1938, Article 1.
The term “belligerent establishment” is defined in Article 2 as “military, naval or air establishment, or barracks, arsenal, munition stores or factories, aerodromes or aeroplane workshops or ships of war, naval dockyards, forts, or fortifications for defensive or offensive purposes, or entrenchments”.
Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War, adopted by the International Law Association, Fortieth Conference, Amsterdam, 29 August–2 September 1938, Article 2.
(a) Members of the armed forces, or of their auxiliary or complementary organizations.
(b) Persons who do not belong to the forces referred to above, but nevertheless take part in the fighting.
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 4.
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 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
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 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 914.
G. P. I [1977 Additional Protocol I] defines a civilian in a negative fashion, namely, any person not belonging to the armed forces. The definition covers civilians collectively as well, when they are referred to as the “civilian population”. In cases of doubt about civilian status, the benefit of the doubt is given to the person concerned.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.14; see also § 5.33.
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) defines civilians as “persons who do not belong to the Armed Forces [nor] take part in a levée en masse (civilian populations, men, women, children, journalists, journalists on a dangerous mission)”.
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. 53; see also Part I bis, pp. 16 and 31.
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. 82.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) defines civilians as “persons who are neither part of the armed forces nor participating in a levée en masse”.
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. 92, § 352.11; see also p. 134, § 412.11.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-4, §§ 33 and 35.
1. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 424 and 426.
A civilian is any person who does not belong to the armed forces and does not take part in a mass uprising.
Colombia’s Instructors’ Manual (1999) defines the term civilian as “any person who does not belong to the Armed Forces and who does not participate in a levée en masse”.
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 16; see also p. 28.
- Civilians: persons who are not members of the armed forces and who do not take part in hostilities.
- Civilian population: entirety of civilians.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 18–19.
Civilians must not be attacked. A civilian is a person who is not a member of the armed forces. … The term “civilians” refers to men and women, as well as children of both sexes.
The civilian population consists of civilian persons.
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. 31; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 21.
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. 31.
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) states that “civilians or persons not belonging to the armed forces” are non-combatants.
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 6.
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) defines civilians as those persons “who do not belong to the armed forces”.
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, § 5.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 5.3; see also §§ 11.1 and 11.3.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11.3.
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) defines civilians as “those persons who do not belong to the armed forces”.
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, § 1.1.
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) defines civilians as “those persons who do not belong to the armed forces or who do not participate in hostilities”.
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states that “civilians or persons not belonging to the armed forces” are non-combatants.
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 17.
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law in Air Warfare, Indonesian Air Force, 1990, p. 18, § 22.
The Report on the Practice of Indonesia considers that this definition is compatible with the definition provided in Article 50(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Report on the Practice of Indonesia, 1997, Chapter 1.1.
The IDF (Israel Defense Forces) accepts and applies the principle of distinction, in accordance with the accepted definition of “civilian” under customary international law, which is understood to mean any individual who is not a member of an organized army of a State, and who is not involved in hostilities.
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 1.1, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, Chapter 1.
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) defines civilians as those persons “who do not belong to the armed forces”.
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 5.
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) defines a civilian as “any person who does not belong to the armed forces and does not take any part in a levée en masse”.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, pp. 9–10.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states that the term “civilian person” means “any person who does not belong to the armed forces and who does not take part in a levée en masse”.
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 2-SO, § B; see also Fiche No. 2-O, § 5.
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands defines a civilian as “every person who is not a combatant” and specifies: “the civilian population comprises all civilians”.
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-2.
A civilian is any person who is not a combatant … Medical personnel and chaplains occupy a special position: they do not have combatant status, but are not civilians … Persons accompanying armed forces, and personnel of the merchant marine, are considered civilians … If there is any doubt whether someone is a civilian, he or she is treated as a civilian.
0506. The civilian population comprises all civilians. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0505–0506.
… some civilian personnel of the Dutch armed forces are considered members [of the armed forces] and, as such, have combatant status. Other personnel, who are not members of the armed forces, do not “accompany” in the meaning of the above rule. In the terms of the law of war, such personnel belong to the category of civilians.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0703.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 33.a.(1).
Both in international and non-international armed conflicts, the civilian population and civilian persons enjoy general protection against the dangers of military operations.
Civilian Population: Comprises all civilians. In international armed conflict, the presence of persons who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Appropriate norms protect the whole population of a Party to the conflict without any adverse distinction.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, p. 412.
Civilian person – means any person who does not belong to the armed forces and does not take part in a “levee en masse.” In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian or not, that person shall be considered as a civilian.
Civilian population – comprises of all persons who are civilian. The presence of individuals other than civilian persons does not deprive the population of its civilian character.
Poland’s Procedures Governing the Interment of Soldiers Killed in Action (2009) states in the section on definitions that civilians are “[p]ersons who are not members of the armed forces”.
Poland, Norma Obronna NO-02-A053:2004, Działania wojenne Procedury pochówku poległych i zmarłych, enacted by decision No. 134/MON related to the Approval and Enforcement of Regulatory Instruments in Respect of State Defence and Security, 21 April 2009, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of National Defence, No. 8, Item 99, April 2009, Section 1.3.5.
civilian population is a population which consists of civilians.
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) defines a civilian as a “person who does not belong to any fighting group and who does not take part in hostilities”. (emphasis in original) The manual further states that the “[c]ivilian population comprises of all persons who are civilians”.
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 25.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 1.3.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, § 1.3.a.(2).
The manual further defines a civilian as “any person who does not belong to the armed forces and is not taking part in a levée en masse”.
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.b.(1).(b); see also § 5.2.a.(2).(a).
In international humanitarian law, civilians (non-combatants) are those who are not entitled to use weapons in defence or to injure an adversary. Persons who cannot be classified as combatants are thus to be considered as civilians.
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. 42.
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) defines civilians as “persons who are not members of the armed forces, volunteer corps or resistance movements, and who do not take part in a levée en masse; that is to say the civilian population: men, women and children, journalists on a dangerous mission”.
A civilian is any person who finds himself/herself in the zone of warfare, is not a member of armed forces and refrains from any act of hostility. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character and of its protection under international humanitarian law.
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.2.32.
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 9, p. 10, § 9.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.3.1.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) defines a civilian as “any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons specified in [the provisions concerning armed forces, commandos, saboteurs and parachuters]”.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 67(3).
The manual defines a civilian population as “the entire population of a party to the conflict which does not belong to any of the categories of armed forces”.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 52.
2) During internal armed conflicts – persons not belonging to the armed forces of the party to the conflict, nor taking active part in the hostilities, as well as persons belonging to the armed forces of the party to the conflict before the start of military operations and had laid down their arms by their own free will or hors de combat as a result of any reason.
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, as amended to Law 430-IIIQD dated 9 October 2007, Article 3.
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) contains a chapter on crimes against protected persons who are defined as “the civilian population and individual civilians protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 or Additional Protocol I of 8 June 1977”.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 608(3).
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Court of Bosnia and Herzegovina, Maktouf case, Judgment, 4 April 2006, p. 10.
For the purpose of the principle of distinction and its application to internal armed conflicts, the term “civilian” refers to persons fulfilling the following two conditions: (i) they are not members of the armed forces or irregular armed organizations involved in an armed conflict; and (ii) they do not take part in hostilities individually as “civilians” or “individual civilians” or collectively as “civilian population”. The definition of “civilians” or “civilian population” is similar throughout international humanitarian law applicable in internal armed conflicts. For example, the same definition of “civilian” has been used in case law to refer to certain conduct such as a war crime or a crime against humanity.
… [D]etermining the civilian status of a person or a population shall depend on an analysis of the specific facts based on which such status is invoked rather than on a mere classification in the abstract, taking into account ... that the notion of “hostilities”, like the term “armed conflict”, goes beyond the specific time and place where actual fighting occurs and must be applied in accordance with the criteria of space and time delimited by international humanitarian law.
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment, 25 April 2007, pp. 81–83.
… [T]he term “civilian population” must be interpreted broadly.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Garrison Court of Kisangani, Basele Lutula and others case, Judgment, 3 June 2009, p. 23.
Pursuant to § 170 para. 2 StPO [Penal Procedure Code], the investigation proceedings which were initiated by the order of 12 March 2010 against Colonel ( Oberst) Klein and Company Sergeant Major (Hauptfeldwebel) Wilhelm due to suspected offences under the VStGB [International Crimes Code] and other offences are to be terminated as a result of the investigations conducted and based on the sources of information set out hereafter and on the reasons given in detail hereafter.
The fuel tankers had been abducted by an organized group of armed Taliban whose members were thus not civilians.
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Federal Prosecutor General, Fuel Tankers case, Decision, 16 April 2010, pp. 47–48; see also p. 60.
“Persons who are not, or no longer, members of the armed forces” (Prosecutor v. Blaskic (2000) Case IT-95-14-T, para 180).
That definition is “negative” in nature. It defines the concept of “civilian” as the opposite of “combatant”. It thus views unlawful combatants – who, as we have seen, are not “combatants” – as civilians.
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 26.
[W]e should point out that the question of the conformity of the term “unlawful combatant” to the categories recognized by international law has already been addressed in our case law in Public Committee against Torture in Israel v. Government of Israel, in which it was held that the term “unlawful combatants” does not constitute a separate category but is a subcategory of “civilians” recognized by international law. This conclusion is based on the approach of customary international law, according to which the category of “civilians” includes everyone who is not a “combatant”. … In this context, two additional points should be made: first, the finding that “unlawful combatants” belong to the category of “civilians” in international law is consistent with the official interpretation of the  Geneva Conventions, according to which in an armed conflict or a state of occupation, every person who finds himself in the hands of the opposing party is entitled to a certain status under international humanitarian law – a prisoner of war status which is governed by the Third Geneva Convention or a protected civilian status which is governed by the Fourth Geneva Convention: … the term “unlawful combatants” in the law under discussion does not create a separate category of treatment from the viewpoint of international humanitarian law, but constitutes a sub-group of the category of “civilians”.
Israel, Supreme Court of Israel, Court of Criminal Appeals, A. v. State of Israel case, Judgment, 11 June 2008, § 12.
The definition as military objective of a person who is not participating in hostilities but who has been labelled as not innocent by the leaders or commanders of an armed organization according to their ideology or political views is not an admissible justification or excuse in criminal law. No person or group of persons can decide who must and who must not be eliminated. Such behaviour is punishable by law.
Peru, Supreme Court of Justice, Second Provisional Criminal Chamber, Lucanmarca case, Case No. 560-03, Judgment of 13 October 2006, p. 188.
3. The civilian population and individual civilians protected by the IV Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 or Additional Protocol I of 8 June 1977”.
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, pp. 11–12.
The Court also referred to norms of IHL relevant to the case under review, including Article 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I defining the civilian population.
In 2010, in the History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, under the heading “Terminology”, defined a civilian as “[a]ny person who is not a combatant”.
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 201.
In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, under the heading “Terminology”, defined a civilian as “[a]ny person who is not a combatant”.
Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, 2011, p. 211.
The Report on the Practice of Iraq notes that the definition of civilian includes everyone who does not join the armed forces nor carry arms against one of the belligerents.
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 1.1.
The Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran found no specific legal definition of civilian but states that anyone who is not included in the category of combatant should be considered a civilian.
Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran, 1997, Chapter 1.1.
In 2010, in a position paper submitted to the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (the Turkel Commission), established by the Israeli Government to examine the Gaza flotilla incident, Israel’s Military Advocate General stated that “whoever does not belong to the armed forces of the opposing side is a ‘civilian’, and as such is protected from direct and intentional attack”.
Israel, Position paper by the Military Advocate General on investigating allegations of violations of IHL, submitted to the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (the Turkel Commission), 19 December 2010, Part B.
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Interview with a high-ranking officer of the Jordanian army, Chapter 1.1.
The Report on the Practice of Malaysia states that there is no definition of the concept of civilian under any of Malaysia’s written laws. However, on the basis of the practice during the insurgency period as gleaned from interviews with members of the armed forces, the report claims that persons who neither carry arms nor wear a uniform can be considered civilians.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Interviews with members of the Malaysian armed forces, Chapter 1.1.
If there is an armed conflict, the status of private security personnel, not being a member of the armed forces, depends on factual circumstances. Most of the time, these circumstances will be of such a kind that private security personnel will have the status of “civilian” under International Humanitarian Law (IHL).
Netherlands, Lower House of Parliament, Statement by the Minister of Defence, Handelingen, 2007–2008 Session, 7 November 2007, Appendix No. 529, p. 1138.
The Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation notes that although there is no standard definition of civilians, a definition can be inferred a contrario from the definition of combatant, i.e. civilians are those who do not fall within the definition of combatant.
Report on the Practice of the Russian Federation, 1997, Chapter 1.1.
The Report on the Practice of Rwanda refers to a declaration by Rwanda’s Minister of Defence on 18 August 1997 in which he stated that government troops may only target enemies who carry arms and/or kill people. The report thus concludes, a contrario, that in an internal armed conflict civilians are defined as those persons who do not carry arms nor commit inhumane acts against the population in relation to the hostilities.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 1.1, referring to Statement by the Rwandan Minister of Defence, Kigali, 18 August 1997.
Existing international humanitarian law treats non-State actors in a different manner depending on whether the situation is an international armed conflict or a non-international armed conflict.
International humanitarian law establishes criteria for the granting of combatant status. It is primarily for members of the armed forces of a party to the conflict but also for members of other militias. For this, combatants must carry their arms openly, be recognisable (generally by a uniform), be under a responsible command and act in conformity with international humanitarian law in their operations.
The analysis concerning private military and security companies does not fundamentally differ from that concerning other non-State actors. … As a general rule, they must be considered as civilians (independently of the uniform they wear), that is to say they do not have benefit of any combatant privilege and are only authorized by national law to use arms in cases of legitimate defence.
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Section 3.1, pp. 6–8.
On the basis of a statement by the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs before the UN General Assembly in 1997, the Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic asserts that the Syrian Arab Republic considers that the definition provided in Article 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I is part of customary international law.
Upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the United Kingdom made a declaration stating, inter alia, that the terms “civilian” and “civilian population” used in this Convention had the same meaning as in Article 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
United Kingdom, Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 13 February 1995, § a(iii).
The Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe considers that the definition of civilians in Article 50 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I is regarded as customary by Zimbabwe in the context of an international armed conflict.
Recalls … that journalists, media professionals and associated personnel engaged in dangerous professional missions in areas of armed conflict shall be considered as civilians and shall be respected and protected as such, provided that they take no action adversely affecting their status as civilians. This is without prejudice to the right of war correspondents accredited to the armed forces to the status of prisoners of war provided for in article 4.A.4 of the Third Geneva Convention.
UN Security Council, Res. 1738, 23 December 2006, § 2, voting record: 15-0-0.
304. Civilian status is defined through the provisions of the law of armed conflict, particularly Article 50 of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I and Article 4A of the  Third Geneva Convention, which establish that members of the armed forces and other combatants (militias, volunteer corps and members of organized resistance groups) cannot claim civilian status. The civilian population therefore includes all persons who are not members of the armed forces or otherwise recognised as combatants. Members of the armed forces are not considered “civilians” merely because they were not engaged in combat at the time of their arrests. Accordingly, soldiers hors de combat do not qualify as civilians for the purposes of Article 5 of the ECCC Law [Law on the Establishment of the ECCC (2001), as amended in 2004]. As a general presumption, the armed law enforcement agencies of a State are considered to be civilians for purposes of international humanitarian law. A person shall be considered to be a civilian for as long as there is doubt as to his or her status.
311. Where the civilian population is the object of an attack, the ICTY Appeals Chamber has further clarified that “there is no requirement nor is it an element of crimes against humanity that the victims of the underlying crimes be civilians.” [ICTY, Mrkšić case, Judgment on Appeal, § 32] Thus, a soldier who is hors de combat may be the victim of an act amounting to a crime against humanity, provided that all other necessary conditions are met.
312. The reference to “any” civilian population ensures that the nationality or ethnicity of the population is immaterial. Provided the victims were targeted as part of an attack against a civilian population, it is unnecessary to demonstrate that they were linked – politically, ethnically, or otherwise – to any particular group. Crimes against humanity may therefore include a State’s attack on its own population.
ECCC, Kaing case, Judgment, 26 July 2010, §§ 304 and 311–312.
[t]he requirement in Article 5 [of the ICTY Statute] that the enumerated acts be “directed against any civilian population” contains several elements. The inclusion of the word “any” makes it clear that crimes against humanity can be committed against civilians of the same nationality as the perpetrator or those who are stateless, as well as those of a different nationality. However, the remaining aspects, namely the definition of a “civilian” population and the implications of the term “population”, require further examination. [ICTY, Tadić case, Judgment, § 635].
ICC, Katanga and Chui case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 30 September 2008, § 399.
78. The Chamber observes that the term “civilians” or “civilian population” is not defined in the Statute. However, according to the well-established principle of international humanitarian law, “[t]he civilian population […] comprises all persons who are civilians as opposed to members of armed forces and other legitimate combatants”.
ICC, Bemba case, Decision on the confirmation of charges, 15 June 2009, §§ 76 and 78.
The term “civilian”[,] in accordance with article 50(1) of the AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I], applies to anyone who is not a combatant, and in case of doubt, the person shall be considered to be a civilian. Additionally, a civilian population comprises all civilians as opposed to members of armed forces and any other legitimate combatants.
To take a direct or active part in the hostilities covers acts which by their very nature or purpose are likely to cause harm to personnel and equipment of the armed forces. In assessing whether or not an individual can be classed as being a civilian, the overall humanitarian purpose of the Geneva Conventions and their Protocols should be taken into account. To give effect to this purpose, a civilian should be considered to be any one who is not a member of the “armed forces”, as described above, or any one placed hors de combat.
ICTR, Bagilishema case, Judgment, 7 June 2001, § 104.
In the pre-trial brief in the Tadić case in 1996, the ICTY Prosecutor argued that the term civilian in Article 5 of the 1993 ICTY Statute (crimes against humanity) covered all non-combatants within the meaning of common Article 3 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Reaffirming the customary nature of common Article 3, the Prosecutor specified that “it provides an authoritative definition of noncombatants or ‘protected persons’ in the broad sense of international humanitarian law”.
ICTY, Tadić case, Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief, 10 April 1996, p. 45.
In its response, the Defence agreed that the term “civilian” under Article 5 did cover all non-combatants but argued that the concept of non-combatant was not always easy to delineate, especially when groups were not under the direct control of a central government (as was allegedly the case in Bosnia and Herzegovina).
ICTY, Tadić case, Response to Prosecutor’s Pre-Trial Brief, 23 April 1996, pp. 19–20.
Common Article 3, the language of which reflects “elementary considerations of humanity” which are “applicable under customary international law to any armed conflict”, provides that in an armed conflict “not of an international character” Contracting States are obliged “as a minimum” to comply with the following: “persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.” [The 1977 Additional Protocol I] defines civilians by the exclusion of prisoners of war and armed forces, considering a person a civilian in case of doubt. However, this definition of civilians contained in common Article 3 is not immediately applicable to crimes against humanity because it is a part of the laws or customs of war and can only be applied by analogy. The same applies to the definition contained in [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] and the Commentary, [the 1949 Geneva Convention IV] on the treatment of civilians, both of which advocate a broad interpretation of the term “civilian”. They, and in particular common Article 3, do, however, provide guidance in answering the most difficult question: specifically, whether acts taken against an individual who cannot be considered a traditional “non-combatant” because he is actively involved in the conduct of hostilities by membership in some form of resistance group can nevertheless constitute crimes against humanity if they are committed in furtherance or as part of an attack directed against a civilian population.
ICTY, Tadić case, Judgment, 7 May 1997, § 639.
In the Galić case before the ICTY in 1999, the accused, a senior officer in the Army of the Republika Srpska (VRS), was charged, inter alia, with “attacks on civilians as set forth in Article 51 of Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949”, “punishable under Article 3 of the Statute of the Tribunal” as a violation of the laws or customs of war, for his alleged role in events in Sarajevo in 1992–1994.
ICTY, Galić case, Indictment, 26 March 1999, Counts 4 and 7.
47. As already stated, the first part of Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I proscribes making the civilian population as such, or individual civilians, the object of attack. According to Article 50 of Additional Protocol I, “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 Geneva Convention and in Article 43 of Additional Protocol I.” For the purpose of the protection of victims of armed conflict, the term “civilian” is defined negatively as anyone who is not a member of the armed forces or of an organized military group belonging to a party to the conflict. It is a matter of evidence in each particular case to determine whether an individual has the status of civilian.
49. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians, as defined above. The use of the expression “civilian population as such” in Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I indicates that “the population must never be used as a target or as a tactical objective”.
ICTY, Galić case, Judgment, 5 December 2003, §§ 47 and 49.
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment, 3 March 2000, § 180.
113. Read together, Article 50 of Additional Protocol I and Article 4A of the Third Geneva Convention establish that members of the armed forces, and members of militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces, cannot claim civilian status. Neither can members of organized resistance groups, provided that they are commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates, that they have a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, that they carry arms openly, and that they conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war. However, the Appeals Chamber considers that the presence within a population of members of resistance groups, or former combatants, who have laid down their arms, does not alter its civilian characteristic. The Trial Chamber was correct in this regard.
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment on Appeal, 29 July 2004, §§ 113–114.
ICTY, Blagojević and Jokić case, Judgment, 17 January 2005, § 544.
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgment on Appeal, 17 December 2004, § 50.
That is, the term “civilian” is defined negatively, to include any person who is not a member of the armed forces or an organised military group belonging to a party to the conflict. In some circumstances it may be difficult to ascertain whether a person is a civilian.
ICTY, Dragomir Milošević case, Judgment, 12 December 2007, §§ 945–946.
[T]he definition of civilians contained in Article 50 of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I applies to crimes under both Article 3 and Article 5 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute, and … provided that the direct participation in hostilities is adequately taken into account, the application of this definition is appropriate in this case.
ICTY, Dragomir Milošević case, Judgment on Appeal, 12 November 2009, § 23.
It therefore concluded that the Trial Chamber had erred in its characterization of the civilian population and of civilians under Article 5 of the Statute by holding that the specific situation of the victim at the moment the crimes were committed, rather than his status, must be taken into account in determining whether the victim is a “civilian”.
293. While the Prosecution argues that the Appeals Chamber in Kordić and Čerkez, apparently departing from Blaškić, established a binding precedent when it found that persons placed hors de combat “were without a doubt […] ‘civilians’ in the sense of Article 5 of the Statute” [Kordić and Čerkez case, Judgement on Appeal, § 421], the Appeals Chamber does not find this argument persuasive.
The Galić Appeal Judgement is likewise unambiguous in this respect.
298. As for the Prosecution’s reference to case-law considering whether or not victims of Article 3 crimes were participating in the hostilities at the time of the offence, the Appeals Chamber notes that this jurisprudence does not redefine the meaning of the term “civilian”, but merely refers to the rule laid down in Article 51(3) of Additional Protocol I, according to which civilians enjoy “general protection against dangers arising from military operations” unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.
299. The Appeals Chamber considers that while certain terms have been defined differently in international humanitarian law and in the context of crimes against humanity, the fundamental character of the notion of civilian in international humanitarian law and international criminal law militates against giving it differing meanings under Article 3 and Article 5 of the Statute. Such definitional consistency also accords with the historical development of crimes against humanity, intended as they were to fill the gap left by the provisions pertaining to crimes against peace and war crimes in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal of 8 August 1945 (“Nuremberg Charter”).
300. As for the Prosecution’s argument that the definition in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I is not directly transferable to non-international armed conflicts (where the notion of “combatant” does not exist), the Appeals Chamber notes that Article 13 of [the 1977] Additional Protocol II refers to the protection of civilians and the civilian population. According to the ICRC Commentary, this provision corresponds with Article 50 of Additional Protocol I and, as a result, civilians in the context of non-international armed conflicts can be defined as those persons who do not belong to the armed forces, militias or volunteer corps forming part of such armed forces, organised resistance groups or a levée en masse.
302. … [T]he Appeals Chamber finds that the definition of civilian contained in Article 50 of Additional Protocol I reflects the definition of civilian for the purpose of applying Article 5 of the Statute.
ICTY, Martić case, Judgment on Appeal, 8 October 2008, §§ 292–295, 297–300 and 302.
116. The term “civilian population” must be interpreted broadly. The Chamber is satisfied that customary international law, determined by reference to the laws of armed conflict, has established that the civilian population includes all of those persons who are not members of the armed forces or otherwise recognised as combatants.
117. In order for a population to be considered “civilian”, it must be predominately civilian in nature; the presence of certain non-civilians in their midst does not change the character of the population. In determining whether the presence of soldiers within a civilian population deprives it of its civilian character, the Chamber must examine, among other factors, the number of soldiers as well as their status. The presence of members of resistance armed groups or former combatants who have laid down arms, within a civilian population, does not alter its civilian nature.
136. The armed law enforcement agencies of a State are generally mandated only to protect and maintain the internal order of the State. Thus, as a general presumption and in the execution of their typical law enforcement duties, such forces are considered to be civilians for the purposes of international humanitarian law. This same presumption will not exist for military police or gendarmerie who operate under the control of the military. The Chamber notes that, in accordance with the provisions of the Constitution of 1991 and the The Police Act of 1964, the Sierra Leone Police operates under the control of the Minister of Internal Affairs, a civilian authority.
137. The Chamber is of the opinion that the status of police officers in a time of armed conflict must be determined in light of an analysis of the particular facts of a case. A civilian police force, for example, may be incorporated into the armed forces, which will cause the police to be classified as combatants instead of civilians. This incorporation may occur de lege, by way of a formal Act, or de facto.
SCSL, Fofana and Kondewa case, Judgment, 2 August 2007, §§ 116–117 and 136–137.
260. … [P]erceived “collaborators” are accorded civilian status under international law. The Appeals Chamber also notes that the Trial Judgment mentions the killings and mistreatments of a number of police officers. The Trial Chamber found that, as a general presumption and in the execution of their typical law enforcement duties, police forces are considered civilians for the purpose of international humanitarian law, unless they operate under the control of the military.
264. The Appeals Chamber holds that as a matter of law perceived or suspected collaborators with the rebels or juntas, as in the present case, are likewise part of a “civilian population”.
SCSL, Fofana and Kondewa case, Judgment on Appeal, 28 May 2008, §§ 260 and 264.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that a civilian is “any person who does not belong to the armed forces and does not take part in a levée en masse”.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 51.

References: § 121
 § 914
 § 9
 § 5
 § 352
 § 412
 § 5
 § 5
 § 11
 § 1
 § 22
 § 5
 § 5
 § 0703
 § 33
 § 1
 § 1
 § 4
 § 5
 § 1
 § 9
 § 5
 § 67
 § 52
 § 170
 v. 
 § 26
 v. 
 v. 
 § 12
 § 2
 § 2
 § 32
 § 635
 § 399
 § 104
 § 639
 § 180
 § 544
 § 50
 § 23
 § 421
 § 51