Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter6_rule24
Timestamp: 2020-02-17 16:00:40
Document Index: 274025055

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 556', '§ 30', '§ 421', '§ 59', '§ 59', '§ 33', '§ 519', '§ 6', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 30', '§ 106', '§ 31', '§ 31', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 165', '§ 170', '§ 439']

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 24. Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
2. Practice\Removal of Civilians and Civilian Objects from the Vicinity of Military Objectives
Chapter 6 (current)
Rule 24 (current)
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.
Article 8 of the 1999 Second Protocol to the Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides: “The Parties to the conflict shall, to the maximum extent feasible: a) remove movable cultural property from the vicinity of military objectives or provide for adequate in situ protection.”
Article 11 of the 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules states:
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.
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states: “The parties to the conflict shall, to the extent possible, endeavour to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under their control from the vicinity of military objectives.”
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”.
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “Civilians must be evacuated from zones located in proximity to military objectives.”
The manual repeats this rule and gives some further specifications to the effect that:
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.
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.”
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.
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’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) states: “Endangered civilian persons and objects shall be removed from military objectives.”
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, § 59.
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) states: “Any party to an armed conflict must remove civilians and other noncombatants under its control from the vicinity of targets of likely enemy attacks.”
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “One should try and remove the civilian population from military targets.”
The manual further states: “Civilians must be removed from military targets so that they will not be harmed.”
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) states: “Endangered civilian persons and objects shall be removed from military objectives.”
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 59.
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “Civilians should be removed from the vicinity of military objectives as far as possible.”
The manual later repeats this rule and gives some additional specifications:
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’s Military Manual (1994) provides: “Civilian persons and objects shall be removed from 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.
The manual further states: “As far as possible, movable cultural property should be removed from the vicinity of military objectives, or otherwise suitably protected.”
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states: “They [participants in an internal armed conflict] must strive to remove the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects from the vicinity of military objectives, or otherwise offer sufficient protection.”
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states: “The Parties to the 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 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).
The manual further states: “Commander[s] shall seek the cooperation of civilians so as to remove them from [the vicinity of] military objectives.”
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.
The manual also states: “It is prohibited to use civilian objects to shield military operations.”
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.
r. Movement of civilians
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.
s. Movement of civilian objects
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’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “As far as possible, the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian objects under military control should be removed from the vicinity of military objectives.”
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’s IHL Manual (1991) states: “The parties to the conflict shall endeavour to move the civilian population, civilian persons and civilian objects from the vicinity of military objectives.”
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’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states: “I spare and protect civilians and keep them away from the combat zone.”
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]”.
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states: “Civilians must be evacuated from zones located in proximity to military objectives.”
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 Pamphlet (1981) provides: “Civilians should be removed from the vicinity of military objectives so far as possible.”
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”.
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.
Japan’s Civil Protection Law (2004) states:
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).
The Philippines’ General Order No. 7 (2007) states:
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.
In 2009, in a ministerial statement before the House of Representatives on the situation in Sri Lanka, Australia’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated:
Australia calls on all those involved in the fighting to make protecting civilians an absolute priority:
- 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.
[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.
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.
In 2013, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (FDFA) issued a press release entitled “Situation in the Syrian city of Al-Kusair – Statement of the FDFA”, which stated:
The FDFA is extremely concerned about the situation in Syria, notably intensified fighting in the city of Kusair.
The civilian population must immediately be allowed to leave the area, …
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.
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council during an interactive dialogue with the Commission of Inquiry on the situation of human rights in Syria, the representative of Switzerland stated: “The parties [to the conflict] must do everything in their power to protect the civilian population, inter alia by giving civilians the opportunity to flee the zones of combat.”
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.
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.
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated:
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.
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.