Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/chi/docs/v2_rul_rule10
Timestamp: 2020-02-23 17:11:03
Document Index: 396724326

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 37', '§ 407', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 11', '§ 1', '§ 11', '§ 12', '§ 0512', '§ 1032', '§ 1037', '§ 5', '§ 116', '§ 94', '§ 100', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 12', '§ 15', '§ 107', '§ 110', '§ 233', '§ 58', '§ 4', '§ 58', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 38', '§ 429', '§ 112', '§ 4', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 12', '§ 51', '§ 59', '§ 464']

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 10. Civilian Objects’ Loss of Protection from Attack
Note: For practice concerning loss of protection from attack for medical units and transports and for objects displaying the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, see respectively Rules 28, 29 and 30.
Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Soldiers states that objects occupied or used by enemy military forces are military objectives “even if these objects were civilian at the outset (houses, schools or churches occupied by the enemy)”.
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Dossier d’Instruction pour Soldat, à l’attention des officiers instructeurs, JS3, Etat-Major Général, Forces Armées belges, undated, pp. 20–21.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “A civilian object may become a military objective for reasons of military necessity. This is, [for example], the case with a bridge, which is a civilian object but may become a military objective if it is used by the adversary.”
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. 54.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states: “Depending on the military situation, [civilian objects] can become military objectives (e.g. a house or bridge used for tactical purposes by the enemy).”
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006), in a section entitled “Definitions”, states that civilian objects “[a]re understood as all objects which are not military objects [objectives]. But according to the military situation they can become military objectives (e.g. houses or bridges used tactically by the enemy.”
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Where a civilian object is used for military purposes, it loses its protection as a civilian object and may become a legitimate target.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-5, § 37.
The manual further states: “Civilian vessels, aircraft, vehicles and buildings are military objectives if they contain combatants, military equipment or supplies.”
407. Examples of objects which are military objectives
428. Civilian object used for military purposes
1. Where a civilian object is used for military purposes, it loses its protection as a civilian object and may become a legitimate target.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 407.2 and 428.1.
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): “Specially protected objects [including civilian objects] may not … be used for military ends”.
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 I, Section II, § 2.2; see also Chapter I, Section II, § 2.1.
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) notes in Book I (Basic instruction): “Every civilian object occupied by combatants becomes a military objective.”
- buildings and installations used by civilians, as long as they are not used for military purposes …
In all cases, the essential question is to know what use is made of the object in question.
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. 32–33; 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, pp. 21 and 28–29.
In Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers), the Teaching Manual provides: “Depending on the situation, a normally civilian object can become a military objective. Example: a house or bridge tactically used by the belligerents becomes a military objective.”
Côte d’Ivoire, 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. 28.
Civilian buildings, vehicles, aircraft and ships are military objectives if they contain combatants, supplies or military material.
The following objects can, depending on the circumstances, constitute military objectives:
- military supply transport systems;
- transportation centres where lines of communication converge;
- marshalling yards;
- industrial installations producing material for the armed forces;
- electrical power stations;
- fuel storage centres.
II.1.2. Civilian object used for military purposes
If a civilian object is used for military purposes it loses the protection which it enjoyed as a civilian object and can become a legitimate objective.
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, pp. 17, 26, 31 and 35.
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) states: “Civilian objects must not be attacked unless they have become military objectives.”
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, § 11.
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) states: “Civilian objects may not be attacked, unless they have become military targets.”
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, § 1.5.
A situation may arise where the target changes its appearance from civilian to military or vice versa. For instance, if anti-aircraft batteries are stationed on a school roof or a sniper is positioned in a mosque’s minaret, the protection imparted to the facility by its being a civilian object will be removed, and the attacking party will be allowed to hit it … A reverse situation may also occur in which an originally military objective becomes a civilian object, as for instance, a large military base that is converted to a collection point for the wounded, and is thus rendered immune to attack.
It may be the case that a target might change its status from civilian to military or vice versa. For example, if an anti-aircraft battery is positioned on the roof of a school or if a sniper takes up a position on the minaret of a mosque, the protection provided for the facility by the virtue of it being [a] civilian target is no longer valid, and the attacker is permitted to attack it. The legal responsibility for the deaths of civilians in such a case is that of the side that made unreasonable use of a civilian target rather than on the side who attacked this target. In the case of incidents in which there is a doubt as to whether the target changed its status from civilian to military, the Additional Protocols determine that it should be assumed that it is not a military target unless proven otherwise.
The opposite situation may occur, in which a target that was originally military changes into a civilian target, such as a large military base converted into a clearing station for the wounded. In such cases, it must not be attacked as it is a medical facility (on the assumption that no military activities are conducted therein, being disguised as treatment for the wounded).
The manual further states: “Protected places (hospitals, places of worship, etc.) must remain protected as long as military action is not being deployed therefrom.”
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) states: “Civilian objects must not be attacked unless they have become military objectives.”
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 11.
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS) , 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 11.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “Objects which are normally civilian can, depending on the military situation, become military objectives (for example, a house or bridge used for tactical purposes by the defender and thus becoming a military objective).”
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 2-SO, § D.
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009) states that “some civilian objects can become military objectives if they are used to contribute to military operations.”
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands considers that civilian objects, such as houses and school buildings, can be used in such a way that they become military objectives, for example if they house combatants or are used as commando posts.
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states that “non-military buildings and other objects not used for military purposes or of no military importance” may not be attacked.
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, pp. 7–36 and 7–43.
The Aide-Mémoire for IFOR Commanders (1995) of the Netherlands prohibits attacks on “objects with a strict civilian or religious character, unless they are used for military purposes”.
Netherlands, Aide-Mémoire voor IFOR Commandanten, First Edition, 21 December 1995, § 12.
0512. It is possible for objects to be classed, on the one hand, as military while, at the same time, they have a civilian purpose. These are known as mixed objects. Examples are a bridge, which can definitely count as a military objective while at the same time its internal structure carries the energy supply to the civilian population of the region. A television mast may not only serve a civilian purpose but perform a function in the telecommunications network of the armed forces …
0546. When attacking mixed objects (see point 0512), it must be carefully considered whether the military advantage expected from eliminating the military element of the mixed objective outweighs the damage done to the civilian population, by damaging or destroying the civilian element of the mixed object or ending its civilian function. In any case, the disabling or destruction of the military element must yield a clear military advantage (cf. AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I] Article 52). In addition, the civilian population must not be excessively affected (cf. AP I Article 51).
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0512 and 0546.
Civilian objects may not be attacked or destroyed, unless they form a military objective, i.e., if there is a military need to do this (e.g., destroy a house because it is in the line of fire, or an observation post or snipers’ position in a church tower).
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1032; see also § 1037.
g. … public utilities and other non-military structures, shall be protected and shall not be attacked except when they are used for military purposes.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) prohibits “the bombardment by military aircraft or warships of cities, harbours, villages and dwellings … provided they are not being used for military purposes”.
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, Section II, § 5(m).
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states with regard to naval warfare:
Enemy civil vessels may only be attacked if they are:
- engaging in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy (attacking or capturing persons or objects in neutral waters, neutral territory or airspace);
- being used as a base for operations, including attacking or capturing persons or objects outside neutral waters;
- acting as an auxiliary to the enemy armed forces;
- being incorporated into or assisting the enemy’s intelligence gathering system;
- sailing under convoy of enemy warships or military aircraft;
- refusing an order to stop or actively resisting visit, search or capture;
- otherwise making an effective contribution to military action.
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 116.
With regard to air operations, the Regulations states:
It is allowed to attack civil aircraft, if they engage in activities rendering them military objectives:
- engage in acts of war on behalf of the enemy;
- act as an auxiliary aircraft to an enemy’s armed forces;
- are incorporated into or assist the enemy intelligence-gathering system;
- fly under the protection of accompanying enemy military aircraft;
- refuse an order to identify itself, divert from its track, or proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible;
- operate target indicating system that could reasonably be construed to be part of an aircraft weapon system;
- on being intercepted clearly manoeuvre to attack the intercepting belligerent military aircraft;
- are armed with air-to-air or air-to-surface weapons;
- otherwise make an effective contribution to military action.
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 94.
Civil aircraft bearing the marks of neutral states may not be attacked unless they:
- are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband, and, after prior warning or interception, they intentionally and clearly refuse to divert from their destination, or intentionally and clearly refuse to proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible;
- engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
- act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;
- are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system;
- otherwise make an effective contribution to the military action and, after prior warning or interception, they intentionally and clearly refuse to divert from their destination, or intentionally and clearly refuse to proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible.
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 100.
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “Attack only military objectives. Civilian objects are to be spared, unless they are used for military purposes by the enemy.”
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. 34.
Objects, which are normally civilian objects, can, according to the military situation, become military objectives (E.g. a house or a bridge being used for tactical defence purposes).
Civilians can lose their protection under the LOAC [law of armed conflict] for such times as they take a direct part in hostilities. Civilian objects used for hostilities similarly lose their protection.
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, pp. 54 and 125.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Civilian objects can become military objectives if by their location, purpose or use, they may assist the enemy, or if their capture, destruction or neutralization offers a definite military advantage.”
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, § 2.3.b.(1).
A civilian object can become a military objective if, by its location, purpose or use, it makes an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action and if its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization provides a definite military advantage.
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.(1).
- use of firearms in centres of population, ports, homes, buildings, churches or hospitals (provided that they are not used for military purposes).
Civil aircraft may legitimately be used for support missions such as transporting troops or supplies. When so used they lose their protection and become legitimate military objectives. Whether civil aircraft on the ground are legitimate objects of attack depends upon whether they are legitimate military objectives.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.6.2.
Conditions of exemption for civil airliners
12.31. Civil airliners are exempt from attack only if they:
a. are innocently employed in their normal role; and
b. do not intentionally hamper the movements of combatants.
12.32. If aircraft exempt from attack breach any of the applicable conditions of their exemption as set forth in paragraphs 12.29 to 12.31, they may be attacked only if:
a. diversion for landing, visit and search, and possible capture, is not feasible;
b. no other method is available for exercising military control;
c. the circumstances of non-compliance are sufficiently grave that the aircraft has become, or may be reasonably assumed to be, a military objective; and
d. the collateral casualties or damage will not be disproportionate to the military advantage gained or anticipated.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.31–12.32.
The following activities may render enemy civil aircraft military objectives:
a. engaging in acts of war on behalf of the enemy, e.g., laying mines, minesweeping, laying or monitoring sensors, engaging in electronic warfare, intercepting or attacking other civil aircraft, or providing targeting information to enemy forces;
b. acting as an auxiliary aircraft to an enemy’s armed forces, e.g., transporting troops or military cargo, or refuelling military aircraft;
c. being incorporated into or assisting the enemy’s intelligence gathering system, e.g., engaging in reconnaissance, early warning, surveillance, or command, control and communications missions;
d. flying under the protection of accompanying enemy warships or military aircraft;
e. refusing an order to identify itself, divert from its track, or proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible, or operating fire control equipment that could reasonably be construed to be part of an aircraft weapon system, or on being intercepted clearly manoeuvring to attack the intercepting belligerent military aircraft;
f. being armed with air-to-air or air-to-surface weapons; or
g. otherwise making an effective contribution to military action.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.37.
Furthermore, the manual states:
The following activities may render neutral civil aircraft military objectives:
a. if they are believed on reasonable grounds to be carrying contraband, and, after prior warning or interception, they intentionally and clearly refuse to divert from their destination, or intentionally and clearly refuse to proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible;
b. if they engage in belligerent acts on behalf of the enemy;
c. if they act as auxiliaries to the enemy’s armed forces;
d. if they are incorporated into or assist the enemy’s intelligence system; or
e. if they otherwise make an effective contribution to the enemy’s military action, e.g., by carrying military materials, and, after prior warning or interception, they intentionally and clearly refuse to divert from their destination, or intentionally and clearly refuse to proceed for visit and search to a belligerent airfield that is safe for the type of aircraft involved and reasonably accessible.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.43.1.
15.16.1. There is no definition of civilian objects nor is the term used in the treaties dealing with internal armed conflicts, but the principles of military necessity and humanity require attacks to be limited to military objectives. Thus attacks on the following are prohibited unless they are being used for military purposes: civilian dwellings, shops, schools and other places of non-military business, places of recreation and worship, means of transportation, cultural property, hospitals and medical establishments and units.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.16.1–3.
France’s Penal Code (1992), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes common to both international and non-international armed conflicts: “Intentionally launching attacks against civilian objects which are not military objectives is punishable by 15 years’ imprisonment.”
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-14.
In its judgment in the Al-Anfal case in 2007, the Iraqi High Tribunal stated:
The protection in view of international customs and codes is not confined to people but extends to properties, as long as these properties are far from being military targets. Hence, no allegation justifies being destroyed or confiscated as long as they [the properties] preserve their attribution. Yes, they lose protection if their nature, location, or purpose of use showed to contribute effectively to the military output, provided that the partial or total destruction, confiscation or annulment of their roles became a must imposed by war necessities then these properties become legitimate military targets.
Iraq, Iraqi High Tribunal, Al-Anfal case, Judgment, 24 June 2007, p. 884, based on a translation available at http://law.case.edu/grotian-moment-blog/anfal/opinion.asp (last accessed on 1 April 2010).
In a military communiqué issued in 1973, Egypt stated that it condemned attacks against civilian objects, unless such objects were used in military operations.
Egypt, Military Communiqué No. 18, 8 October 1973.
The loss of absolute protection for a civilian site when it is misused by the adversary as a locus for military operations is broadly recognised in the Law of Armed Conflict. Thus, for instance, the hidden placement of a significant military asset within a civilian building or even the presence of enemy combatants can make the otherwise civilian site amenable to attack. This is a harsh reality of urban warfare.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 107.
The report further stated;
110. … [A] commander’s intent is critical in reviewing the principle of distinction during armed conflict. Where it is believed in good faith, on the basis of the best available intelligence, that a civilian building has been misused as a sanctuary for military fighters, military intelligence, or the storage and manufacture of military assets, the commander has a legitimate basis for using force against the site. This is so even where judgment is based on limited information in a fluid battlefield situation.
111. The definition of military targets thus could include terrorists who move rapidly throughout a neighbourhood, even where they shelter themselves in civilian dwellings. It does not relieve the commander of the obligation to judge the proportionality of his action. But it makes clear that a civilian site can be converted to a legitimate target by the conduct of the opposing force in using such places for military purposes, including the escape of armed combatants.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, §§ 110–111.
The report also stated: “When a civilian objective is used by the enemy for a military activity it loses its protection and immunity and becomes a legitimate military target. Nevertheless, when striking such a target, special care shall be taken to adhere to the principle of proportionality.”
The report added: “In accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict, civilian facilities that served military purposes did not enjoy protection from attack. Thus, a residential building that doubled as an ammunition depot or military headquarters was a legitimate military target for attack.”
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 233.
On the basis of interviews with members of the armed forces, the Report on the Practice of Malaysia notes that a civilian object would not be regarded as such if it was to be used to contribute to military action, such as in the production of military equipment.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Interviews with members of the Malaysian armed forces, Chapter 1.3.
In 2005, in reply to a question concerning the protection of cultural property by British forces in Iraq, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “Objects which are normally civilian objects can, according to the military situation, become military objectives (e.g. house or bridge tactically used by the defender and thus a target for an attacker).”
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 58.
In an appeal issued in October 1973, the ICRC urged all the belligerents in the conflict in the Middle East (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic) to observe forthwith, in particular, the provisions of, inter alia, Article 47(2) of the draft Additional Protocol I, which stated that “objects designed for civilian use, such as houses, dwellings, installations and means of transport, and all objects which are not military objectives, shall not be made the object of attack, except if they are used mainly in support of the military effort”. All governments concerned replied favourably.
Existing international law prohibits all armed attacks … on non-military objects, notably dwellings or other buildings sheltering the civilian population, so long as these are not used for military purposes to such an extent as to justify action against them under the rules regarding military objectives.
Institute of International Law, Edinburgh Session, Resolution on the Distinction between Military Objectives and Non-military Objects in General and Particularly the Problems Associated with Weapons of Mass Destruction, 9 September 1969, § 4.
In 2001, in a report on Israel and the occupied territories, Amnesty International stated that civilian objects “may be attacked while they are being used for firing upon Israeli forces. But they revert to their status as civilian objects as soon as they are no longer being used for launching attacks.”
Amnesty International, Israel and the Occupied Territories: State Assassinations and Other Unlawful Killings, AI Index MDE 15/005/2001, London, 21 February 2001, p. 29.
Article 52(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states:
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 52(3). Article 52 was adopted by 79 votes in favour, none against and 7 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 168.
Article 3(8)(a) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides:
In case of doubt as to whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
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 52(3) 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 52(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Paragraph 58 of the 1994 San Remo Manual provides: “In case of doubt whether a vessel or aircraft exempt from attack is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.” The commentary on this paragraph states: “This rule, the so-called rule of doubt, imposes an obligation on a party to the conflict to gather and assess relevant information before commencing an attack.”
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, § 58 and commentary.
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides: “In case of doubt concerning the military use of an object which is usually dedicated to civilian purposes, that object must be considered as civilian.”
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.45; see also § 4.02(2).
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “Whenever there is a doubt concerning the nature of an objective, it must be considered as a civilian object.”
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “In case of doubt, the object in question must be considered to be a civilian object.”
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.
The Regulations further states: “In case of doubt, an object which is normally subjected to civilian use must be considered to be civilian in character.”
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. 85.
The Regulations also states: “In case of doubt about the civilian character of an object, it must be presumed not to be utilized in a way that effectively contributes to the adversary’s action.”
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. 19; see also Part I bis, p. 35.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states that in case of doubt as to whether an object is military or civilian in character, it should be considered as a civilian object.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “In case of doubt [as to the nature of an object], a civilian object retains its civilian character.”
In the case of doubt as to whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes (such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling, or a school) is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-5, § 38.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 429.
Doubt rule. A person or object must not be attacked unless there is a reasonable belief that the person or object to be attacked is a military objective. In cases of doubt, a person is presumed to be a civilian, and the use of an object normally dedicated to civilian purposes is presumed to be of a nature other than that constituting an effective contribution to military action, unless and until the contrary is established.
Canada, Use of Force for CF Operations, Canadian Forces Joint Publication, Chief of the Defence Staff, B-GJ-005-501/FP-001, August 2008, § 112.3.
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 1 (Basic and team leader instruction): “If there is any doubt as to the nature of an object it must be considered a civilian object.”
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section I, § 4.
In all cases, the essential question is to know what use is being made of the object in question. In case of doubt, each object, until the contrary is proven, must be regarded as a civilian object.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides: “In case of doubt, an object which is normally designated to civilian purposes keeps its civilian character.”
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) affirms that in case of doubt as to whether an object is military or civilian in character, it should be considered as a civilian object.
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 7.
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states: “In case of doubt, an object usually affected to a civilian use must be considered as civilian and shall not be attacked.”
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) affirms that in case of doubt, objects must be considered to be civilian.
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 18.
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states: “In case of doubt as to the status of … [an] object, it shall be assumed to be civilian.”
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “In cases where there is doubt as to whether a civilian object has turned into a military objective, the [1977] Additional Protocols state that one is to assume that it is not a military objective unless proven otherwise.”
In the case of incidents in which there is a doubt as to whether the target changed its status from civilian to military, the Additional Protocols determine that it should be assumed that it is not a military target unless proven otherwise.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “In case of doubt, an object which is usually dedicated to civilian purposes (such as a place of worship, school, house or other type of dwelling) will be considered as civilian.”
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009) states: “In case of doubt, an object should be considered to be civilian.”
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “In case of doubt whether an object which usually serves civilian purposes, such as a house, a school, a church, is used for military purposes, it must be assumed to be a civilian object.”
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “In the event of doubt whether an object normally used for civilian purposes, e.g., a house, a school, a church, is being used for military purposes, it must be assumed that it is a civilian object.”
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) provides that when “hospital ships, coastal rescue craft, ships sailing under special agreements … are of a dubious status, i.e., when it is uncertain whether it is a military objective or not, in that case, it may be stopped and searched so as to establish its status”.
Buildings and material used for civil defence purposes and shelters provided for the civilian population are civilian objects and fall under the protection given by article 52 of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I, to wit:
- In case of doubt whether an object, which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, p. 81.
“Civilian objects” is defined in Additional Protocol I article 52. In cases of doubt whether an object that is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “In case of doubt, an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a house, a school or a place of worship, must be considered to be a civilian object.”
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, § 4.2.b.(2); see also § 2.3.b.(1).
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “If there is any doubt, based on the information available at the time about whether an object normally used for civilian purposes, such as a dwelling, a school or a place of worship, is a military objective, it must be presumed to be a civilian object.”
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, § 4.2.b.(2); see also § 2.3.b.(1).
During military operations it may often be difficult to establish within a short space of time whether property should be classified as a civilian object or a military objective. To avoid meaningless destruction as far as possible, a so-called dubio rule is included in Article 52 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. This states that in case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes is being used in the adversary’s military activity, it shall be presumed that it is not being so used. Among such normally civilian objects are mentioned particularly places of worship, houses and other dwellings, and schools.
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. 55.
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states: “Whenever there is a doubt concerning the nature of an objective, it must be considered as a civilian object.”
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “In cases of doubt, objects are to be considered as civilian.”
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.24.3.
In its chapter on air operations, the manual states: “In case of doubt whether a vessel or aircraft exempt from attack is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used.”
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.33.
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 52(3), is a punishable offence.
(i) which is not on or directed against a military objective, and in case of doubt as to whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship, a house or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be [so] used.
South Africa, Prohibition or Restriction of Certain Conventional Weapons Act, 2008, Section 6(e).
In 2010, in the Couso case, which concerned the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court referred to norms of IHL relevant to the case under review, including Article 52(3) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Civilian objects [referred to in Article 8, paragraph 2(b) of the Statute] must be defined and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] and, in particular, article 52 thereof. In case of doubt, the object shall be considered to be civilian.
The Report on the Practice of Iraq states that the practice adopted by the Iraqi armed forces is that in case of doubt concerning the nature of objects, they must be considered as civilian objects.
In principle, in cases of significant doubt as to whether a target is legitimate or civilian, the decision would be to refrain from attacking the target. It should be stressed that the introduction of the adjective “significant” in this context is aimed at excluding those cases in which there exists a slight possibility that the definition of the target as legitimate is mistaken. In such cases, the decision whether or not to attack rests with the commander in the field, who has to decide whether or not the possibility of mistake is significant enough to warrant not launching the attack.
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 1.3.
A dual use objective may be attacked if reliable, conclusive and up-to-date information confirms that it serves the military activities of the enemy, and subject to the principle of proportionality. In case of doubt, such objective shall be presumed to be civilian.
The Report on the Practice of Malaysia does not expressly mention the presumption in favour of the civilian character in the list of norms applicable to the country’s armed forces, but it states that this principle is applied in practice since civilian property is not considered as a military objective. This principle is said to conform to the practice aimed at winning the hearts and minds of the civilian population during the communist insurgency period.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.3.
At the CDDH, an exception to the presumption of civilian status was submitted. It provided that the presumption of civilian use for objects which are normally dedicated to civilian purposes would not apply “in contact zones where the security of the armed forces requires a derogation from this presumption”. Such an exception was defended on the grounds that “infantry soldiers could not be expected to place their lives in great risk because of such a presumption and that, in fact, civilian buildings which happen to be in the front lines usually are used as part of the defensive works”. The exception was criticized by other delegates on the ground that “it would unduly endanger civilian objects to permit any exceptions to the presumption”.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/224, Report to Committee III on the Work of the Working Group, pp. 331–332.
In case of doubt as to whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so used. The Trial Chamber understands that such an object shall not be attacked when it is not reasonable to believe, in the circumstances of the person contemplating the attack, including the information available to the latter, that the object is being used to make an effective contribution to military action.
ICTY, Galić case, Judgment, 5 December 2003, § 51.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that: “In case of doubt whether an object which is normally dedicated to civilian purposes (e.g. a place of worship, a house or other dwelling, a school) is a military objective, it shall be considered as a civilian object.”
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 59; see also § 464 (ships of dubious status).