Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/por/docs/v2_rul_rule18
Timestamp: 2020-02-16 19:46:16
Document Index: 79452247

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 556', '§ 957', '§ 24', '§ 417', '§ 2', '§ 8', '§ 16', '§ 2', '§ 2', '§ 5', '§ 8', '§ 8', '§ 72', '§ 274', '§ 21', '§ 390', 'art. 57']

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 18. Assessment of the Effects of Attacks
Note: For practice concerning the principle of proportionality in general, see Rule 14, Section A.
Article 57(2)(a)(iii) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides that, with respect to attacks, the following precautions shall be taken:
Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall … refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
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 57(2)(a)(iii). Article 57 was adopted by 90 votes in favour, none against and 4 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.42, 27 May 1977, p. 211.
(c) refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental damage to cultural property protected under Article 4 of the Convention which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Article 8(b) of the 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules states:
The person responsible for ordering or launching an attack shall, first of all:
(b) take into account the loss and destruction which the attack, even if carried out with the precautions prescribed under Article 9, is liable to inflict upon the civilian population. He is required to refrain from the attack if, after due consideration, it is apparent that the loss and destruction would be disproportionate to the military advantage anticipated.
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 8(b).
Paragraph 46(d) of the 1994 San Remo Manual provides:
An attack shall not be launched if it may be expected to cause collateral casualties or damage which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole.
Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall, as far as possible, abstain from deciding to launch an attack … if it becomes apparent that the attack may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states that those responsible for deciding upon an attack must refrain from “launching any attack which may be expected to cause collateral injury, or collateral damage, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 556(f); see also Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 957(c).
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that it is the duty of Australian Defence Force commanders to refrain “from launching any attack which may be expected to cause collateral injury, or collateral damage, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
Everything possible must be done to avoid incidental damage to civilian objects and loss of civilian life: when this damage and this loss appears to be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage, the attack must not take place.
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “Precautions must be taken in order to minimize civilian losses and damage to civilian objects. These precautions include respect for the rules of proportionality.”
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 6.
Commanders, planners and staff officers have … to refrain from launching any attack which may be expected to cause collateral civilian damage which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated (proportionality test).
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-3, § 24.
c. to refrain from launching any attack which may be expected to cause collateral civilian damage which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated (proportionality test).
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 417.1.c.
A military commander who has been assigned a mission will have to take into consideration a number of elements when taking decisions. He will need intelligence about anything that could help him accomplish the mission. He then has to consider any precautions that will have to be taken to comply with the law. Lastly, he will have to analyse the prevailing tactical situation.
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 II, Section II.
Also in Volume 3, the manual further states:
When analysing the tactical situation military commanders must consider all the specific prevailing circumstances, including military and humanitarian considerations. Military commanders must also consider any precautionary measures relative to the dangers to which a military action may expose civilian persons and objects.
Before taking his final decision a military commander has to assess the possible outcomes of his evaluation.
In doing so he has to take into account:
- the constraints resulting from his mission, in particular any military necessity that may arise;
- the precautions required under the law of war;
- the expected cost of the proposed action (likely losses among his own men, civilian losses, material damages).
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 II, Section II, § 2.3, and Section III.
Naval commanders must take all reasonable precautions … In each instance, the commander must determine whether incidental injuries and collateral damage would be excessive, on the basis of an honest and reasonable estimate of the facts available to him.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 8.1.2.1.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 49; see also p. 89.
Before engaging an objective, every responsible military leader shall … refrain from launching any attack which may be expected to cause incidental injury and damage to civilian life and objects which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “The commander is required to refrain from an attack that is expected to inflict harm on the civilian population that is disproportionate to the expected military gain.”
Precaution shall be taken to minimise civilian casualties and damage and the precaution comprises the respect for the rule of proportionality (civilian casualties not being excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated).
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 45, § 16(b).
- Do not attack if the loss of life and destruction of property will be excessive in relation to the direct and concrete military advantage to be gained.
It shall not be decided to launch an attack when, from the information available at the time of the decision, it may be expected to cause damage to civilian persons and/or objects which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack as a whole and not only from isolated parts thereof.
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, § 2.5.b.
The decision to launch an attack must not be implemented when, based on information available at the time the decision is taken, it could be expected to lead to casualties among the civilian population or cause damage to civilian property which would be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated from the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or specific parts of the attack.
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, § 2.5.b.
If the attack may be expected to entail such large losses in human life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian property, or a combination of these, that they may be judged excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct advantage, the commander shall refrain from attacking.
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. 71.
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states: “Precautions must be taken in order to minimize civilian losses and damage to civilian objects. These precautions include respect for the rules of proportionality.”
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 6.
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) provides that “those who plan or decide upon an attack” shall
refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Those who plan or decide upon an attack must refrain from deciding to launch any attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 5-3(c)(1)(b)(i)(c).
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 8.1.2.1.
Naval commanders must take all reasonable precautions … In each instance, the commander must determine whether the anticipated incidental injuries and collateral damage would be excessive, on the basis of an honest and reasonable estimate of the facts available to him.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 8.3.1.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states that “an attack undertaken with disproportionate means on a military objective of lesser importance in an urban settlement, which would lead to big casualties among the civilian population, is contrary to the international law of war”.
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, § 72(2).
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 57(2)(a)(iii), is a punishable offence.
Norway’s Military Penal Code(1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
According to the Report on the Practice of Iraq, the target should not induce the use of excessive force because the possible harm to civilians or undue damage to their possessions might exceed the specific military purpose. On the basis of a press conference given by the President of Iraq in 1980, the report considers that this means acting with only the degree of force necessary to achieve the specific military objective. The aim is to give due regard to humanitarian requirements and to lessen civilian suffering.
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 1.5, referring to Press Conference of the President, 10 November 1980, Encyclopedia of the Iraqi-Iranian War, Vol. I, p. 318.
The principle of proportionality applies to every aspect of the conduct of hostilities. … Before launching an attack there is an obligation to assess whether or not the impact on the civilian population is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 13–14.
In 1991, in reply to a question in the House of Lords concerning the use of conventional weapons against nuclear facilities, chemical weapons plants and dumps, and petrochemical enterprises situated in towns or cities, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
International law requires that, in planning an attack on any military objective, account is taken of certain principles. These include the [principle] … that an attack should not be launched if it can be expected to cause civilian losses which would be disproportionate to the military advantage expected from the attack as a whole.
In 1991, in response to a question in the Defence Committee of the UK House of Commons on whether or not there were occasions during the Gulf War when he decided that it would not be appropriate for the Royal Air Force to attack a particular target, Air Vice Marshal Wratten stated:
Yes, there were such occasions. In particular, when we were experiencing collateral damage, such as it was, and some of the targets were in locations where with any weapon system malfunction severe collateral damage would have resulted inevitably, then there were one or two occasions that I chose not to go against those targets, but they were very few and far between and they were not – and this is the most important issue – in my judgment and in the judgment of the Americans of a critical nature, that is to say, they were not fundamental to the timely achievement of the victory. Had that been the case, then regrettably, irrespective of what collateral damage might have resulted, one would have been responsible and had a responsibility for accepting those targets and for going against them.
United Kingdom, Statement of Air Vice Marshall Wratten, Minutes of Evidence taken before the Defence Committee, 22 May 1991, p. 38, § 274.
Some targets were specifically avoided because the value of destruction of each target was outweighed by the potential risk to nearby civilians or, as in the case of certain archaeological and religious sites, to civilian objects.
The Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe states that the provisions of Article 57 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I would be regarded as customary by Zimbabwe because of its adoption of the Geneva Conventions Amendment Act, which incorporates Additional Protocol I into Zimbabwe’s law and practice.
c) to refrain from launching attacks which may be expected to cause disproportionate civilian casualties or civilian property damage.
ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, The Hague, 14 June 2000, §§ 21 and 28.
One type of indiscriminate attack violates the principle of proportionality. The practical application of the principle of distinction requires that those who plan or launch an attack take all feasible precautions to verify that the objectives attacked are neither civilians nor civilian objects, so as to spare civilians as much as possible. Once the military character of a target has been ascertained, commanders must consider whether striking this target is “expected to cause incidental loss of life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objectives or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.” If such casualties are expected to result, the attack should not be pursued. The basic obligation to spare civilians and civilian objects as much as possible must guide the attacking party when considering the proportionality of an attack. In determining whether an attack was proportionate it is necessary to examine whether a reasonably well-informed person in the circumstances of the actual perpetrator, making reasonable use of the information available to him or her, could have expected excessive civilian casualties to result from the attack.
When planning actions that could endanger civilian persons and objects, the same extent of care and precautions which are to be taken in the conduct of operations must be also taken at this stage. The precautions comprise respect for the rule of proportionality.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 390 and 458.
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 50(1)(a) of the draft Additional Protocol I, which stated in part:
Those who plan or decide upon an attack shall ensure that the objectives to be attacked … may be attacked without incidental losses in civilian lives and damage to civilian objects in their vicinity being caused or that at all events those losses or damage are not disproportionate to the direct and substantial military advantage anticipated. [Proposal I]
All the governments concerned replied favourably.
Following NATO’s air campaign in the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia in 1999, Human Rights Watch criticized NATO’s decision to attack the Novi Sad bridge and six other bridges during which civilian deaths occurred. According to Human Rights Watch, these bridges were road bridges and most were urban or town bridges that were not major routes of communications. As a result, “the risk in terms of civilian casualties in attacking urban bridges, or in attacking during daylight hours, is ‘excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated,’ the standard of proportionality codified in Protocol I, art. 57”.
Human Rights Watch, Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign, New York, 7 February 2000, p. 11.