Newsgroup: it.politica.internazionale
Titolo: 4- Israel’s Indiscriminate Attacks Against Civilians in Lebanon

The Applicable Law
Since July 12, 2006, Israel and Hezbollah have engaged in consistent and
intense hostilities in which civilians in Lebanon and Israel have
overwhelmingly been the victims. International humanitarian law governs
the way in which the parties to an armed conflict should conduct
themselves in the course of the hostilities.  International humanitarian
law is primarily designed to protect civilians and other noncombatants
from the hazards of armed conflict. International humanitarian law does
not address the legitimacy of the belligerents’ reasons for having taken
up arms or resorting to war. 
The armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah is governed by
international treaties, as well as by the rules of customary international
humanitarian law. Customary rules are based on established state practice
and bind all parties to an armed conflict, whether they are state actors
or non-state armed groups. Article 3 Common to the Geneva Conventions of
1949, to which Israel is a party, sets forth minimum standards for all
parties to a conflict between a state party such as Israel and a non-state
party such as Hezbollah.111  However, Israel has asserted on several
occasions since hostilities began that it considers itself to be
responding to the actions of the sovereign state of Lebanon, not just to
those of Hezbollah.   It has also made allegations about the participation
of Iran and Syria.
The ICRC Commentary notes that the determination of the existence of an
armed conflict between states in which the Conventions apply does not
depend on a formal declaration of war or recognition of a state of
hostilities.  Rather, the factual existence of armed conflict between two
states party automatically brings the Conventions into operation.  Thus
any hostilities between Israeli forces and the forces of Lebanon would
fall within the full Geneva Conventions.
That said, for the purpose of assessing the lawfulness of attacks by
aerial bombardment, artillery shelling or rocket attack, the requirements
of the two sets of rules are essentially the same.  Many of these rules
are codified in the first additional protocol to the Geneva Conventions,
known formally as the Protocol relating to the Protection of Victims of
International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I).  Although Lebanon and Syria
have ratified Protocol I, Israel and Iran have not.
However, many, if not most, of the protocol’s provisions are considered
reflective of customary international law.  This is particularly true for
the norms relating to the conduct of hostilities relevant to this
analysis. As a result, they bind all parties to the conflict.
Many issues of international humanitarian law have arisen during fierce
combat in southern Lebanon and in relation to the bombardment of populated
areas by the Israeli Air Force.  Most relevant to this report are
questions related to the principle of distinction (issues related to
precautions to be taken in attack as well as proportionality and
indiscriminateness of the attacks), the protected status of relief
personnel and personnel involved in peacekeeping operations, and the duty
of both sides of a conflict to take all feasible precautions to protect
the civilian population and civilian objects under their control against
the effects of attacks.  In this respect the parties must, to the extent
feasible, avoid locating military objectives within or near densely
populated areas and remove civilian persons and objects under their
control from the vicinity of military objectives.   In particular, the
parties must never use the presence of protected persons with the intent
of rendering certain points, areas, or military personnel immune from
military operations.  The use of human shields is a war crime.
Two fundamental tenets of international humanitarian law are those of
“civilian immunity” and the principle of “distinction.”112  They impose a
duty, at all times during the conflict, to distinguish between combatants
and civilians, and to target only the former. 
It is forbidden in any circumstance to carry out direct attacks against
civilians; to do so intentionally is a war crime. The parties to a
conflict must also refrain from threats or acts of violence the primary
purpose of which is to terrorize the civilian population. 113 Also
prohibited are “attacks against the civilian population or civilians by
way of reprisals.”114  
Apart from the prohibition on direct attacks against civilians and
civilian objects, international humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate
attacks as a matter of both treaty and customary law.115  Indiscriminate
attacks are those that are not directed against a military objective,
those that employ a method or means of combat that cannot be directed at a
specific military objective, or those that employ a method or means of
combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international
humanitarian law.  In each such case, these attacks are of a nature to
strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without
distinction.116 
The “means” of combat refers generally to the weapons used while the term
“method” refers to the way in which such weapons are used. 
A corollary of the principle of distinction is the prohibition of area
bombardment. Any attack, whether by aerial bombardment or other means,
that treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated
and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other
area containing a similar concentration of civilians and civilian objects,
is regarded as an indiscriminate attack and prohibited.117
Similarly, if a combatant launches an attack without attempting to aim
properly at a military target, or in such a way as to hit civilians
without regard to the likely extent of death or injury, it would amount to
an indiscriminate attack.  
A deliberately indiscriminate attack that causes incidental death or
injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects that is clearly
excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military
advantage anticipated from the attack is a war crime.118 
International humanitarian law requires that the parties to a conflict
take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian
population and to take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize the
incidental loss of civilian life, as well as injury to civilians and
damage to civilian objects.119   In its authoritative Commentary on
Protocol I, the ICRC explains that the requirement to take all “feasible”
precautions means, among other things, that the person launching an attack
is required to take the steps needed to identify the target as a
legitimate military objective “in good time to spare the population as far
as possible.”120 
The parties to a conflict must always take precautions in identifying
targets and planning or carrying out an attack. As part of the
identification process, they must do everything feasible to verify that
the chosen targets are military objectives; that is, that they are
legitimately subject to attack. 121 If there are doubts about whether a
potential target is of a civilian or military character, the assessment
must be particularly scrupulous so as to dispel, to the maximum extent
possible, any doubts about the civilian character of the person or object.
  Military objects are those which by their nature, location, purpose or
use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial or
total destruction, capture or neutralization offers a “definite military
advantage.”122  However, the warring parties must do everything feasible
to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the target is
not a military objective.  The same applies if the attack may be expected
to cause excessive collateral damage.123 
Humanitarian law also determines that if the attacker has a choice between
more than one military objective, each of which could yield similar
military advantage, the objective selected must be the one that is
expected to cause the least danger to civilians and civilian objects.124 
In general it is prohibited to direct attacks against what are by their
nature civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship,
hospitals, schools or cultural monuments, unless they are being used for
military purposes.  
The mere fact that an object has civilian uses does not necessarily render
it immune from attack. It can be targeted if it makes an “effective”
contribution to the enemy’s military activities, and if its destruction,
capture or neutralization offers a “definite military advantage” to the
attacking side in the circumstances prevailing at the time. 
However, with regard to such “dual use” objects, combatants must choose a
means of attack that will avoid or minimize harm to civilians and damage
to civilian objects. In particular, the attacker should take all feasible
measures to cancel or suspend an attack if it becomes apparent that the
expected civilian casualties would outweigh the importance of the military
objective.   This principle of customary law is codified in article 57 of
Protocol 1.125 
The ICRC Commentary on article 57 sets out a series of factors that must
be taken into account in applying the principle of proportionality to the
incidental effects of an attack on civilian persons and objects:
The danger incurred by the civilian population and civilian objects
depends on various factors: their location (possibly within or in the
vicinity of a military objective), the terrain (landslides, floods etc.),
accuracy of the weapons used (greater or lesser dispersion, depending on
the trajectory, the range, the ammunition used etc.), technical skill of
the combatants (random dropping of bombs when unable to hit the intended
target).126 
Casualties that are a consequence of accidents, as in situations in which
civilians are within military installations, may be considered incidental
to an attack on a military objective—so called “collateral damage”—but
care must still have been shown to identify the presence of civilians and
to avoid or minimize the risk to them. As expressed in the ICRC
Commentary, “the golden rule to be followed” when making determinations
about the proportionality of an attack is “the duty to spare civilians and
civilian objects in the conduct of military operations.” Even when a
target is serving a military purpose, precautions must always be taken to
protect civilians. Warring parties must also take all feasible precautions
to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from
attacks that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail
to discriminate between combatants and civilians. 
Violations of the norms established above, when serious, constitute war
crimes.    Conduct considered to be a war crime under customary law has
been enshrined in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 
That codification includes the so-called “grave breaches” to the Geneva
Conventions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law
as well as serious violations of Article 3 common to the Geneva
Conventions.  
Of particular concern in the present conflict are the following acts that
constitute war crimes:
Making the civilian population or individual civilians not taking direct
part in hostilities the object of attack.
Making civilian objects, that is, objects that are not military
objectives, the object of attack.
Attacking personnel or objects involved in a humanitarian assistance or
peacekeeping mission.
Causing incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to
civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the
concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Deliberately using civilians and civilian objects to shield troops and
materiel from attack.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[111] First Geneva Convention “for the Amelioration of the Condition of
the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field” ; Second Geneva
Convention “for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and
Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea” Third Geneva Convention
“relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War”;  Fourth Geneva Convention
“relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.”
[112] Articles 48, 51.2 52.2 Additional Protocol 1.
[113] Article 51.2 Additional Protocol 1.
[114] Article 51.6 Additional Protocol 1.
[115] Article 51.4 Additional Protocol 1.
[116] Article 51.4.a  Additional Protocol 1.
[117] Article 51.5.a Additional Protocol 1.
[118] Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court Article 8 (2) (b)
(iv) War crime of excessive incidental death, injury, or damage.
[119] Article 57 Additional  Protocol 1.
[120] ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, pp. 681-82 .
[121] Article 52 Additional Protocol 1.
[122] Ibid.
[123] Article 57.2 Additonal Protocol 1.
[124] Article 57.3 Additional Protocol 1.
[125]  Article 57.2.b (“Precautions in attack”)  Additional Protocol 1.
[126] ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, p. 684.
-- 
visitate 
http://www.comunisti-italiani.it/frames/index.htm
http://cubainforma.interfree.it/
il film sul 9/11 : 
http://www.loosechange911.com/
http://www.churchill-society-london.org.uk/Berlin.jpg
questo articolo e` stato inviato via web dal servizio gratuito 
http://www.newsland.it/news
 segnala gli abusi ad 
ab...@newsland.it

 [126] ICRC, Commentary on the Additional Protocols, p. 684.
Ti manca l'Enciclopedia dell'URSS in 50 volumi?
Benvenuto, questo e' il posto giusto per un revival...
Am.

amalric ha scritto:



che c'entra con il rapporto di hrw sui crimini di guerra israeliani? ah,
dimenticavo che tu fai da lacchè per i nazisti e quindi dovevi mandare
questo msg per riconfermare davanti a tutto il ng quanto sei meschino.
LOL!!!!!!
