The efficacy of the law on protection of civilians in modern armed conflicts

Abstract

Warfare is evolving, begging several important questions. In what ways and to what extent are developments in warfare challenging the current rules of international humanitarian law intended for the protection of civilians? Are the rules effective in handling those new developments? Do the relevant laws require adaptation to improve the protection of civilians? The search for answers begins with a legal review of the contemporary law on protection of civilians in armed conflicts. In this framework, the review is limited to three major principles of international humanitarian law distinction, proportionality and precaution. The dissertation then moves on to the modern challenges facing the law. Three important evolutions in warfare are discussed: urban Warfare, asymmetric warfare and technological developments in warfare. The methodology involves a detailed study of the relevant legal and military literature and independent analysis, as well us an appropriate case study of Operation Cast Lead. This dissertation shows that while the impact of urban warfare on the application of the principles seems to be fairly minimal, the challenges accompanying asymmetric warfare and technological developments are far more pervasive. The challenge of asymmetric warfare is particularly troublesome. The laws of war are not equipped to handle the phenomenon of lawfare. In this case it is painfully obvious that the law is not effective. On the other hand, adaptation would likely do nothing to improve the situation. Technological developments present their own unique, but surmountable, issues. It must always be taken into account that they can equally be seen as a solution to the problems of urban and asymmetric warfare. Accordingly, major adaptations to the principles do not seem to be necessary or recommendable for the protection of civilians in modern armed conflicts. While the efficacy of the law is being challenged in some instances, simple adjustments in the interpretation of certain provisions have proven to be sufficient in some cases. In addition, one must always be wary of being overly enthusiastic with adaptation of principles and the creation of specific regulations. Other than that, it seems the focus of further investigations into the efficacy of the law on protection of civilians must be in the field of enforcement.