Introduction
There never is absolute peace in the world. Peace and security have been self-evident on the European Continent for 70 years now, yet the Western world has known long times of war. In other parts of the world, the situation is quite different from what we have in Europe. War is very common there. In Jemen, the biggest humanitarian disaster of the moment has been taking place since 2015.1 Over six thousand people, among whom around three thousand civilians, have been killed and a lot of children are in danger of losing their life. In Douma, dozens of men, women and children were massacred by the use of chemical weapons during an attack on Saturday, 7 April 2018. Humanitarian disasters are getting worse.2 Since the Second World War, more and more civilians have been victim in these conflicts and terrorism is taking over the world. The increase in victims is the result of the new way of waging war.
In time, the classic struggle between the armies of two or more states, which keep to the laws of war, has turned into an unclear war against terrorist groups. Under whom two well-known organizations, Al-Qaida and IS. The image is more diffuse, there has been a twilight zone between war and peace: hybrid warfare.3 Additionally, in a contemporary armed conflict, soldiers are increasingly confronted with an opponent whose physical appearance no longer differs from that of the protected citizen. Members of organized armed groups are hidden among the civilian population. Therefore combat troops are unable to identify their opponents and civilians are at an increasing risk of becoming a victim of an attack. How can the opponent be distinguished from the protected citizen?4 The most important principle of humanitarian law is the protection of civilians during the war. How does International Humanitarian Law (IHL) try to protect the ordinary citizen and is the law still applicable to this new way of waging war?
The principles under international law
It’s important to know that there are several principles under IHL that aim to protect the ordinary citizen: those who do not bear arms.5 The principle of distinction states that only fighters may be directly targeted. Without this principle of distinction, there would be no limitation on the methods of warfare. This includes the principle of noncombatant immunity; the linchpin of humanitarian law during armed conflict. Warfare takes lives. However, noncombatant immunity should limit the harm people suffer by prohibiting intentional harm in all – except the most extreme – cases.6
Moreover, in 1977 a definition of military objectives was crafted in Article 52(2) of Protocol I, stating that ‘attacks shall be limited to military objectives, which are those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization offers a definite military advantage’. Civil objects must remain free from any form of direct attack. This rule has been established as customary international law that applies in both international and non-international armed conflicts. Attacking a civil object is considered a war crime by the Statute of the International Criminal Court. However, at the same time, the rules of modern warfare permit adversaries to unintentionally take a reasonable or proportionate number of civilian lives when military necessary. The principle of proportionality must then determine whether an attack is lawful or not.
