Who is a Legitimate Target in International Humanitarian Law?

Abstract

There has always been the notion that there are specific items and people that can be legitimately attacked during armed conflicts. This notion/concept has evolved over time alongside the various international humanitarian law principles. The principles of international humanitarian law sets guiding principles for the conduct of hostilities during armed conflicts. This therefore made it imperative for the adoption of a law that will protect victims of armed conflict from indiscriminate and targeted attacks.

Additional Protocol I relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts adopted in 1977 served this purpose alongside the first Geneva Convention of 1949. Article 48 of Additional Protocol I which provides that basic rule for the conduct of hostilities states that; in order to ensure the respect for and protections of the civilian population and civilian objects, the parties to the conflict must always ensure that they distinguish between the civilian population and the combatants, as well as between civilian objects and military objects, and must direct their operations solely against military objects

The law of war and armed conflict can be said to be a two way street with two important yet very contradictory terms, on the one hand is the need to gain military control over the adverse party and on the other hand is the obligation to exercise restraint and outmost care while carrying out warfare and the ensuring that the properties and persons which are protected by international humanitarian law are not in harmed.

This thesis seeks to analyze who are legitimate targets in armed conflicts and situations whereby they may lose protection under international humanitarian law as a result of activities which they may engage themselves in in the course of the armed conflict.

This thesis will also analyze the complexities that arise in special situations when the person is a child and is actively carrying out hostilities. Furthermore, with the dawn of new methods of warfare which were not prevalent during the drafting of the Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, I find it imperative to analyze this situations and how they are regulated, one of such complex situation is the war on terror which came to limelight after the infamous 9/11 attacks on the United States by Al-Qaeda a terrorist organization headed by Osama Bin Laden at the time. The then US president declared a “war on terror”; this war on terror has been declared by many states such as Israel when faced with terrorist threats in their states. Complexities arise with the applicability of international humanitarian law in war on terror, which are legitimate targets in the war on terror, are they eligible for combatant status and is it legally acceptable to target terrorists.

Several schools of thought have emerged when it pertains to the targeting of terrorists and the applicability of international humanitarian law in the so called war on terror, on the one hand some argue that it is morally wrong and a violation of international human rights law to target terrorist while others argue that even if targeting policies like that of Israel fall within the scope and jurisdiction of international humanitarian law, it is still illegal and can be described only as assassination and will constitute a violation to the right of life as per international human rights law.