Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contestation in the Civilian Immunity Norm

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Norm Contestation

Part of the book series: SpringerBriefs in Political Science ((BRIEFSPOLITICAL))

  • 399 Accesses

Abstract

Efforts to mitigate the harms of war-fighting have a long history in many societies around the world. A common element in these diverse protective efforts is the idea that those uninvolved in war should be shielded from its ill effects, an idea captured in the civilian immunity norm. One of the norm’s prescriptions, the distinction principle, obligates belligerents to distinguish between permissible and impermissible targets and to refrain from intentionally targeting the latter group with lethal force. Civilians fall within this protected group. However, the civilian immunity norm is not absolute: custom and international law do permit soldiers to kill civilians who threaten them. Yet the norm directs actors to temper its exceptions with its primary goal of protecting the maximum number of civilians from the horrors of war.

“The category of those who are involved in hostilities is so fluid and diverse… that it is perhaps not surprising that the international community has been unable to establish “bright line” rules in this area” (Boehland 2015 : 9).

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    As discussed in the previous chapter, prescriptions are “the part of the norm informing actors within an identity what to do (or what not to do)” (Shannon 2000: 295).

  2. 2.

    For example, AP I included an article addressing mercenaries, a recurring issue in post-colonial wars. For further discussion of this issue, see Viljoen 2001.

  3. 3.

    For more information about this endeavor, please visit http://www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/participation-hostilities-ihl-311205

  4. 4.

    For example, see Schneider et al. 2012; Wood and Kathman 2014; Chesterman 2001; Jones 2004; Humphreys and Weinstein 2006; Kalyvas 1999; Pape 2003; Weinstein 2007; Azam and Hoeffler 2002; Boyle 2009; and Wood and Kathman 2014.

  5. 5.

    There is a vast literature exploring norm violations due to actors’ unawareness of their normative obligations (for example, see Acharya 2004; Hooghe 2005; Kollman 2007). However, the norm diffusion framework is not examined in more detail here because ignorance of the obligation to distinguish between permissible and impermissible civilian targets did not play a significant role in belligerent narratives considered in this paper.

  6. 6.

    Physical characteristics also serve as a mode of distinction among respondents. Respondents observed that fighters tended to have certain marks on their body resulting from carrying their backpacks and wearing combat boots for lengthy periods of time. Opponents would search suspected fighters for these signs of belligerency.

  7. 7.

    Some narratives I collected were consistent with this framework. For instance, in the following excerpt, a former soldier with a Zimbabwean rebel group explains that civilians were sometimes targeted because it would lead to heightened media attention, which would in turn help the group attain needed resources:

    Respondent: Unfortunately in a guerrilla situation, especially in Africa, if you are not well known or well connected, no one is going to write about you. There is no publicity about that, you see. So they will kill you.

    Interviewer: Why does it matter if there’s publicity?

    Respondent: Image. The guerillas are so worried about their image. The international community. That was important because they got their support from the international community.

Works Cited

  • Acharya A. How ideas spread: whose norms matter? Norm localization and institutional change in Asian regionalism. Int Organ. 2004;58(2):239–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adler E. Seizing the middle ground: constructivism in world politics. European Journal of International Relations 1997;3(3):319–63.

    Google Scholar 

  • Allmand C. War and the noncombatant. In: Keen MH, editor. Medieval warfare: a history. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Azam J-P, Hoeffler A. Violence against civilians in civil wars: looting or terror? J Confl Resolut. 2002;46(1):461–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Becker J, Shane S. Secret ‘Kill Lists” prove a test of Obama’s principles and will. New York Times. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?_r=2&hp#. Last accessed 29 Jan 2016.

  • Bello EG. African customary humanitarian law. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bennounne K. As-Samalu Alaykum? Humanitarian law in Islamic juris prudence. 15 Mich J Int L. 1993-1994;15:605.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best G. Humanity in warfare: the modern history of the international law of armed conflict. London: Weidenfeld and Nicholson; 1980.

    Google Scholar 

  • Best G. War and law since 1945. NY: Clarendon Press; 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehland J. The People’s perspectives: civilian involvement in armed conflict. Center for Civilians in Conflict. 2015. http://www.youblisher.com/p/1135445-The-People-s-Perspectives-Civilian-Involvement-in-Armed-Conflict/. Last accessed 30 Jan 2016.

  • Boyle MJ. Bargaining, fear, and denial: explaining violence against civilians in Iraq 2004-2007. Terrorism and Political Violence. 2009;21(2):261–87.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bugnion F. The International committee of the red cross and the protection of war victims. Oxford: Macmillian; 2003.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carter P. Why the recent civilian shootings in Karbala, while tragic, were probably lawful. Findlaw’s Legal Commentary Journal. 2003. http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20030405_carter.html. Last accessed 24 Mar 2006.

  • Cassese A. The status of rebels under the 1977 Geneva protocol on non-international armed conflicts. Int Comp Law Quart. 1981;30:2.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chesterman S, editor. Civilians in war. Boulder: Lynne Rienner; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Downes AB. Desperate times, desperate measures: the causes of civilian victimization in war. Int Secur. 2006;30(4):152–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Even-Khen HM. Can we now tell what “direct participation in hostilities” is?: HCJ 769/02 the public committee against torture in Israel v. The government of Israel. Isr Law Rev. 2007;40(1):213–44.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fenrick WJ. The targeted killings judgment and the scope of direct participation in hostilities. J Int Crim Just. 2007;5(2):332–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ferme MC, Hoffman D. Hunter militias and the international human rights discourse in Sierra Leone and beyond. Africa Today. 2004;50(4):73–95.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garraway C. To kill or not to kill? Dilemmas on the use of force. J Confl Secur Law. 2010;14(3):499–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gasser H-P. Negotiating the 1977 additional protocols: was it a waste of time? In: Delissen T, editor. Humanitarian law of armed conflict: challenges ahead. Amsterdam: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gregory D. The death of the civilian? Environ Plann D Soc Space. 2006;24(5):633–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C. Customary law status of the 1977 Geneva protocols. In: Delissen AJM, Tanja GJ, editors. Humanitarian law of armed conflict: challenges ahead. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenwood C. A critique of the additional protocols to the Geneva conventions of 1949. In: Durham H, McCormack TLH, editors. The changing face of conflict and the efficacy of international humanitarian law. The Hague: Martinus Nijhoff; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartigan RS. Lieber’s code and the law of war. Chicago: Precedent; 1983.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hartle AE. Atrocities in war: dirty hands and noncombatants. Soc Res An Int Quart. 2002;69(4):963–79.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hayashi MN. The principle of civilian protection and contemporary armed conflict. In: Hensel HM, editor. The law of armed conflict: constraints of the contemporary use of military force. Burlington: Ashgate; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe L. Several roads lead to international norms, but few via international socialization: a case study of the European Commission. Int Organ. 2005;59(4):861–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Horne J. Civilian populations and wartime violence: towards a historical analysis. Int Soc Sci J. 2002;54(174):483–90.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humphreys M, Weinstein JM. Handling and manhandling civilians in civil war. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2006;100(3):429–47.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JT. The holy war idea in western and Islamic traditions. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press; 1997.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson JT. Maintaining the protection of non-combatants. J Peace Res. 2000;37(4):421–8.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones A. Gendercide and Genocide. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahl CH. In the crossfire or crosshairs? Norms, civilian casualties and U.S. conduct in Iraq. Int Secur. 2007;32(1):7–46.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kalshoven F. Constraints on the waging of war. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 1987.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kalyvas S. Wanton and senseless? The logic of massacres in Algeria. Ration Soc. 1999;11(3):243–85.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaufman W. What is the scope of civilian immunity in wartime? J Mil Ethics. 2003;2(3):186–94.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kellenberger J. Interpretative guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kelsay J. Al-Shaybani and the Islamic law of war. Journal of Military Ethics. 2003;2(1):63–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsella HM. Securing the civilian: sex and gender in the Laws of war. In: Barnett M, Duvall R, editors. Power in global governance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kollman K. Same-sex unions: the globalization of an idea. Int Stud Q. 2007;51(2):329–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laband J. Introduction: African civilians in wartime. In: Laband J, editor. Daily lives of civilians in wartime Africa: from slavery days to Rwandan genocide. Westport: Greenwood Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • McDonald A. The challenges to International Humanitarian Law and the principles of distinction and protection from the increased participation of civilians in hostilities. Center for International and European Law. 2004. http://www. asser. nl/default. Last accessed 29 Jan 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKeogh C. Innocent civilians: the morality of killing in war. New York: Palgrave; 2002.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N. Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Geneva: International Committee for the Red Cross; 2009.

    Google Scholar 

  • Munoz-Rojas D, Fresard J-J. The roots of behavior in war: understanding and preventing IHL violations. Int Rev Red Cross. 2005;86(853):189–206.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nabulsi K. Evolving concepts of civilians and belligerents: one hundred years after the Hague peace conference. In: Chesterman S, editor. Civilians in war. Boulder: Lynne Riener; 2001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen K. Violence and terrorism: its uses and abuses. In: Leiser BM, editor. Values in conflict. New York: Macmillian; 1981.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pape RA. The strategic logic of suicide terrorism. Am Polit Sci Rev. 2003;97(3):343–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Provost R. The International Committee of the red Widget? The diversity debate and international humanitarian law. Isr Law Rev. 2007;40:614.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queguiner, J-F. Direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. Report Prepared by the International Committee for the Red Cross. 2003. http://www.cicr.org/Web/ara/siteara0.nsf/htmlall/participation-hostilities-ihl-311205/$File/Direct_participation_in_hostilities_Sept_2003_eng.pdf. Last accessed 29 Jan 2016.

  • Rogers APV. Law on the battlefield. Manchester: Manchester University Press; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN. The principle of discrimination in the 21st century warfare. 2 Yale Human Rights and Development Law Journal 143 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, MN. War, technology and international humanitarian law. Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research Occasional Paper Series 2005 4.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider G, Bussman M, Ruhe C. The dynamics of mass killings: testing time-series models of one-sided violence in the Bosnian civil war. International Interactions: Empirical and Theoretical Research in International Relations. 2012;38(4):443–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shannon VP. Norms are what states make of them: the political psychology of norm violation. Int Stud Q. 2000;44:293–316.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sjoberg L. Gendered realities of the immunity principle: why gender analysis needs feminism. Int Stud Q. 2006;50(4):889–910.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Slaughter A-M, White WB. An international constitutional moment. Harv Int Law J. 2002;43:1.

    Google Scholar 

  • Slim H. Killing civilians: method, madness and morality in war. New York: Columbia University Press; 2008.

    Google Scholar 

  • Valentino B, Huth P, Balch-Lindsay D. ‘Draining the sea’: mass killing and guerrilla warfare. Int Organ. 2004;58(2):375–407.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Wolf R, der Wolf JV. Laws of war and international law. Nijmegen: Wolf Legal Publications; 2004.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viljoen F. Africa’s contribution to the development of international human rights and humanitarian law. Afr Hum Rights J. 2001;1:18.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weinstein JM. Inside rebellion: the politics of insurgent violence. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press; 2007.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilson H. International law and the use of force by National Liberation Movements. Oxford: Clarendon Press; 1988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wood RM, Kathman JD. Too much of a bad thing? Civilian victimization and bargaining in civil war. Br J Polit Sci. 2014;44(3):685–706.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, University of Colorado Denver, Denver, CO, USA

    Betcy Jose

Authors
  1. Betcy Jose
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Jose, B. (2018). Contestation in the Civilian Immunity Norm. In: Norm Contestation. SpringerBriefs in Political Science. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-69323-1_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation