Civility, Barbarism and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law Who do the Laws of War Protect?
Book contents
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sieges and the Laws of War in Europe’s Long Eighteenth Century
- 3 All’s Fair in Love and War or the Limits of the Limitations
- 4 Cultivating Humanitarianism
- 5 Limits to the Scope of Humanity as a Constraint on the Conduct of War
- 6 The State, Civility, and International Humanitarian Law
- 7 Operationalising Distinction in South Sudan
- 8 Private Military and Security Companies and International Humanitarian Law
- 9 Protecting Warfighters from Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering
- 10 Blurring the Lines
- 11 A Step Back to Take a Step Forward
- Index
- References
7 - Operationalising Distinction in South Sudan
Humanitarian Decision-Making about Military Asset Use*
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 January 2024
Book contents
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Civility, Barbarism, and the Evolution of International Humanitarian Law
- Copyright page
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface and Acknowledgements
- Abbreviations
- 1 Introduction
- 2 Sieges and the Laws of War in Europe’s Long Eighteenth Century
- 3 All’s Fair in Love and War or the Limits of the Limitations
- 4 Cultivating Humanitarianism
- 5 Limits to the Scope of Humanity as a Constraint on the Conduct of War
- 6 The State, Civility, and International Humanitarian Law
- 7 Operationalising Distinction in South Sudan
- 8 Private Military and Security Companies and International Humanitarian Law
- 9 Protecting Warfighters from Superfluous Injury and Unnecessary Suffering
- 10 Blurring the Lines
- 11 A Step Back to Take a Step Forward
- Index
- References
Summary
The principle of distinction in International Humanitarian Law sets up two entities, the civilian and the combatant, and organises the relationship between them. This socio-legal chapter draws on original research from South Sudan to explore how this principle is operationalised in humanitarian–peacekeeper interactions. Humanitarian actors routinely invoke ‘distinction’ as they navigate operational dilemmas with respect to the use of military assets, and in their relationship with the UN Mission in South Sudan more generally. Two ‘ideal types’ of humanitarian actor emerge here. The first type takes a strict approach to distinction, thinking long term and eschewing military asset use that undermines distinction. The second type interprets distinction flexibly and balances it with other goals such as reaching people in need; this exposes a hidden conflict between the principles of distinction and humanity. Through these everyday interactions – which sometimes involve drawing lines within the civilian category – humanitarian actors produce distinction in law, in practice, and in perception.
Keywords
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Civility, Barbarism and the Evolution of International Humanitarian LawWho do the Laws of War Protect?, pp. 135 - 155Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
References
Abu-Sada, C., ed. (2012). In the Eyes of Others: How People in Crises Perceive Humanitarian Aid, New York: MSF-USA.Google Scholar
Alexander, A. (2007). The genesis of the civilian. Leiden Journal of International Law 20, 359–76.Google Scholar
Baylis, E. (2010). The transformative potential of rigorous empirical research. American Society of International Law Annual Meeting, vol. 104, 24–27 March, 2010.Google Scholar
Blanchard, L. P. (2016). Conflict in South Sudan and the challenges ahead. Congressional Research Service, September 2016, available online at https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R43344.pdf.Google Scholar
Corbin, J., and Strauss, A. (2008). Basics of Qualitative Research: Techniques and Procedures for Developing Grounded Theory, 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dill, J. (2015). Legitimate Targets? Social Construction, International Law and US Bombing, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
van Engeland, A. (2011). Civilian or Combatant? A Challenge for the 21st Century, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission Partial Award, Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims, Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5, 9-13, 14, 21, 25 and 26 (2005), 45 ILM 396, 525 (2006).Google Scholar
Escorihuela, A. L. (2011). Humanitarian law and human rights law: the politics of distinction. Michigan State Journal of International Law 19(2), 299–407.Google Scholar
FAQs: UN Humanitarian Civil-Military Coordination, Military Civil Defence Assets and the Use of Military Escorts in South Sudan, circulated internally in South Sudan, May 2016.Google Scholar
Fenton, W., and Loughna, S. (2013). The search for common ground: civil-military coordination and the protection of civilians in South Sudan. Overseas Development Institute Humanitarian Policy Group, Working Paper, December 2013.Google Scholar
Franck, T. (1995). Fairness in International Law and Institutions, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Garbett, C. (2015). The Concept of the Civilian: Legal Recognition, Adjudication and the Trials of International Criminal Justice, New York: Routledge.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inter-Agency Standing Committee (2006). Guidelines on the Use of Military and Civil Defence Assets to Support United Nations Humanitarian Activities in Complex Emergencies, Rev. 1, January 2006.Google Scholar
International Group of Experts (2017). Leuven Manual on the International Law Applicable to Peace Operations, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Kaldor, M. (2003). Beyond militarism, arms races and arms control. In Lundestad, G. et al., eds., War and Peace in the 20th Century and Beyond: The Nobel Centennial Symposium, available online at http://essays.ssrc.org/sept11/essays/kaldor.htm.Google Scholar
Kinsella, H. (2011). The Image before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction between Combatant and Civilian, Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, M. (2001). The Gentle Civilizer of Nations: The Rise and Fall of International Law 1870–1960, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leader, N. (1998). Proliferating principles; or how to sup with the devil without getting eaten. Disasters 22(4), 288–308.Google Scholar
Lilly, D. (2014). Protection of civilians sites: a new type of displacement settlement?. Overseas Development Institute Humanitarian Policy Network, September 2014.Google Scholar
Lohne, K., and Sandvik, K. B. (2017). Bringing law into the political sociology of humanitarianism. Oslo Law Review 4(1), 4–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDonald, A. (2004). The challenges to international humanitarian law and the principles of distinction and protection from the increased participation of civilians in hostilities. Spotlight on Issues of Contemporary Concern in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law, Working Paper, University of Tehran Round Table, April 2004.Google Scholar
Mégret, F. (2006). From ‘Savages’ to ‘Unlawful Combatants’: A Postcolonial Look at International Humanitarian Law’s ‘Other’. In Orford, Ann, ed., International Law and Its Others, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 , and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3, Can TS 1991 No. 1.Google Scholar
South Sudan Civil-Military Advisory Group, Guidelines for the Coordination between Humanitarian Actors and the United Nations Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), endorsed 6 December 2013.Google Scholar
Sutton, R. (2018). A hidden fault-line: how international actors engage with IHL’s principle of distinction. In Deland, M. et al., eds., International Humanitarian Law and Justice: Historical and Sociological Perspectives, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar