Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t7czq Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T19:04:32.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

TARGETING AND CONTEMPORARY AERIAL BOMBARDMENT

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

Marco Roscini
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

No place is safe-no place is at peace. There is no place where a woman and her daughter can hide and be at peace. The war comes through the air, bombs drop in the night. Quiet people go out in the morning, and see air-fleets passing overhead-dripping death-dripping death!1

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2005 , pp. 411 - 444
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2005

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Wells, HGThe War in the Air (George Bell and Sons London 1908) 240.Google Scholar

2 Media also have a deep impact on Western public opinions, especially when they report about civilian killings (the so-called ‘CNN factor’).Google Scholar

3 Bierzanek, R ‘Commentary to the 1923 Hague Rules for Aerial Warfare’ in Ronzitti, N (ed) The Law of Naval Warfare. A Collection of Agreements and Documents with Commentaries (Nijhoff Publishers Dordrecht-Boston-London 1988) 396 ff.Google Scholar

4 Ronzitti, NDiritto internazionale dei conflitti armati (Giappichelli Torino 2001) 259.Google Scholar

5 Therefore, air-to-air and air-to-sea bombardments are not regulated by Protocol IGoogle Scholar

6 Iraq invaded Kuwait on 2 08 1990 and the air campaign started on 17 Jan 1991, going on for about six weeks. The Coalition was formed by 34 nations.Google Scholar

7 The United States launched the attack on Iraq on 20 03 2003. On 1 May, President Bush declared all major operations, which included the massive use of ground forces, to be at an end.Google Scholar

8 NATO's air campaign against the ethnic cleansing in Kosovo carried out by the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia started on 24 03 1999. There was no relevant use of ground forces by the Organization.Google Scholar

9 In the aftermath of the events of 11 09 2001, the US-led campaign against the Taliban regime in Afghanistan started on 7 Oct 2001 with air strikes against Kabul, Kandahar and terrorist training camps near Jalalabad. Kabul fell on 13 Nov and a new interim government led by Hamid Karzai took office on 22 Dec.Google Scholar

10 Gardam, JG ‘Proportionality and Force in International Law’ (1993) 87 AJIL 410.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

11 The preamble of the 1868 St Petersburg Declaration generically states that ‘the only legitimate object which States should endeavour to accomplish during war is to weaken the military forces of the enemy’. Similarly, Art 25 of the Regulations annexed to the IV Hague Convention of 1907 respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Art 1 of IX Hague Convention concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War prohibit the bombardment of undefended localities.Google Scholar

12 Under Art 50 (1) of Protocol I, a civilian is any person who does not belong to armed forces according to the definitions contained in Art 4 (a) (1), (2), (3) and (6) of the HJ Geneva Convention of 1949 and in Art 43 of the Protocol itself, ie all non-combatants. In case of doubt, the person must be considered to be civilian (Art 50 (1) of Additional Protocol I). The United States, however, does not consider this provision as reflecting customary law (see US Department of Defense Conduct of the Persian Gulf War: Final Report to Congress (1992) [hereinafter DoD Final Report to Congress] (1992) 31 ILM 627Google Scholar, and Greenwood, CJ ‘Customary Law and the First Geneva Protocol of 1977 in the Gulf Conflict’ in Rowe, PJ (ed) The Gulf War 1990–91 in International and English Law (Routledge London-New York 1993) 75Google Scholar). At the moment of ratification of the Protocol, the United Kingdom issued a declaration according to which Art 50 (1) applies ‘only in cases of substantial doubt still remaining after the assessment referred to at paragraph (c) above has been made, and not as overriding a commander's duty to protect the safety of troops under his command or to preserve his military situation, in conformity with other provisions of the Protocol’.

13 Art 51 (4).Google Scholar

14 This means, for instance, that the Russian air force has to apply Additional Protocol II in the bombing of the Chechen capital, Grozny.Google Scholar

15 Bruha, T ‘Bombardment’ in Encyclopedia of Public International Law vol 3 (1982) 54. More recently, during the Iran-Iraq war, the latter attacked some Iranian cities (1985–7).Google Scholar

16 Cryer, R ‘The Fine Art of Friendship: Jus in Bella in Afghanistan’ (2002) 7 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 48;CrossRefGoogle ScholarGreenwood, C ‘Customary Law Status of the 1977 Additional Protocols’ in Delissen, AJM and Tanja, GJ (eds) Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict—Challenges Ahead (Nijhoff Publishers Dordrecht-Boston-London 1991), 108;Google ScholarDinstein, YThe Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict (CUP Cambridge 2004) 82. See also DoD Final Report to Congress 621–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

17 Joint Services Regulations 15/2 (ZDv), paras 401, 441, 454. The Regulations, promulgated for the Bundeswehr in Aug 1992, are reproduced (in English) in Fleck, D (ed) The Handbook of Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict (OUP Oxford 1999).Google Scholar

18 Department of the Air Force, IL The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operation (19 11 1976) [hereinafter 1976 USAF Pamphlet] para 5–3. The Pamphlet is not directive in nature and does not promulgate official US Government policy, although it does refer to US Department of Defense and Air Force policies (i).Google Scholar

19 US Air Force Intelligence Targeting Guide Air Force Pamphlet 14–210 Intelligence (1 02 1998) [hereinafter 1998 USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide] paras A4.2.1. and A4.2.2.Google Scholar

20 Joint Doctrine for Targeting Joint Publication 3–60 (17 Jan 2002) [hereinafter 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting] <www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/new_pubs/jp3_60.pdf> Appendix A, at A-2. However, the United States does not consider that the prohibition on reprisals reflects customary law (Matheson, MJ (1987) 2 American University Journal of International Law and Policy 426Google Scholar). This is criticized by the ICTY in Kupreškić et al Case No IT-95–16-T, Trial Chamber II 14 Jan 2000, para 527 et seq.

21 UK Ministry of Defence The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (OUP Oxford 2004) [hereinafter 2004 UK Manual] 315–16.Google Scholar

22 Legge italiana di guerra, approved by Royal Decree no 1415 of 8 07 1938.Google Scholar

23 The preamble to this Resolution states that these fundamental humanitarian law principles apply ‘in all armed conflicts’, meaning both international and internal. The UN Security Council also declared that the deliberate targeting of civilians in armed conflict is a threat to international peace and security and triggers Council action (Resolution 1296/2000).Google Scholar

24 1976 USAF Pamphlet 5–7.Google Scholar

25 Dod Final Report to Congress 610.Google Scholar

26 Amnesty International ‘Collateral Damage’ or Unlawful Killings? Violations of the Laws of War by NATO during Operation Allied Force (June 2000) AI-Index EUR 70/18/00, 14–15.Google Scholar

27 Quoted in Roberts, A ‘NATO's “Humanitarian War” over Kosovo’ (1999) 41 (3) Survival 112.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

28 Final Report by the Committee established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (8 06 2000) [hereinafter ICTY Final Report] para 90 (2000 39 ILM 1257 ff).Google Scholar

29 ICJ Reports (1996) para 78.Google Scholar

30 Kupreškić Judgment (n 20) para 521.Google Scholar

31 Voon, T ‘Pointing the Finger: Civilian Casualties of NATO Bombing in the Kosovo Conflict’ (2001) 16 American University International Law Review 1104–5.Google ScholarThe same tactic was adopted by B-52s during the 1991 Gulf War (Lippman, M ‘Aerial Attacks on Civilians and the Humanitarian Law of War: Technology and Terror from World War I to Afghanistan’ (2002) 33 California Western International Law Journal 46).Google Scholar

32 This happened, for instance, in the case of the Grdelica Gorge bridge (12 04 1999), which was bombed while a civilian passenger train was transiting on it. The pilot was able to see the target only on a tiny screen. Again, a convoy of Albanian refugees was bombed on 14 Apr 1999 by NATO aircraft on the Djakovica-Prizren road, killing about 70–75 people (Amnesty International (n 26) 37–40). The NATO aircraft was flying at 15, 000 feet and, viewed with the naked eye, the vehicles seemed military. According to the ICTY Final Report, though, ‘there is nothing inherently unlawful about flying above the height which can be reached by enemy air defences’ and ‘neither the aircrew nor the commanders displayed the degree of recklessness in failing to take precautionary measures which would sustain criminal charges’ (paras 56, 70).Google Scholar

33 Keesing's Contemporary Archives (2001) 44392.Google Scholar

34 Miller, J ‘Comments on the Use of Force in Afghanistan’ (2002) 35 Cornell International Law Journal 608–9.Google Scholar

35 See Taft, WH, IV ‘The Law of Armed Conflict After 9/11: Some Salient Features’ (2003) 28 Yale Journal of International Law 322. Art 51 (4) (c) qualifies as indiscriminate those attacks ‘which employ methods or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol’.Google Scholar The bombing of the village of KoriSa (14 May 1999) seems to fall within the provision. Night bombing was also carried out in Operation Iraqi Freedom (Amnesty International Iraq-Civilians Under Fire (04 2003) AI Index MDE 14/071/2003, 4Google Scholar).

36 The assessment, however, has to be made on a case-by-case basis. In some situations, night bombing could be less dangerous for civilians, for instance in working places.Google Scholar

37 Matheson, MJ (1987) 2 American University Journal of International Law and Policy 426–7. See also the 1976 USAF Pamphlet, at 5–9.Google Scholar

38 Kupreškić Judgment (n 20) para 524.Google Scholar

39 Quoted in Rogers, APV ‘Zero-Casualty Warfare’ (2000) 82 International Review of the Red Cross 178.Google Scholar

40 Amnesty International (n 26) 19.Google Scholar

41 Loeb, V ‘Brilliant Bombs’ The Washington Post Magazine (15 12 2002) 25. This was because, unlike in Kosovo, in Afghanistan most targets were not fixed, with increasing difficulties in identifying them.Google Scholar

42 Amnesty International (n 26) 42.Google Scholar

43 Ibid 63–7.

44 Wheeler, NJ ‘Dying for “Enduring Freedom”: Accepting Responsibility for Civilian Casualties in the War against Terrorism’ (2002) 16 International Relations 213–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

45 Herold, MW ‘An Average Day’ (29 12 2001) <www.cursor.org/stories/ontarget.htm>..>Google Scholar

46 DeYoung, K ‘More Bombing Casualties Alleged’ The Washington Post (4 01 2002) A18.Google Scholar

47 DoD Final Report to Congress 624.Google Scholar

48 Human shields were probably also used in the Koriša village, attacked by NATO aircraft on 1 05 1999 (Amnesty International (n 26) 63–7).Google Scholar

49 Amnesty International (n 35) 6; Human Rights Watch Off Target. The Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq (2003) 67–9, 72–8.Google Scholar

50 Dinstein, Y ‘The Laws of Air, Missile and Nuclear Warfare’ (1997) 27 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 9.Google Scholar

51 David, EPrincipes de droit des conflits armés (Bruylant Bruxelles 1999) 241–2; S Oeter ‘Methods and Means of Combat’ in D Fleck (ed) (n 17) 163. According to the 1976 USAF Pamphlet, ‘[a] party to a conflict which places its own citizens in positions of danger by failing to carry out the separation of military activities from civilian activities necessarily accepts, under international law, the results of otherwise lawful attacks upon valid military objectives in their territory’ (at 5–13).Google Scholar

52 Donnelly, J and Shadid, A ‘Civilian Toll in US Raids Put at 1, 000’ Boston Globe (17 02 2002) <www.commondreams.org/headhnes02/0217–03.htm>.Google Scholar

53 DoD Final Report to Congress, at 626.Google Scholar

54 This provision is considered as reflecting customary law by the United States (Matheson, MJ (1987) 2 American University Journal of International Law and Policy 426).Google Scholar

55 David, E n 51 226–227.Google Scholar

56 Garden, T ‘Iraq: The Military Campaign’ (2003) 79 International Affairs 712.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

57 The Prosecutor v Tihomir Blaškić Case No IT-95–14-T Trial Chamber I 3 03 2000 para 407.Google Scholar

58 A person who takes direct part in hostilities is not necessarily a lawful combatant: the Fedayeen militia forces were probably not (Rogers, APVLaw on the Battlefield (MUP Manchester 2004) 33).Google Scholar

59 Journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict are considered civilians under Art 79 (1) of Additional Protocol I.Google Scholar

60 Meyrowitz, H ‘Le bombardement strategique d'après le Protocol additionnel I aux Conventions de Genève’ (1981) 41 ZaöRV 22–3.Google Scholar

61 See para 445 of the German Joint Services Regulations, according to which ‘the presence of civilian workers in an arms production plant…will not prevent opposing forces from attacking this military objective’.Google Scholar

62 House of Commons Kosovo: Operation ‘Allied Force’ Research paper 99/48 (29 04 1999) <www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-048.pdf> 24.+24.>Google Scholar

63 Human Rights Watch (n 49) 21–2Google Scholar

64 Keesing's Contemporary Archives (2003) 45315; Human Rights Watch (n 49) 50–4.Google Scholar

65 Dinstein, Y therefore concludes that the White House would be a legitimate military objective, while Buckingham Palace would not (‘Legitimate Military Objectives Under the Current jus in bello’ (2002) 31 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 19).Google Scholar

66 Fenrick, WJ ‘The Law Applicable to Targeting and Proportionality after Operation Allied Force: A View from the Outside’ (2000) 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

67 Robertson, G ‘Kosovo One Year on Achievement and Challenge’ (21 03 2000) <www.nato.int/kosovo/repo2000/index.htm>..>Google Scholar

68 See the case studies reported in Human Rights Watch (n 49) 27–38.Google Scholar

69 Lewis, MWThe Law of Aerial Bombardment in the 1991 Gulf War' (2003) 97 AJIL 502–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

70 Traynor, I ‘Afghans are still dying as air strikes go on. But no one is counting’ The Guardian (12 02 2002).Google Scholar

71 Herold, MW ‘Over 200 Civilians are Killed to get 1.5 Taliban Leaders’ (6 01 2002) <www.cursor.org/stories/paktia.htm>..>Google Scholar

72 Human Rights Watch (n 49) 21–7.Google Scholar

73 Art 24 (1).Google Scholar

74 Art 24 (2). The list covers military forces; military works; military establishments or depots; factories constituting important and well-known centres engaged in the manufacture of arms, ammunition or distinctively military supplies; lines of communication or transportation used for military purposes. It is doubtful whether the list is exhaustive (APV Rogers (n 58) 60).Google Scholar

75 The 1956 New Delhi Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, drafted by the ICRC, proposed a list of military objectives, to be reviewed at intervals of not more than 10 years by a group of experts; however, even if an object had belonged to one of the listed categories, it would not have been a military objective if its total or partial destruction, in the circumstances ruling at the time, had offered no military advantage (Art 7). Another attempt to define the concept of ‘military objective’ was made by the Institute of International Law in 1969 (Annuaire de l'lnstitut de droit international (1969-II) 359).Google Scholar

76 Emphasis added. Art 48 of Protocol I gives civilian objects the same protection accorded to civilian persons (Parks, H ‘Air War and the Law of War’ (1990) 32 The Air Force Law Review 147Google Scholar). If the object is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, it shall be presumed not to be used to make an effective contribution to military action (Art 51 (3)). There is no definition of ‘military objective’ in Additional Protocol II.

77 Para 42.Google Scholar

78 Para 442.Google Scholar

79 Royal Australian Air Force Operations Law for RAAF Commanders DI (AF) AAP 1003 (1994) paras 8–4, 8–5.Google Scholar

80 Canadian Forces Law of Armed Conflict Manual (Second draft) para 516.Google Scholar

81 2004 UK Manual 315.Google Scholar

82 Parkenson, JE ‘United States Compliance with Humanitarian Law Respecting Civilians During Operation Just Cause’ (1991) 133 Military Law Review 58; WH Taft, IV (n 35) 322.Google Scholar

83 1976 USAF Pamphlet 5–8; 1998 USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide para A4.2.2; 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting Appendix A, A-3.Google Scholar

84 The prohibition of acts or threat of violence (such as proclamations) the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population is specifically contained in Art 51 (2) of Additional Protocol I and in Art 13 (3) of Protocol n, and it is also included in several military manuals (see, eg, para 451 of the German Joint Services Regulations): according to the United Kingdom and the United States, the provision constitutes ‘a valuable reaffirmation of existing customary rules of international law designed to protect civilians’ (quoted in Cassese, A ‘The Geneva Protocols of 1977 on the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict and Customary International Law’ (1984) 3 UCLA Pacific Basin Law Journal 87 n 154;Google Scholarsee also Matheson, MJ (1987) 2 American University Journal of International Law and Policy 426).Google ScholarIt goes without saying that there is no prohibition to undermine civilian morale through non-violent means, such Operation Iraqi Freedom, where Iraqi commanders also received mobile phone text messages inviting them to surrender (‘What went right?’ Jane's Defence Weekly (30 04 2003) 21Google Scholar).

85 Thomas, AR and Duncan, JC (eds) Annotated Supplement to the Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, International Law Studies vol 73 (Naval War College Newport, Rhode Island 1999) para 8.1.1.Google Scholar

86 Military Commission Instruction no 2 (30 04 2003) 3 (available online at <www.nimj.org>).).>Google Scholar

87 Doswald-Beck, L ‘The San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea’ (1995) 89 AJIL 199).CrossRefGoogle Scholar

88 Department of the Navy Annotated Supplement to the Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (1989) NWP 9 (Rev A)/FMFM 1–10 para 8.1.1 n 9.Google Scholar

89 UN Doc A/CONF.183/INF/10 (13 07 1998).Google Scholar

90 H DeSaussure quotes the examples of the 1972 Christmas bombing of Hanoi or the never implemented bombing of a depot in the heart of Argentina during the Falklands war, which would have not helped the British reoccupy the Islands (‘The Sixth Annual American Red Cross—Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions’ (1987) 2 American University Journal of International Law and Policy 513Google Scholar).

91 According to the 1976 USAF Pamphlet, the ‘inherent nature of the object is not controlling since even a traditionally civilian object, such as a civilian house, can be a military objective when it is occupied and used by military forces during an armed engagement’ (at 5–9). The Pamphlet qualifies as undisputed military objectives the enemy's encampments, military aircraft, tanks, anti-aircraft emplacements and troops in the field. According to the German Joint Services Regulations, military objectives by nature are particularly armed forces, military aircraft and warships, buildings and objects for combat service support and commercial objects, which make an effective contribution to military action (para 443).Google Scholar

92 The evaluation has to be made ‘in the circumstances ruling at the time’, thus ruling out any potential future advantage. However, this also implies that an objective which could not be normally considered as military, such as a school, may become such if it is used in direct support of the hostilities (for instance, hosting soldiers): see the case of the Basra College of Literature, mentioned in APV Rogers (n 58) 82.Google Scholar

93 At A-2.Google Scholar

94 WJ Fenrick (n 66) 70.Google Scholar

95 See Aldrich, GH ‘Yugoslavia's Television Studios as Military Objectives’ (1999) 1 International Law Forum 149–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

96 Amnesty International (n 26) 47.Google Scholar

97 Para 76. This conclusion is criticized by Benvenuti, P ‘The ICTY Prosecutor and the Review of the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’ (2001) 12 EJIL 522–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

98 Herold, MW ‘A Dossier on Civilian Victims of United States' Aerial Bombing of Afghanistan: A Comprehensive Accounting’ (03 2002) <www.cursor.org/stories/civilian_deaths.htm>..>Google Scholar

99 R Cryer (n 16) 55.Google Scholar

100 Human Rights Watch (n 49) 46–9.Google Scholar

101 See the declaration of a senior CENTCOM official quoted in Human Rights Watch (n 49) 48–9.Google Scholar

102 Tempest, M ‘Hoon: TV stations can be targets’ The Guardian (26 03 2003) <politics.guardian.co.uk/iraq/story/0,12956,922285,00.html>.Google Scholar

103 Para 7 of the 1956 ICRC Draft Rules includes in the list of military objectives broadcasting stations ‘of fundamental military importance’.Google Scholar

104 ICTY Final Report para 55.Google Scholar

105 See the 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting, according to which radio and television transmitters ‘may be a legitimate target if used by their government to support military operations’ (A-3). See also Ronzitti, N ‘Is the Non Liquet of the Final Report by the Committee established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia Acceptable?’ (2000) 82 International Review of the Red Cross 1023Google Scholar, and Pustorino, P ‘Responsabilita degli Stati parti della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell'uomo per il bombardamento NATO alia Radio Televisione serba: il caso Bankovic’ (2002) 57 La Comunita internazionale 697 ff.Google Scholar

106 The two events are expressly recalled as cases where the attack against civilian media would be lawful in the Air Force Advocate General School The Military Commander and the Law (2002) <milcom.jag.af.mil/index.htm> 547.+547.>Google Scholar

107 ICTY Final Report para 55.Google Scholar

108 This is also the conclusion of the ICTY Final Report para 47.Google Scholar

109 Amnesty International above n 26 at 54. Read the declaration of Italy's Minister for Foreign Affairs, Mr Dini, in Greco, E ‘La politica italiana durante il conflitto del Kosovo’ in Aliboni, RBruni, FColombo, AGreco, E (eds) L'Italia e la politica internazionale (Milano II Mulino 2000) 150–1.Google Scholar

110 Quenivet, N ‘Report of the Prosecutor of the ICTY Concerning NATO Bombing Against the FRY: A Comment’ (2001) 41 Indian Journal of International Law 484.Google Scholar

111 See above, n 102 and accompanying text.Google Scholar

112 Rousseau, CLe droit des conflits armés (A Pedone Paris 1983) 366.Google Scholar

113 See, for instance, the British bombing of the Ruhr.Google Scholar

114 Pilloud, C et al. Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (ICRC Nijhoff Publishers Geneva 1987) [hereinafter ICRC Commentary] para 2002 n 3.Google Scholar

115 Para 443.Google Scholar

116 Para A4.2.2.1.Google Scholar

117 See the 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting at A-3.Google Scholar

118 Air Force Advocate General School above n 106 at 547.Google Scholar

119 D Fleck (ed) above n 17 at 161.Google Scholar

120 See the ICTY Final Report, para 55.Google Scholar

121 See the list reported by David, E ‘Respect for the Principle of Distinction in the Kosovo War’ (2000) 3 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

122 Quotation from an unknown NATO spokesperson reported in UNEP/UNCHS The Kosovo Conflict: Consequences for the Environment and Human Settlements (1999) 33.Google Scholar

123 Case concerning oil platforms (Islamic Republic of Iran v United States of America) Merito (6 11 2003) para 67, available on the ICJ website (<www.icj-cij.org/icjwww/idecisions.htm>).).>Google Scholar

124 See Section V of this article. Oil production installations and storage facilities for oil products are not installations containing dangerous forces, as stressed in the ICRC Commentary para 2150.Google Scholar

125 Cotton Claims (1871), in Moore, JBInternational Arbitrations vol. 4 (1894) 3679.Google Scholar

126 Doswald-Beck, L (ed) San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea ‘Explanation’ (CUP Cambridge 1995) para 67.27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

127 Middle East Watch Needless Deaths in the Gulf War. Civilian Casualties During the Air Campaign and Violations of the Law of War (1991) 213.Google Scholar

128 Middle East Watch above n 127 at 224–7.Google Scholar

129 At A-3 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

130 Taft, WH, IV above n 35 a t 322. See also the ICTY Final Report para 42.Google Scholar

131 Crawford, JW ‘The Law of Noncombatant Immunity and the Targeting of National Electrical Power System’ (1997) 21 The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs 111.Google Scholar

132 The targeting of electricity was also carried out in the two World Wars, in North Korea and Vietnam.Google Scholar

133 The US statements are contradictory on this topic. According to a Pentagon source, ‘it was impossible…to destroy the electrical power supply for Iraqi command and control facilities or chemical weapons factories, yet leave untouched that portion of the electricity supplied to the general populace’ (quoted in CJ Greenwood above n 12 at 74). However, General Schwarzkopf declared: ‘[b]ecause of our interests in making sure that civilians did not suffer unduly, we felt we had to leave some of the electrical power in effect, and we've done that’ (quoted in JW Crawford above n 131 at 118).Google Scholar

134 JW Crawford above n 131 at 108–9.Google Scholar

135 According to MW Lewis, such attacks were due to a lack of communication between the leadership, who wanted to minimize long-term damage to the Iraqi infrastructure, and the weapons officers, who followed their targeting handbook and thus targeted generator halls instead of transformers and switching yards (above n 69 at 505–6). However, Art 86 (2) of Additional Protocol I, Art 6 of the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, Art 7 (3) of the Statute of the ICTY, Art 6 (3) of the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and Art 28 of the ICC Statute all provide for the responsibility of military commanders for the conduct of their subordinates, if they knew or should have known that such subordinates were committing or about to commit a breach of the relevant international humanitarian law obligations.Google Scholar

136 APV Rogers above n 58 at 80.Google Scholar

137 Human Rights Watch above n 49 at 42.Google Scholar

138 Keesing's Contemporary Archives (2003) 45313; Amnesty International above n 35 at 5; Human Rights Watch above n 49 at 43–4.Google Scholar

139 House of Commons The Conflict in Iraq Research paper 03/50 (23 05 2003) <www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2003/rp03-050.pdf> 41–2.+41–2.>Google Scholar

140 At 5–9. Bridges and airfield are also included in the list of military objectives contained in the Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations above n 85 para 8.1.1.Google Scholar

141 In particular, the bridges on the Euphrate and the Danube rivers were attacked. According to the Pentagon Final Report, bridges on the former were destroyed because they contained the multiple-fiber optic links that provided Saddam Hussein with secure communications to his southern group of forces (C Greenwood above n 12 at 74). In Yugoslavia, more than 20 road and rail bridges were damaged or destroyed and some roads and all railway lines to Kosovo were interrupted, in order to hinder the movement of Serb forces (House of Commons above n 62 at 26).Google Scholar

142 House of Commons Operation Enduring Freedom and the Conflict in Afghanistan Research paper 01/81 (31 10 2001) <www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp2001/rp01-081.pdf> 18.+18.>Google Scholar

143 Keesing's Contemporary Archives (2003) 45318.Google Scholar

144 Rowe, P ‘Kosovo 1999: The Air Campaign—Have the Provisions of Additional Protocol I Withstood the Test?’ (2000) 82 International Review of the Red Cross 152.Google Scholar

145 Human Rights Watch Civilian Deaths in the NATO Air Campaign (7 02 2000) <www.hrw.org/reports/2000/nato>..>Google Scholar

146 This would not be true in the light of the 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting.Google Scholar

147 Y Dinstein above n 50 at 57.Google Scholar

148 The 1956 list include only ‘[t]hose of the lines and means of communication (railway lines, roads, bridges, tunnels and canals) which are of fundamental military importance’. See also the ICRC Commentary to Art 52 (2) of Additional Protocol I, para 2021.Google Scholar

149 Emphasis added. However, aerodromes are considered military objectives by the Convention regardless of their ‘relative importance’.Google Scholar

150 C Greenwood above n 12 at 72.Google Scholar

151 US Department of Defense News briefing (28 03 2003) <www.defensehnk.mil/news/Mar2003/t03282003_t0328sd.html>..>Google Scholar

152 Quoted in ICTY Final Report, para 59.Google Scholar

153 Quoted in N Quenivet above n 110 at 484.Google Scholar

154 Amnesty International above n 26 at 35–7, 54–6, 68–70. After the attack on the Varvarin bridge, NATO changed its Rules of engagement, stopping all attacks on bridges when civilians were supposed to be nearby (Fenrick, WJ ‘Targeting and Proportionality during the NATO Bombing Campaign against Yugoslavia (2001) 12 EJIL 501CrossRefGoogle Scholar).

155 Middle East Watch above n 127 at 224–7. See also the German Joint Services Regulations, para 443.Google Scholar

156 Para A4.2.2.2. See also the 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting, at A-3.Google Scholar

157 APV Rogers above n 58 at 63 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

158 Ibid at 76.Google Scholar

159 Woods, M ‘Flipper goes to war’ (27 03 2003) <www.postgazette.com/healthscience/20030327dolphinscip2.asp>. Dolphins and other marine mammals (sea lions, pilot and killer whales) can also carry cameras and hunt for enemy scuba divers. Operation Desert Storm was the first major war in which the military made an effort to keep animals from harm and help alleviate their suffering after the end of the hostilities..+Dolphins+and+other+marine+mammals+(sea+lions,+pilot+and+killer+whales)+can+also+carry+cameras+and+hunt+for+enemy+scuba+divers.+Operation+Desert+Storm+was+the+first+major+war+in+which+the+military+made+an+effort+to+keep+animals+from+harm+and+help+alleviate+their+suffering+after+the+end+of+the+hostilities.>Google Scholar

160 Nor are members of the veterinary service covered by the definition of ‘medical personnel’ (Rabus, W ‘Protection of the Wounded, Sick, and Shipwrecked’ in Fleck, (ed) above n 17 at 625Google Scholar).

161 Animals are mentioned in the ICRC Commentary of Art 35 (3) (para 1443).Google Scholar

162 Art 6 (3). Natural heritage means ‘natural features consisting of physical and biological formations or groups of such formations, which are of outstanding universal value from the aesthetic or scientific point of view; geological and physiographical formations and precisely delineated areas which constitute the habitat of threatened species of animals and plants of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science or conservation; natural sites or precisely delineated natural areas of outstanding universal value from the point of view of science, conservation or natural beauty’ (Art 2).Google Scholar

163 Art II. Animals are also explicitly taken into account in Part XI of the Convention (‘Investigations in cases of alleged uses of chemical weapons’).Google Scholar

164 Para A4.3.1.2.Google Scholar

165 This has been acknowledged by the US Department of State's Legal Adviser, WH Taft, IV above n 35 at 322.Google Scholar

166 Human Rights Watch above n 49 at 20.Google Scholar

167 The principle of proportionality is also contained in Art 24 (4) of the 1923 Hague Draft Rules on Air Warfare.Google Scholar

168 The United States acknowledges that Art 51 of Additional Protocol I reflects customary law (Matheson, MJ 2 American University Journal of International Law and Policy (1987) 426Google Scholar). However, the 1998 USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide (para A4.3) does not qualify the military advantage as ‘concrete’ or ‘direct’.

169 Above n 20 para 524.Google Scholar

170 Oeter, S above n 51 at 173. Accordingly, the balance could hardly be made by a court: see R v Secretary of State, ex p Thring, Court of Appeal (Civil Division), 20 07 2000 (the text can be read at <www.icrc.orgihl-nat>).).>Google Scholar

171 See the interpretative declarations issued by Germany, Belgium, Italy, the Netherlands and Spain. The ICTY Final Report suggests that the balance between the military advantage and the collateral damage must be made according to the standards of the ‘reasonable military commander’ (para 50).Google Scholar

172 According to Resolution 3318 (XXIX) adopted by the UN General Assembly on 14 12 1974, ‘[a]ttacks and bombings on the civilian population, inflicting incalculable suffering, especially on women and children, who are the most vulnerable members of the population, shall be prohibited, and such acts shall be condemned’ (emphasis added).Google Scholar

173 1998 USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide para A4.3.1.2.Google Scholar

174 Kupreškić Judgment above n 20 para 526. According to the Tribunal, this interpretation follows from the application of the Martens clause codified in Art 1 (2) of Additional Protocol I.Google Scholar

175 See also para 444 of the German Joint Services Regulations and the 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting (at A-2).Google Scholar

176 According to a report of the United Nations Under Secretary-General for Administration and Management, the Gulf War had ‘near-apocalyptic results upon the economic infrastructure’ and relegated Iraq ‘to a pre-industrial age’ (quoted in M Lippman above n 31 at 42).Google Scholar

177 WJ Fenrick above n 66 at 74.Google Scholar

178 Quoted in Glick, CB ‘Archeological Shields, Saddam holds Iraq's antiquities hostage’ Wall Street Journal (27 03 2002) <www.opinionjournal.com/la?id=110003253>.Google Scholar

179 ICJ Reports (1996), para 30.Google Scholar

180 Quotations from, respectively, NATO Secretary General and General Wesley Clarke, NATO Press Conference,11 Apr 1999 (reported in P Rowe above n 144 at 147–8).Google Scholar

181 Quoted in Hoffman, MH ‘Peace-Enforcement Actions and Humanitarian Law: Emerging Rules for Interventional Armed Conflict’ (2000) 82 International Review of the Red Cross 195.Google Scholar

182 Bothe, M ‘Legal Restraints on Targeting: Protection of Civilian Population and the Changing Faces of Modern Conflicts’ (2001) 31 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 43, 48–9Google Scholar; H DeSaussure above n 90 at 514; Roberts, A ‘The Laws of War after Kosovo’ (2001) 31 Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 91.Google Scholar

183 Bothe, M above n 182 at 43.Google Scholar

184 ICTY Final Report para 32.Google Scholar

185 At A-1 (emphasis added).Google Scholar

186 See, for instance, NATO Press Conference (26 03 1999) <www.nato.int/kosovo/press/p990326a.htm>..>Google Scholar

187 Para 208.Google Scholar

188 Dinstein, Y above n 16 at 4.Google Scholar

189 UNEP/UNCHS above n 122 at 33.Google Scholar

190 UNEP/UNCHS above n 122 at 39–40.Google Scholar

191 UNEP/UNCHS above n 122 at 62–4. The ICTY Final Report has argued that there are no conventional provisions prohibiting the use of depleted uranium munitions (para 26).Google Scholar

192 Other relevant provisions may be found in the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects and its Protocol i n on the use of incendiary weapons, which forbid the use of such weapons on forests and other kinds of plant cover with the exception of military necessity (‘except when such natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives, or are themselves military objectives’: Art 2 (4)). As far as international watercourses are concerned, the Convention adopted by the UN General Assembly in 1997 must be recalled, Art 29 of which states: ‘International watercourses and related installations, facilities and other works shall enjoy the protection accorded by principles and rules of international law applicable in international and non-international armed conflict and shall not be used in violation of those principles and rules’ (see Tanzi, A and Arcari, MThe United Nations Convention on the Law of International Watercourses (Kluwer Law International London-The Hague-Boston 2001) 68–73Google Scholar). Finally, protection to the natural environment in time of armed conflict is also provided in some soft law instruments, such as the 1972 Stockholm Declaration (Principle 26), the World Charter for Nature (para 5), the 1992 Rio Declaration on Environment and Development (Principle 24), the Agenda 21 (para 39.6 (a)), General Assembly Resolutions 47/37 of 25 Nov 1992 and 49/50 of 9 Dec 1994. The 1976 Geneva Convention on the Prohibition of Military or Any Hostile Use of Environmental Modification Techniques, entered into force on 5 Oct 1978, is more aimed at the possible future achievements of military technology such as the control over earthquakes and hurricanes, than to environmental damages caused by bombardments with existing weapons, and therefore will not be examined in depth here.

193 Art 35 (3): ‘It is prohibited to employ methods or means of warfare which are intended, or may be expected, to cause widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment’.Google Scholar

194 Art 55 (1): ‘Care shall be taken in warfare to protect the natural environment against widespread, long-term and severe damage. This protection includes a prohibition of the use of methods or means of warfare which are intended or may be expected to cause such damage to the natural environment and thereby to prejudice the health or survival of the population.’Google Scholar

195 There are no provisions specifically protecting the environment in Additional Protocol n. The only protection comes indirectly from Art 14 (which protects the objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population) and from Art 15 (prohibition to attack works and installations containing dangerous forces).Google Scholar

196 Unlike Art 8 (2) (b) (iv) of the ICC Statute, which requires that the attack be intentional.Google Scholar

197 Emphasis added. Unlike Art 35, Art 55 adds the further requirement of the prejudice to the health or survival of the population. ‘Health’ is used in a broad sense and the connection with ‘survival’ means that temporary, short terms and not serious effects are not contemplated within the provision (Bothe, MPartsch, KJSolf, WANew Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary to the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Nijhoff Publishers The Hague-Boston 1982) 346–7).Google Scholar

198 Emphasis added.Google Scholar

199 Rapport explicatif of the En-Mod Convention (understanding to Art I). According to the German Joint Services Regulations ‘“widespread”, “long-term”, and “severe” damage to the natural environment is a major interference with human life or natural resources which considerably exceeds the battlefield damage to be regularly expected in a war’ (paras 401, 403).Google Scholar

200 ICRC Commentary, para 1454. See also, as far as naval warfare is concerned, N Ronzitti ‘Le droit humanitaire applicable aux conflits armés en mer’ Recueil des cours de l'AcadÉmie de droit international de La Haye (1993-V) 109–10.Google Scholar

201 Bothe, M, Partsch, KJ, and Solf, WA above n 197 at 348; S Oeter above n 51 at 118.Google Scholar

202 E David above n 51 at 266.Google Scholar

203 However, the ICTY Final Report concluded that ‘[t]here is no specific treaty provision which prohibits or restricts the use of cluster bombs although, of course, cluster bombs must be used in compliance with the general principles applicable to the use of all weapons’ (para 27).Google Scholar

204 Para 17.Google Scholar

205 Schmitt, MN ‘War and the Environment: Fault Lines in the Prescriptive Landscape’ (1999) 37 Archiv des Volkerrecht 127.Google Scholar

206 Para 15. See also A Cassese above n 84 at 54Google Scholar

207 ICJ Reports (1996) para 31.Google Scholar

208 Remarks of Matheson, MJ (1987) 2 American University Journal of International Law and Policy 424.Google Scholar

209 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting A-6; The Commander's Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations above n 85 para 8.1.3. No specific environmental considerations appear in the 1976 USAF Pamphlet.Google Scholar

210 2004 UK Manual 315.Google Scholar

211 Council decision 2003/222/CFSP of 21 Mar 2003.Google Scholar

212 In any case, in the most recent conflicts the precise number of civilian casualties has proved impossible to establish, due to difficulties in obtaining independent verification.Google Scholar

213 Human Rights Watch above n 49 at 16.Google Scholar

214 The only exception is the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Art 1 (4) of which takes into account ‘armed conflicts which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination, as enshrined in the Charter of the United Nations and the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Co-operation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’. The Protocol, however, does not provide for specific rules for this kind of conflict, but submit them to the same provisions as those for international ones.Google Scholar

215 See, eg, the 2002 US Joint Doctrine for Targeting at A-4.Google Scholar

216 Kupreškić Judgment above n 20 para 525.Google Scholar

217 Bothe, M, Partsch, KJ, and Solf, WA above n 197 at 325.Google Scholar

218 See the Rules of engagement distributed to the US military forces in Iraq, according to which attacks on the enemy infrastructure, lines of communication and economic objects must be aimed at disabling and disrupting, avoiding distraction if possible (reported in Human Rights Watch above n 49 at 138–9).Google Scholar

219 Garden, T above n 56 at 709–10.Google Scholar