How to distinguish between (il)legitimate targets during armed conflict.

What is it about?

Some of the cardinal rules in international humanitarian law (aka laws of armed conflict) are those on distinguishing between legitimate targets of attack and objects and persons entitled to protection. Combatants quickly find themselves in chaotic and stressful situations, so they are in obvious need of clear rules that are easily applicable in real life. The easiest way is a categorical approach such as: only attack those who look like you. That works best when armies meet on a secluded field in the countryside, behind banners and wearing shiny uniforms. However, dividing the world up in categories nowadays risks the protection rules becoming over- or under-inclusive. This article explores the pitfalls of a formalist law and makes the case for a functional approach.

Featured Image

Photo by Museums Victoria on Unsplash

Photo by Museums Victoria on Unsplash

Why is it important?

The human costs of armed conflict are immeasurable. As long as humanity fails in banishing it out of our lives, it is crucial to limit those costs as much as possible. This is greatly acchieved by agreeing on which targets may be attacked, and vice versa what and whom must be protected. This article aims to bolster the rules on protection by warning about current pitfalls and how to steer clear of them.