Following this second panel discussion, the audience raised questions on the following main issues:
1. Complementing efforts at legal and political levels to effectively enhance the protection of civilians
In the countries most affected by explosive weapons in populated areas: taking Nigeria as an example, one participant stressed that it is the wilful and planned strategy of Boko Haram that is conducive to this effect, namely to produce the highest possible impact on civilian lives, including through the use of explosive devices, or suicide bombing in markets. The question would not be how to reduce the human cost of explosive weapons in populated areas, but rather how to have International Humanitarian Law’s (IHL) basic principles respected by non-state actors and groups?
One of the panellists, however, considered that ignoring the effects that come with explosive devices or weapons on the civilian population is not an adequate problem formulation for ef-fectively enhancing the protection of civilians.
According to one of the panellists, the debate naturally revolved around the question of com-pliance with IHL rules, and the following point was raised: it is presumed that all participants share a clear understanding of what these rules require and, therefore, can determine whether something is or is not in compliance with these rules. This is very contentious, because some key rules allow a wide margin of interpretation, and there is ambiguity as to what they require in concrete circumstances. On the one hand, efforts aimed at clarifying these rules are very important, but on the other hand, these efforts are not new. This type of forum, such as the Bruges Colloquium, aims at complementing these efforts, to take the cornerstones of the legal framework and work within that framework to improve the protection of civilians. The panel-list stressed that to enhance the protection of civilians at a political level, there is no need to know whether or not that is legally required, but rather to know whether it is likely to have an effect to reduce the human cost.
2. Using the appropriate weapon at the appropriate time
Although weapons with precision-guided munitions are very expensive, one of the participants underlined that it does not negate the requirement to comply with all aspects of IHL. The question is more about where to use the appropriate weapon at the appropriate time.
One of the panellists added that in a given situation, you do not necessarily have to use the most precise weapon in your arsenal, because if you use the most precise weapon first, then later you will be left with no options but less discriminate weapons. On condition that you strictly observe the rules, any weapon can be used, although in some circumstances, it might require the most sophisticated weapons available.
Another panellist emphasised that increasing the accuracy of weapon systems might help in reducing the effects of those weapons and minimising collateral damage. Yet, precision-guided munitions are not the solution to the issue of use of explosive weapons in populated areas.
For example, with the use of large calibre munitions, even if they are precise and accurate, they might still have wide-area effects, especially when the lethal area of the weapon is big-ger than the size of the military objective. In that case, it can create significant humanitarian consequences. He also mentioned that an alternative to low-accuracy weapons is not only precision-guided munitions, but other tactics and methods of warfare. It would also be useful to consider in what circumstances and to what extent States are able to use force protection arguments.
As most of the issues that were looked at during the debate concerned the impact of weapons outside the area of the military objective, another panellist reminded us that we should not forget the foreseeable reverberating effect. To assess the impact on the military objective, one needs to take into account aspects such as the consequences on the electricity supply and services. Both the foreseeable depth of an attack, in addition to the wide-area impact, need to be kept in mind.
A third panellist also explained why the targeting process is also very important for any armed force, because it is during that process that you will make sure – at least, you will try to make sure – that the right weapon is used in the right spot at the right time. In the end, explosive devices will always harm. When armed forces have weapons which are expected to exceed the military objective, an analysis must be made during the targeting process, notably the col-lateral damage evaluation, which shows on a map where the nearest colcol-lateral concerns are located and whether the effects of the weapon will reach them directly or indirectly, or not at all.
3. Comments on the concluding remarks
One of the participants agreed with the fact that different issues need different solutions. Yet, he underlined that some issues are also related, as for example the deliberate intent to kill civilians and the fact of arguing about the meaning of the law. For instance, the clearer the law
is, the easier it would be to point to violations, but also to increase respect for the law. The participant stressed that efforts to clarify the law will also help efforts to have it respected.
Concerning the fact that the best qualified people to evaluate the effects are the ones on the ground, one of the participants remarked that in his country’s targeting process, there is a bat-tle damage evaluation done by the military on the ground after the strike, to assess whether the use of the weapon was effective or not. The results are then incorporated to improve the whole targeting process.
The panellist, however, underlined the fact that in many circumstances, armed forces cannot be sent on the ground to make this assessment and that humanitarians or other personnel may sometimes be better placed to know what is actually going on.