Eric Jensen
Brigham Young University
Résumé
Face au développement de l’urbanisation, et tandis que les combats se livrent aujourd’hui plus fréquemment dans des zones peuplées, exposant toujours plus la population civile, Eric Jensen a mis en lumière les difficultés rencontrées dans le processus de « targeting », notamment au regard du principe de précaution et de l’interdiction des attaques indiscriminées. Sur ce point, il a tenté de répondre à deux questions : premièrement, existe-t-il une disposition légale interdisant aux parties à un conflit de recourir à certaines armes en milieu urbain, alors que l’utilisation de ces armes serait tout à fait légale dans d’autres circonstances ? Deuxièmement, le droit international humanitaire impose-t-il un standard minimum de précision qui interdirait le recours à certaines armes, parce qu’elles frapperaient, en raison de leur nature même, de manière indiscriminée en cas d’utilisation en zone urbaine ? Pour ce faire, il s’est notamment basé sur l’article 51(4) et (5) du Premier protocole additionnel de 1977 qui définit et interdit les attaques indiscriminées, ainsi que sur deux approches, à savoir la « règle des 3.000 pieds » de Mike Schmitt, spécialiste du droit international humanitaire, et la « règle des 200 mètres », développée par le Tribunal pénal international pour l’ex-Yougoslavie dans le cas Gotovina. Le dernier point examiné par Eric Jensen dans cette présentation a porté sur la question des technologies de pointe, et le rôle clé que ces dernières pourraient jouer pour les commandants impliqués dans des opérations en milieu urbain, notamment dans l’évaluation des zones ciblées et l’estimation des dommages collatéraux.
Introduction
As stated in the recent Report of the Expert Meeting on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas,
‘cities have never been immune from warfare, but over the last century, armed conflicts have, increasingly, come to be fought in populated centres, thereby exposing civilians to greater risk of death, injury, and displacement.’1 The pressures of increasing urbanisation2 across the globe,
1 International Committee of the Red Cross Expert Meeting, Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, 24-25 February 2015, p. 2, available at <https://www.icrc.org/en/document/explosive-weapons-populat-ed-areas-consequences-civilians>.
2 United Nations, World Urbanization Prospects – 2014 Revision, available at <http://esa.un.org/unpd/
wup/Highlights/WUP2014-Highlights.pdf>; Mathew Burrows, The Future Declassified, New York, St.
Martin’s Press, 2014.
combined with the fact that armed conflict move into urban areas has put stress on the law of targeting, particularly with respect to the rules on discrimination and ‘precautions in the attack.’
The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has taken a special interest in this problem3 and has had a number of conferences and discussions on the topic, including a recent confer-ence in February of this year,4 and collaboration with the International Institute of Humanitar-ian Law in San Remo during September of last year.5 At the San Remo conference, Laurent Gisel delivered a superb paper on the use of explosives in densely populated areas.6 After discussing the three types of indiscriminate attacks described in the 1977 First Additional Protocol to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and in particular the prohibition on the use of weapons which may be considered indiscriminate depending on the circumstances and manner in which they are used, Gisel made the point that ‘Warfare in populated areas is certainly a situation which might render indiscriminate particular means or methods that could be lawfully used in other situations.’7
Using Gisel’s point above, the question we will now consider is whether the law imposes on an attacker a proscription on the appropriateness and lawfulness of particular weapons in populated areas, even if those weapons would otherwise be legal.
There are many examples that have highlighted this issue in recent conflicts8 – situations where perfectly lawful weapons were used in heavily populated urban areas, leading to claims of indiscriminate or disproportionate targeting.
3 The United Nations Secretary-General also recently released a report in which he called on all parties to conflicts to ‘refrain from the use of explosive weapons with wide-area effects in populated areas.’
Report of the Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, S/2015/453 (18 June 2015), available at <http://www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/2015/453>.
4 ICRC Expert Meeting on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas, op. cit.
5 International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Eduardo Greppi (ed.), Conduct of Hostilities: the Practice, the Law and the Future, 4-6 September 2014, available at <http://www.iihl.org/37-th-round-table-on-current-issues-of-ihl>.
6 Laurent Gisel, “The Use of Explosive Weapons in Densely Populated Areas and the Prohibition of Indis-criminate Attacks”, in: Edoardo Greppi, Conduct of Hostilities: the Practice, the Law and the Future, 37th Round Table on Current Issues of International Humanitarian Law, San Remo, 2014, p. 100 at < https://
www.icrc.org/en/download/file/12571/ewpa-explosive-weapon-populated-area-2014-icrc.pdf >.
7 Ibid., p. 103.
8 Amnesty International, Black Friday: Carnage in Rafah During 2014 Israel/Gaza Conflict, at <htt-ps://blackfriday.amnesty.org/>; Amnesty International, Palestinian Armed Groups Killed Civilians on Both Sides in Attacks Amounting to War Crimes in Gaza Conflict, available at <https://www.amnesty.
org/en/press-releases/2015/03/palestinian-armed-groups-killed-civilians-on-both-sides-in-attacks-amounting-to-war-crimes-during-2014-gaza-conflict/>; Amnesty International, Eastern Ukraine: Both Sides Responsible For Indiscriminate Attacks, at <https://www.amnesty.org/en/latest/news/2014/11/
eastern-ukraine-both-sides-responsible-indiscriminate-attacks/>.
While there is no doubt that the principle of proportionality has a significant effect on the determination of what weapon should be used in various circumstances, the question being considered here is on the principle of discrimination. Specifically, does International Humani-tarian Law imposes a standard of precision such that certain weapons are indiscriminate per se if used in urban areas?
Indiscriminate attack definition
The current conventional international law on indiscriminate attacks is found in the provisions of the Additional Protocol I (AP I).9 Article 51(4) of AP I lays out the definition of indiscrimi-nate attacks, describing such attacks as:
‘(a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective; (b) those which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective;
or (c) those which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by this Protocol; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.’10
The next paragraph in Article 51 then provides two specific examples of ‘types of attacks’ that would be considered indiscriminate. These two examples are:
‘(a) an attack by bombardment by any methods or means which treats as a single mili-tary objective a number of clearly separated and distinct milimili-tary objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects; and
(b) an attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.’11
9 It is important to note that while the US is not a Party to AP I, it has accepted many of its provisions, including those discussed here, as customary law. See Michael J. Matheson, The United States Position on the Relation of Customary Law to the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, in: American University Journal of International Law & Policy, Vol. 2, n° 415, 1987, pp. 419-460 (dis-cussing which articles of AP I the US believes are customary international law and to which the US objects).
10 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Art. 51.4, opened for signature Dec. 12, 1977, 1125 U.N.T.S. 3.
11 Ibid., Art. 51.5.
The commentary to Article 51 clarifies that it first states the ‘general rule’ and then explains that the general rule will be ‘accompanied by rules of application.’12