Distinction and Loss of Civilian Protection in International Armed Conflicts

Abstract

T are several cardinal principles lying at the root of the law of international armed conflict. Upon examination, none is more critical than the "principle of distinction. "I Undeniably, this overarching precept constitutes an integral part of modern customary intem ational 1aw.2 lt is also reflected in Article 48 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions ofl949. entitled "Bask rule," which provides that "the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives. "3 As is dear from the text, the pivotal bifurcation is between civilians and combatants (and, as a corollary, between military objectives and civilian objects). It is wrong to present the dichotomy, as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) sometimes does,4 in the form of civilians versus members of the armed forces. $ Apart from the fact that not every member of the anned forces is a combatant (medical and religious personnel are excluded),6 civilians who directly participate in hostilities lose their civilian status fo r such time as they are acting in this fashion although they are not members of any anned forces (see infra Section B) .