A RECENT report by the International Committee of the Red Cross has highlighted how, over the past decade and a half, the number of “non-international armed conflicts” around the world has not only increased, but also how there are often more than just two parties involved in the hostilities. One of the main pillars of the International Humanitarian Law developed by the ICRC lies in making a distinction between civilians and combatants; the factors leading to the violation of this principle form the basis of the new report. The findings show how shifting alliances in such conflicts can endanger civilian status. The first of its kind survey highlights that there isn’t really a challenge in identifying civilians despite the apparently complex ground realities.

The problem isn’t new; historically, developed invading nations have projected themselves as respecting the distinction between non-combatants (or civilians) and combatants. In actuality, this is far from the truth, with informal norms leading to subjective moral judgements that label non-combatants as ‘innocent’ or ‘guilty’. The psycho-sociological aspects of conflict, such as the influence of the groups involved, integration within the hierarchy etc can have an impact on the culture of restraint adopted by the armed forces. This environment, along with other factors such social, religious, or community ties, can lead to state armed forces targeting civilians who are either unwittingly or unwillingly contributing to the enemy’s war efforts. The report suggests that talking to armed groups, combatants and civilians exerts positive influences on all sides. It is important that IHL be made a part of local legal frameworks. State armed forces should be trained to uphold IHL; with effective sanctions imposed on those who fail to obey the humanitarian code. Meanwhile, there is a need to specify all measures that will safeguard the rights of civilians as part of a larger strategy.

Published in Dawn, June 25th, 2018