Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Rights and Duties of Civilians in Armed Conflict

  • Living reference work entry
  • First Online:
Human Rights in War

Part of the book series: International Human Rights ((IHR))

  • 38 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter examines the rights and duties of civilians in armed conflict. It argues that international law has long considered that the primary duty of civilians in international humanitarian law is to refrain from taking part in hostilities. If civilians remain inactive and passive in conflict situations, then defending, occupying, or attacking parties will be able to uphold civilians’ right to immunity, and their protection through the principles of distinction and proportionality. The realities of conflict, however, and the recognition in the 1977 Geneva Protocol I of irregular belligerents mean that this clear separation of passive civilians and a zone of conflict are unlikely in practice. Therefore, although it is agreed that, even in the complexity of modern warfare, civilians still have rights to protection under the principles of distinction and proportionality, the application of these principles in warfare is highly contested.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Aldrich GH (1981–1982) Guerrilla combatants and prisoner of war status. Am Univ Law Rev 31:871

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander A (2007) The genesis of the civilian. Leiden J Int Law 20:359–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alexander A (2016) International humanitarian law, postcolonialism and the 1977 Geneva protocol I. Melb J Int Law 17(1):14

    Google Scholar 

  • Alexander A (2019) The “Good War”: preparations for a war against civilians. Law Cult Hum 15:227

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bartels R (2013) Dealing with the principle of proportionality in armed conflict in retrospect: the application of the principle in international criminal trials. Israel Law Rev 46:271–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Belt SW (Lt Com.) (2000) Missiles over Kosovo: emergence, Lex Lata, of a customary norm requiring the use of precision munitions in urban areas. Naval Law Rev 47: 115

    Google Scholar 

  • Benvenuti P (2001) The ICTY prosecutor and the review of the NATO bombing campaign against the federal republic of Yugoslavia. Europ J Int Law 12:503

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boothby B (2010) And for such time as: the time dimension to direct participation in hostilities. NYU J Int’ L Pol 42:741

    Google Scholar 

  • Bothe M (2001) The protection of the civilian population and NATO bombing on Yugoslavia: comments on a report to the prosecutor of the ICTY. Eur J Int Law 12:531

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bothe M, Partsch KF, Solf WA (1982) New rules for victims of armed conflicts: commentary on the two 1977 protocols additional to the Geneva conventions of 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Burton JT (2000–2001) Depleted Morality: Yugoslavia v Ten NATO Members and Depleted Uranium. 19 Wisconsin International Law Journal 17

    Google Scholar 

  • International Criminal Court, Elements of Crimes (2011) The Hague

    Google Scholar 

  • Hein (1981) Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva (1974–1977)

    Google Scholar 

  • Chinkin CM (1999) Kosovo: a “good” or “bad” war? Am J Int Law 93:841

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Colangelo AJ (2002–2003) Manipulating international criminal procedure: the decision of the ICTY office of the independent prosecutor not to investigate NATO bombing in the former Yugoslavia. Northwest Univ Law Rev 97:1393

    Google Scholar 

  • Crawford JW (Commander) (1997) The law of noncombatant immunity and the targeting of national electrical power systems. Fletcher Foru World Aff 21: 101

    Google Scholar 

  • DeSaussure AL (Major) (1994) The role of the law of armed conflict during the persian gulf war: an overview. Air Force Law Rev 37: 41

    Google Scholar 

  • Dorman K (2005) Proportionality and distinction in the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Aust Int Law J 12:83

    Google Scholar 

  • Dupuis MD, Heywood JQ, Sarko MYF (1987) The sixth annual american red cross-Washington college of law conference on international humanitarian law: a workshop on customary international law and the 1977 protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva conventions. Am Univ J Int Law Polic 2:415

    Google Scholar 

  • Fenrick WJ (1996–1997) Attacking the enemy civilian as a punishable offence. Duke J Comp Int Law 7:539

    Google Scholar 

  • Freeland S (2002) The bombing of Kosovo and the Milosevic trial: reflections on some legal issues. Aust Int Law J 9:150

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardam JG (1991–1992) Noncombatant immunity and the Gulf conflict. Virginia J Int Law 32:813

    Google Scholar 

  • Glazier DW, Colakovic Z, Gonzalez A, Tripodes Z (2017) Failing our troops: a critical assessment of the department of defense law of war manual. Yale J Int’l L 42:215

    Google Scholar 

  • Heller K (2013) ‘One Hell of a Killing Machine’: signature strikes and international law. J Int Crim Just 11:89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Henckaerts JM, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary international humanitarian law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hull WI (1908) The two Hague peace conference. Ginn & Company, Boston

    Google Scholar 

  • Infeld DL (1992–1993) Precision-guided munitions demonstrated their pinpoint accuracy in desert storm; but is a country obligated to use precision technology to minimize collateral civilian injury and damage? George Wash J Int Law Econ 26:109

    Google Scholar 

  • Kahn PW (1992–1993) Lessons for international law from the gulf war. Stanford Law Rev 45:425

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilcup J (2016) Proportionality in customary international law: an argument against aspirational laws of war. Chi J Int’l L 17:244

    Google Scholar 

  • Kleffner JK (2012) Section IX of the ICRC interpretive guidance on direct participation in hostilities: the end of Jus in Bello proportionality as we know it. Isr L Rev 45:35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Koh H (2010) The role of the legal adviser keynote address: the Obama administration and international law. ASIL Proc 104:207

    Google Scholar 

  • Lewis MW (2003) The law of aerial bombardment in the 1991 gulf war. Am J Int Law 97:481

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mandel M (2001–2002) NATO’s bombing of Kosovo under international law. Fordham Int Law J 25:95

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall C (2017) Civilians with skin in the game: the law of war manual’s rejection of the ICRC guidance on direct participation in hostilities. Mil L Rev 225:259

    Google Scholar 

  • Massa AS (2006) NATO’ intervention in Kosovo and the decision of the prosecutor of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia not to investigate: an abusive exercise of prosecutorial discretion. Berkeley J Int Law 24:610

    Google Scholar 

  • Medenica O (2001) Protocol I and operation allied force: did NATO abide by principles of proportionality. Loyola Los Angeles Int Compar Law Rev 23:329

    Google Scholar 

  • Melzer N (2009) Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law. ICRC, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan JH (ed) (1915) The German war book: being “the usages of war on land” issued by the great general staff of the German army. John Murray, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Newton MA (2018) Reframing the proportionality principle. V J Transnat’l L 51:867

    Google Scholar 

  • Oppenheim L (1921) International law: a treatise, 3rd edn. Longmans, Green and Co, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks WH (1990) Air war and the law of war. Air Force Law Rev 1:1

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks WH (1991–1992) The gulf war: a practitioner’s view. Dickinson J Int Law 10:393

    Google Scholar 

  • Parks WH (2010) Part IX of the ICRC direct participation in hostilities study: no mandate, no expertise, and legally incorrect. NYU J Int’l L Pol 42:769

    Google Scholar 

  • Pilloud C, De Preux J, Sandoz Y, Zimmermann B, Eberlin P, Gasset HP, Wenger CF, Eberlin P, Junod SS with Pictet J (1987) Commentary on the additional protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949. International Committee of the Red Cross and M Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva

    Google Scholar 

  • Qureshi WA (2017) The legality and conduct of drone attacks. Notre Dame J Int’l Comp L 7:104

    Google Scholar 

  • Rabkin J (2015) Proportionality in perspective: historical light on the law of armed conflict. San Diego Int’l L J 16:263

    Google Scholar 

  • Reagan R (1987) Letter of transmittal. Am J Int Law 81:910

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rogers APV (2009) Direct participation in hostilities: some personal reflections. Mil L L War Rev 48:143

    Google Scholar 

  • Sadat LN (2012) America’s drone wars. Case W Res J Int’l L 45:215

    Google Scholar 

  • Santopadre RC (2003–2004) Deterioration of limits on the use of force and its perils: a rejection of the Kosovo precedent. St John’s J Legal Comment 18:369

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2005) Precision attack and international humanitarian law. Int’l Rev Red Cross 87:445

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt MN (2012) Essays on law and war at the fault lines. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Schwabach A (2001) Report to the prosecutor of the international criminal tribunal for the former Yugoslavia. Tulane J Int Compar Law 9:167

    Google Scholar 

  • Shotwell CB (1993) Economy and humanity in the use of force: a look at the aerial rules of engagement in the 1991 gulf war. U S Air Force Acad J Legal Stud 4:15

    Google Scholar 

  • Spaight JM (1911) War rights on land. Macmillan, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Stone R (2001–2002) Protecting civilians during operation allied force: the enduring importance of the proportional response and NATO’s use of armed force in Kosovo. Catholic Univ Law Rev 50:501

    Google Scholar 

Cases and Reports

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Australian Catholic University, Sydney, NSW, Australia

    Amanda Alexander

Authors
  1. Amanda Alexander
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Amanda Alexander .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Schl of People, Environment and Planning, Massey University, Albany, New Zealand

    Damien Rogers

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2021 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this entry

Alexander, A. (2021). Rights and Duties of Civilians in Armed Conflict. In: Rogers, D. (eds) Human Rights in War. International Human Rights. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5202-1_10-1

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-15-5202-1_10-1

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore

  • Print ISBN: 978-981-15-5202-1

  • Online ISBN: 978-981-15-5202-1

  • eBook Packages: Springer Reference Law and CriminologyReference Module Humanities and Social SciencesReference Module Business, Economics and Social Sciences

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation