Advertisement

Precautions in Attack and Urban and Siege Warfare

  • Jeroen C. van den BoogaardEmail author
  • Arjen Vermeer
Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 20)

Abstract

Many armed conflicts rage in urban areas, where it is particularly difficult for attackers to prevail over their enemy without causing extensive civilian casualties and destruction to civilian infrastructure. This chapter aims to provide a general overview of the legal obligations of the parties to armed conflicts with regard to precautions in attack, particularly in urban and siege warfare.

Keywords

Precautions in attack Siege Urban warfare Feasibility Targeting Proportionality 

References

Articles, Books and Other Documents

  1. Arreguín-Toft I (2005) How the Weak Win Wars: a theory of asymmetric conflict. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  2. Barber P (1993) Scuds, Shelters and Retreating Soldiers: The Laws of Aerial Bombardment and the Gulf War. Alberta Law Review 31:662–691Google Scholar
  3. 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 Review 46:271–315CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baruch PS, Neuman N (2011) Warning Civilians Prior to Attack under International Law: Theory and Practice. International Law Studies 87:359–412Google Scholar
  5. Belt SW (2000) Missiles over Kosovo: Emergence, lex lata, of a customary norm requiring the use of precision munitions in urban areas. Naval Law Review 47:115–175Google Scholar
  6. Blank LR (2010) The Application of IHL in the Goldstone Report: A Critical Commentary. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 12:347–402Google Scholar
  7. Boothby WH (2012) The Law of Targeting. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Boothby WH (2014) The Changing Legal Spectrum of Conflict. T.M.C. Asser Press, The HagueCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bothe M, Partsch KJ, Solf WA (2013) New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts: Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 2nd edn. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Leiden/BostonGoogle Scholar
  10. Carnahan BM (1982) “Linebacker II” and Protocol I: The Convergence of Law and Professionalism. The American University Law Review 31:861–870Google Scholar
  11. Corn GS (2015) War, Law, and the Oft Overlooked Value of Process as a Precautionary Measure. Pepperdine Law Review 42:419–466Google Scholar
  12. Dill J (2014) Israel’s Use of Law and Warnings in Gaza. Opinio Juris. http://opiniojuris.org/2014/07/30/guest-post-israels-use-law-warnings-gaza/. Accessed 20 April 2018
  13. Dinstein Y (1991) Siege Warfare and the Starvation of Civilians. In: Delissen AJM, Tanja GJ (eds) Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead: Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Dordrecht/Boston, pp 145–152Google Scholar
  14. Dinstein Y (2002) Discussion. International Law Studies 78:215–216Google Scholar
  15. Dinstein Y (2010) The Conduct of Hostilities Under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 2nd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Federal Political Department (ed) (1977) Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Geneva (1974–1977), Volume XIV. Federal Political Department, BernGoogle Scholar
  17. Fleck D (2013) The Handbook on International Humanitarian Law, 3rd edn. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  18. Foulk VL (2007) The Battle for Fallujah: Occupation, Resistance and Stalemate in the War in Iraq. McFarland Publishers, JeffersonGoogle Scholar
  19. Gardam JG (2004) Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Geiss R (2006) Asymmetric Conflict Structures. International Review of the Red Cross 88:757–777CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Gross O (2015) The New Way of War: Is There A Duty to Use Drones? Florida Law Review 67:1–72Google Scholar
  22. Heintschel von Heinegg W (2011) Asymmetric Warfare: How to Respond? Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 41:31–48Google Scholar
  23. Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005a) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005b) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume II: Practice. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  25. Henderson I (2009) The Contemporary Law of Targeting. Brill Nijhoff, LeidenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. HPCR (2010) Commentary on the HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Cambridge MAGoogle Scholar
  27. ICRC (1956) Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers Incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/xsp/.ibmmodres/domino/OpenAttachment/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/FEA0B928100D3135C12563CD002D6C10/FULLTEXT/Draft-ICRC-Rules-1956-EN.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018
  28. ICRC (1969) Report submitted by the International Committee of the Red Cross to the XXIst International Conference of the Red Cross, Istanbul, September 1969, on the Reaffirmation and Development of the Laws and Customs Applicable in Armed Conflict (Item 4 a, band e of the Provisional Agenda of the Commission on International Humanitarian Law and Relief to Civilian Populations in the Event of Armed Conflict). https://www.icrc.org/en/download/file/11556/review-876-all.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018
  29. ICRC (1973) Draft Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949: Commentary. International Committee of the Red Cross, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  30. ICRC (2010) Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law. https://www.icrc.org/en/publication/0990-interpretive-guidance-notion-direct-participation-hostilities-under-international. Accessed 20 April 2018
  31. ICRC (2015) Report on the Expert Meeting on Explosive Weapons in Populated Areas. https://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-4244.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018
  32. ICRC (2017) New Report - When War Moves to Cities: Protection of Civilians in Urban Areas. http://intercrossblog.icrc.org/blog/new-report-when-war-moves-to-cities-protection-of-civilians-in-urban-areas. Accessed 20 April 2018
  33. ICTY (2008) Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing Campaign Against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. http://www.icty.org/sid/10052#IVB4. Accessed 20 April 2018
  34. ILA Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities (2014) Interim Report. https://ila.vettoreweb.com/Storage/Download.aspx?DbStorageId=1546&StorageFileGuid=329de087-ce90-455c-a2fb-1cb4178079b0. Accessed 20 April 2018
  35. ILA Study Group on the Conduct of Hostilities (2017) Final Report. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 19:287–336Google Scholar
  36. Jensen ET (2016) Precautions against the Effects of Attacks in Urban Areas. International Review of the Red Cross 98:147–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. John-Hopkins M (2010) Regulating the Conduct of Urban Warfare: Lessons from Contemporary Asymmetric Armed Conflicts. International Review of the Red Cross 92:469–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Joint Chiefs of Staff (2013) Joint Urban Operations. http://www.jcs.mil/Portals/36/Documents/Doctrine/pubs/jp3_06.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018
  39. Kalshoven F, Zegveld L (2011) Constraints on the Waging of War, 4th edn. International Committee of the Red Cross, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  40. Lesaffer R (2007) Siege Warfare in the Early Modern Age. In: Perrau-Saussine A, Murphy JB (eds) The Nature of Customary Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 176–202Google Scholar
  41. Margalit A (2014) The Duty to Investigate Civilian Casualties During Armed Conflict and Its Implementation in Practice. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 15:155–158Google Scholar
  42. Pratzner PR (2016) The Current Targeting Process. In: Ducheine PAL, Schmitt MN, Osinga FPB (eds) Targeting: The Challenges of Modern Warfare. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague, pp 77–97Google Scholar
  43. Quéguiner JF (2006) Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities. International Review of the Red Cross 88:793–821CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Roberts A, Guelff R (2000) Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd edn. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  45. Robinson I, Nohle E (2017) Proportionality and precautions in attack: The reverberating effects of using explosive weapons in populated areas. International Review of the Red Cross 98:107–145CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Rogers APV (2008) The Principle of Proportionality. In: Hensel HM (ed) The Legitimate Use of Military Force: The Just War Tradition and the Customary Law of Armed Conflict. Ashgate, AldershotGoogle Scholar
  47. Rogers APV (2012) Law on the Battlefield, 3rd edn. Manchester University Press, ManchesterGoogle Scholar
  48. Sandoz Y, Swinarski C, Zimmermann B (eds) (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers/International Committee of the Red Cross, GenevaGoogle Scholar
  49. Sassòli M, Quintin A (2014) Active and Passive Precautions in Air and Missile Warfare. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 44:69–123Google Scholar
  50. Schindler D, Toman J (2004) The Laws of Armed Conflicts: A Collection of Conventions, Resolutions, and Other Documents, 4th edn. Brill Nijhoff, LeidenGoogle Scholar
  51. Schmitt MN (2007a) Asymmetric Warfare and International Humanitarian Law. In: Heintschel von Heinegg W, Epping V (eds) International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges: Symposium in Honour of Knut Ipsen. Springer, Berlin/Heidelberg, pp 11–48Google Scholar
  52. Schmitt MN (2007b) The Law of Targeting. In: Wilmshurst E, Breau S (eds) Perspectives on the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 131–168Google Scholar
  53. Schmitt MN (2010) Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance. Virginia Journal of International Law 50:796–839Google Scholar
  54. Schmitt MN (2012) Foreword. In: Boothby WH (ed) The Law of Targeting. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp vii–ixGoogle Scholar
  55. State of Israel (2015) The 2014 Gaza Conflict, 7 July – 26 August 2014. Factual and Legal Aspects. http://mfa.gov.il/ProtectiveEdge/Documents/2014GazaConflictFullReport.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018
  56. The Netherlands Ministry of Defence (1993) Voorschrift [Rule] 27-412/1Google Scholar
  57. The White House (2016) Executive Order – United States Policy on Pre- and Post-Strike Measures to Address Civilian Casualties in U.S. Operations Involving the Use of Force, 1 July 2016. https://obamawhitehouse.archives.gov/the-press-office/2016/07/01/executive-order-united-states-policy-pre-and-post-strike-measures. Accessed 20 April 2018
  58. Tzu S (1981) The Art of War (transl. Lionel Giles). Hodder and StoughtonGoogle Scholar
  59. United Kingdom (2004) The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  60. United States Department of War (1883) Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Orders No. 100, 24 April 1883Google Scholar
  61. Van Den Boogaard JC (2017) Knock on the Roof: Legitimate Warning or Method of Warfare? Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 19:183–203Google Scholar
  62. Vautravers A (2010) Military Operations in Urban Areas. International Review of the Red Cross 92:437–452CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Watts S (2014) Under Siege: International Humanitarian Law and Security Council Practice Concerning Urban Siege Operations. Research and Policy Paper, Counterterrorism and Humanitarian Engagement Project. http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/cheproject/files/2013/10/CHE-Project-IHL-and-SC-Practice-concerning-Urban-Siege-Operations.pdf. Accessed 20 April 2018
  64. Waxman M (2000) International Law and the Politics of Urban Air Operations. RAND Corporation, Santa MonicaGoogle Scholar

Case Law

  1. Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Central Front—Ethiopia’s Claim No. 2, Partial Award, 28 April 2004, [2004] Reports of International Arbitral Awards 155Google Scholar
  2. ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Dragoljub Kunarac et al., Judgement, 12 June 2002, Case No. IT-96-23 & 23/1Google Scholar
  3. ICTY, Appeals Chamber, Prosecutor v Stanislav Galić, Judgement, 30 November 2006, Case No. IT-98-29-AGoogle Scholar
  4. ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Kupreskic et al., Judgement, 14 January 2000, Case No. IT-95-16-TGoogle Scholar
  5. ICTY, Trial Chamber, Prosecutor v Stanislav Galić, Judgement, 5 December 2003, Case No. IT-98-29-TGoogle Scholar
  6. Nuremberg Military Tribunal under Control Council Law No 10, United States of America v Wilhelm von Leeb and Others, Judgment, 27 October 1948Google Scholar

Treaties

  1. Additional Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects (Protocol IV, entitled Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons), opened for signature 13 October 1995, 1380 UNTS 370 (entered into force 30 July 1998)Google Scholar
  2. Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar
  3. Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar
  4. Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, opened for signature on 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950)Google Scholar
  5. Hague Convention (IV) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulation concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, opened for signature 18 October 1907, 187 CTS 227 (entered into force 26 January 1910)Google Scholar
  6. Hague Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, opened for signature 18 October 1907, 205 CTS 345 (entered into force 26 January 1910)Google Scholar
  7. Hague Convention (VIII) Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines, opened for signature 18 October 1907, 205 CTS 331 (entered into force 26 January 1910)Google Scholar
  8. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 12 December 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1979)Google Scholar
  9. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1978)Google Scholar
  10. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Incendiary Weapons annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, opened for signature 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 171 (entered into force 2 December 1983)Google Scholar
  11. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, opened for signature 10 October 1980, 1342 UNTS 137 (entered into force 2 December 1983)Google Scholar
  12. Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices as amended on 3 May 1996 (Protocol II as amended on 3 May 1996) annexed to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, 2048 UNTS 93 (entered into force on 3 December 1998)Google Scholar
  13. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002)Google Scholar
  14. Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict 1999, opened for signature 17 May 1999, 2253 UNTS 212 (entered into force 9 March 2004)Google Scholar
  15. St. Petersburg Declaration Renouncing the Use, in Time of War, of Explosive Projectiles Under 400 Grammes Weight, opened for signature 11 December 1968, 138 CTS 297 (entered into force 11 December 1868)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser press and the authors 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Military SciencesNetherlands Defence AcademyBredaThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Law Faculty, Grotius Centre for International Legal StudiesLeiden UniversityLeidenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations