The Duty to Investigate Civilian Casualties During Armed Conflict and Its Implementation in Practice

  • Alon Margalit
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 15)


This article explores the duty to investigate civilian casualties during armed conflict. It considers the circumstances in which a State is obliged under the Law of Armed Conflict to investigate civilian casualties caused by its armed forces. The article further discusses in what manner, once the duty to investigate materializes, it should be carried out drawing a distinction between a formal criminal investigation and a more flexible procedure which is referred to as a post-attack review.


Civilian casualties Investigation Precautions War crimes Command investigations Armed conflict Human rights law 


  1. ACRI (Association for Civil Rights in Israel) (2011a) Submission to the Turkel Commission (‘ACRI Submission’). Accessed 22 May 2013.
  2. ACRI (Association for Civil Rights in Israel) (2011b) Testimony in front of the Turkel Commission. <>. Accessed 21 May 2013.
  3. AIHRC (2008) From Hope to Fear: An Afghan Perspective on Operations of Pro-Government Forces in Afghanistan.Google Scholar
  4. Annex (2010) Annex to the Battle-Group Operational Order Based on Task Force Helmand (TFH) Policy (2010) (document MIV004963 annexed to witness statement by Deputy Assistant Chief of Staff Col Rufus McNeil in front of the Baha Mousa Inquiry) (‘Battle-Group Operational Order’). Accessed 22 May 2013.
  5. Boothby W (2012) The Law of Targeting. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  6. B’tselem (2010) Void of Responsibility: Israel Military Policy Not to Investigate Killings of Palestinians by Soldiers. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  7. CIVIC (Campaign for innocent victims in conflict) (2010) Addressing Civilian Harm in Afghanistan: Policies and Practices of International Forces. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  8. Commission on Human Rights (2006) Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions: Report of the Special Rapporteur. (E/CN.4/2006/53, 8 March 2006) (‘Report of the Special Rapporteur’).Google Scholar
  9. Cohen A, Shany S (2011) Beyond the Grave Breaches Regime: The Duty to Investigate Alleged Violations of International Law Governing Armed Conflicts. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 14:37–84.Google Scholar
  10. Crawford J (2008) State Responsibility. In Wolfrum R (ed), Max Planck Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, Online ed, Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Yesh Din (2011) Alleged Investigation: The Failure of Investigations into Offenses Committed by IDF Soldiers Against Palestinians. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  12. Deputy Chief of the Defence Staff (2009) Direction for International Operations (DDIO). Accessed 22 May 2013.
  13. Dinstein Y (2009) Terrorism and Afghanistan. In: Schmitt M (ed) The War in Afghanistan: A Legal Analysis, International Law Studies Naval War College, Newport, 85:43–55.Google Scholar
  14. Dinstein Y (2011) LOAC and Attempts to Abuse or Subvert It, International Law Studies 87:483–496.Google Scholar
  15. DoD (Department of Defence) (2006) Directive 2311.01E Law of War Program. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  16. Droege C (2008) Elective Affinities? Human Rights and Humanitarian Law. International Review of the Red Cross 90:501-548.Google Scholar
  17. Garraway C and Watts S (2012) Accountability for Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict: A Duty to Investigate and Prosecute? Chatham House, International Law Programme Meeting Summary. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  18. Groeben C von der (2010) Criminal Responsibility of German Soldiers in Afghanistan: The Case of Colonel Klein, German Law Journal 11:469–492.Google Scholar
  19. Henckaerts J, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law vol. I (‘ICRC Study’), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  20. Human Rights Watch (2003) Off Target: the Conduct of the War and Civilian Casualties in Iraq.Google Scholar
  21. Human Rights Watch (2005) Promoting Impunity: Israel’s Failure to Investigate Wrongdoing.Google Scholar
  22. Human Rights Committee (2004) General Comment No. 31: Nature of the General Legal Obligation Imposed on States Parties to the Covenant.Google Scholar
  23. International Law Commission (2001) Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for Internationally Wrongful Acts, with Commentaries. Yearbook of International Law Commission II(2):31–143.Google Scholar
  24. ISAF (2009) ISAF Commander’s Counterinsurgency Guidance docu/official_texts/counterinsurgency_guidance.pdf. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  25. Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School (2008) Forged in the Fire: Lessons Learned from Military Operations 1994-2008. US Army, Charlottesville Virginia.Google Scholar
  26. Margalit A (2012) Did LOAC Take the Lead? Reassessing Israel’s Targeted Killing of Salah Shehadeh and the Subsequent Calls for Criminal Accountability. Journal of Conflict & Security Law 17:147–173.Google Scholar
  27. Military Police Technical Directive (Op Archer) (2006) cited in Military Police Complaints Commission (MPCC) (23 April 2009) Chairperson’s Final Report Concerning the Afghan Detainees (MPCC 2007-003). Accessed 22 May 2013.
  28. MoD (Ministry of Defence UK) (2004) Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict.Google Scholar
  29. NATO (2009) Afghanistan Report Accessed 22 May 2013.
  30. Office of Judge Advocate General Canada (2001) Code of Conduct for CF Personnel Accessed 22 May 2013.
  31. Rogers A (2004) Law on the Battlefield. Juris Publishing, New York.Google Scholar
  32. Report of the Somalia Commission of Inquiry 1997. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  33. Sandoz Y et al. (1987) Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, Geneva.Google Scholar
  34. Schmitt M (2011) Investigating Violations of International Law in Armed Conflict. Harvard National Security Journal 2:31–84.Google Scholar
  35. Turkel Commission (2013) Turkel Commission: Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (2013) Second Report: Israel’s Mechanisms for Examining and Investigating Complaints and Claims of Violations of the Laws of Armed Conflict According to International Law (‘Turkel Report’) Accessed 22 May 2013.
  36. Uhler O et al. (1958) Commentary on the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 Volume IV. ICRC, Geneva.Google Scholar
  37. UN Human Rights Council (2009) A/HRC/12/48 Report of the UN Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (‘Goldstone Report’) Accessed 22 May 2013.
  38. UN Human Rights Council (2010) A/HRC/15/50 Report of the Committee of Independent Experts Accessed 22 May 2013.
  39. UN Human Rights Council (2011) A/HRC/16/24 Report of the Committee of Independent Experts in International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law Established Pursuant to Council Resolution 13/9. Accessed 22 May 2013.
  40. Watkin K (2004) Controlling the Use of Force: a Role for Human Rights Norms in Contemporary Armed Conflict. American Journal of International Law 98:1–34.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. ASSER PRESS, The Hague, The Netherlands, and the author(s) 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations