Knock on the Roof: Legitimate Warning or Method of Warfare?

Chapter
Part of the Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law book series (YIHL, volume 19)

Abstract

This chapter aims to address the practice of using a “knock on the roof” as a warning before air strikes are launched in order to mitigate civilian casualties during armed conflict. It involves the dropping of non-explosive or low-impact type of munitions on the intended target. This “knock” is reportedly accompanied by other specific warnings, such as telephone calls and text-messages, indicating that the attack on the building is imminent. The knock is intended to be used on a legitimate military objective, leaving no doubt that the attack is in fact about to happen, and urging civilians to relocate to a safer place. This chapter aims to analyse whether, and if so, under which circumstances, the knock on the roof practice may be used within the boundaries of international humanitarian law (IHL), both as a warning and as a method of warfare.

Keywords

Conduct of hostilities Targeting Precautionary measures Methods of warfare Warning 

References

Books, Articles and Other Documents

  1. Allen G (2005) Limits on the use of force in maritime operations in support of WMD counter-proliferation initiatives. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 35:115–180.Google Scholar
  2. Baruch PS, Neuman N (2011) Warning civilians prior to attack under international law: Theory and practice. In: Pedrozo RA, Wollschlaeger DP (eds) International Law and the Changing Character of War. Naval War College International Law Studies 87:359–412.Google Scholar
  3. Carnahan BM (1982) “Linebacker II” and protocol I: The convergence of law and professionalism. The American University Law Review 31:861–870.Google Scholar
  4. Corn GS (2015) War, law, and the oft overlooked value of process as a precautionary measure. Pepperdine Law Review 42:419–466.Google Scholar
  5. Efroni D (2014) Challenges posed by international law in the context of urban warfare – Insights from the Operation Pillar of Defense. Military and Strategic Affairs Special Issue April 2014:81–87.Google Scholar
  6. Gaughan AJ (2015) Collateral damage and the laws of war: D-Day as a case study. The American Journal of Legal History 55:229–285.Google Scholar
  7. Hayashi N (2016) Basic principles. In: Liivoja R, McCormack T (eds) Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict. Routledge, London and New York, pp 89–105.Google Scholar
  8. Henckaerts J-M, Doswald-Beck L (2005) Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  9. Henderson I (2009) The contemporary law of targeting. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden.Google Scholar
  10. High Level Military Group (HLMG) (2015) An Assessment of the 2014 Gaza Conflict. http://www.high-level-military-group.org/pdf/hlmg-assessment-2014-gaza-conflict.pdf. Accessed 23 December 2016.
  11. HPCR (2013) Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.Google Scholar
  12. International Law Commission (2006) Fragmentation of International Law: Difficulties Arising from the Diversification and Expansion of International Law. Report of the Study Group of the International Law Commission, UN Doc. A/CN.4/L.682.Google Scholar
  13. Jachec-Neale A (2015) The concept of military objectives in international law and practice. Routledge, London and New York.Google Scholar
  14. Jensen ET (2016) Precautions against the effects of attacks in urban areas. International Review of the Red Cross 98:147–175.Google Scholar
  15. Kleffner JK (2016) Sources of the Law of Armed Conflict. In: Liivoja R, McCormack T (eds) Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict. Routledge, London/New York, pp 71–88.Google Scholar
  16. Milanovic M (2009) Norm conflict in international law: Whither human rights? Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law 20:69–131.Google Scholar
  17. Parks WH (2005) Conventional weapons and weapon reviews. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 8:55–142.Google Scholar
  18. Pouw EH (2013) International human rights law and the law of armed conflict in the context of counterinsurgency: With a particular focus on targeting and operational detention. PhD thesis, University of Amsterdam. http://hdl.handle.net/11245/1.399596. Accessed 6 June 2017.
  19. Pratzner PR (2016) The current targeting process. In: Ducheine PAL, Schmitt MN, Osinga FPB (eds) Targeting: The challenges of modern warfare. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 77–97.Google Scholar
  20. Quéguiner JF (2006) Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities. International Review of the Red Cross 88:793–821.Google Scholar
  21. 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 and International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva.Google Scholar
  22. Sassòli M, Quintin A (2014) Active and passive precautions in air and missile warfare. Israel Yearbook on Human Rights 44:69–123.Google Scholar
  23. Schindler D, Toman J (2004) The laws of armed conflicts: A collection of conventions, resolutions, and other documents, 4th edn. Brill Nijhoff, Leiden.Google Scholar
  24. Schmitt MN (2010) Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: Preserving the delicate balance. Virginia Journal of International Law 50:796–839.Google Scholar
  25. Schmitt MN, Merriam JJ (2015) The tyranny of context: Israeli targeting practices in legal perspective. University of Pennsylvania Journal of International Law 37:53–138.Google Scholar
  26. Shelton D (2003) International Law and “Relative Normativity”. In: Evans MD (ed) International Law. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 145–172.Google Scholar
  27. State of Israel (2015) The 2014 Gaza Conflict, 7 July–26 August 2014. Factual and Legal Aspects. http://mfa.gov.il/ProtectiveEdge/Documents/2014GazaConflictFullReport. Accessed 23 December 2016.
  28. United Kingdom Ministry of Defence (2004) The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict. Oxford University Press, Oxford.Google Scholar
  29. United Nations General Assembly (2009) Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict. UN Doc. A/HRC/12/48.Google Scholar
  30. Van den Boogaard JC (2011) Voorzorgsmaatregelen bij aanvallen en de legaliteit van de knock on the roof methode (Precautions in attack and the legality of the “knock on the roof” method). Militair Rechtelijk Tijdschrift (Military Law Review) 104(3):262–275.Google Scholar
  31. Van den Boogaard JC (2013) Fighting by the principles: Principles as a source of international humanitarian law. In: Matthee M, Toebes B, Brus M (eds) Armed conflict and international law: In search of the human face. Liber amicorum in memory of Avril McDonald. TMC Asser Press, The Hague, pp 3–31.Google Scholar
  32. Watkin K (2005) Assessing proportionality: Moral complexity and legal rules. Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 8:3–53.Google Scholar

Case Law

  1. ICTY, Prosecutor v Dragomir Milosevic, Judgment, 12 December 2007, Case No IT-98-29/1.Google Scholar

Treaties

  1. 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
  2. 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
  3. Geneva Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, opened for signature 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950).Google Scholar
  4. Hague Convention (IX) concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War, opened for signature 18 October 1907, 36 Stat. 2351 (entered into force 26 January 1910).Google Scholar
  5. 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
  6. Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 90 (entered into force 1 July 2002).Google Scholar
  7. Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, opened for signature 23 May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331 (entered into force 27 January 1980).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© T.M.C. Asser Press and the authors 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Netherlands Defence Academy, University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations