According to a 2007 BBC Article, the establishment of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols have been a huge success in establishing and sustaining a distinction between civilians and combatants during conflict. However, I would have to argue that I do not agree. I think that it is overly optimistic of Imogen Foulkes, the author, to claim that IHL has established a norm in which civilians are not targeted by fighters. Especially as recent estimates of Iraqi civilian causalities are extremely high in comparison to US troop causalities. If the US was making a sustained effort to distinguish between Iraqi fighters and innocent civilians, then the estimates should not be as high. Also, the US is experiencing increasing pressure at home to resolve the current problem, which means that it may use increasingly harsh means to achieve its 'victory.' (Downes, 2006; and Valentino et al, 2006). If the norm of identifying yourself as a combatant was as strong as this article believes, the fighters in Iraqi would distinguish themselves from the civilian population, however, they do not. I also think that the violation of IHL is increasing as a result of US open deviance from the IHL regime as per my previous post. Also, in terms of internal conflicts, state's claim that their sovereignty is dominant and international norms and regulations are secondary to national security needs.
I do not understand how different standards can apply to internal and international conflict. Also, how is the IHL regime going to adapt to the changing nature of war and conflict? As non-state actors increasingly play a role, but do no adhere to the regime, what will happen to the regime?
I do not understand how different standards can apply to internal and international conflict. Also, how is the IHL regime going to adapt to the changing nature of war and conflict? As non-state actors increasingly play a role, but do no adhere to the regime, what will happen to the regime?
2 comments:
your comment presupposes that the US if blatantly disregarding the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. and while we can certainly argue over whether the US has been as diligent as could be, it is making the effort. it is, rather, Iraqi insurgents how target Iraqi civilians as they wait in line for aid, for job applications, and as they shop in the markets, and as they generally try and just get by. I can't make the argument that the US is blameless, but neither can the whole problem be laid at the feet of the US
You make a point about the number of civilian casualties in Iraq. The gross number is not necessarily indicative of harm done by U.S. troops. Clashes among Iraqis have led to deaths, arguably quite a few. The activity of armed groups not under the control of any government force makes U.S. caused civilian deaths really hard to determine. I would argue instead, that by not keeping nor making public the body counts, the U.S. may seem more blameworthy than it is.
Post a Comment