‘War, as it becomes more and more total, annuls the differences which formerly existed between armies and civilian populations in regard to exposure to injury and danger.’[1]

The Protection of Civilians (PoC) in armed conflict has its roots in 18th century International Humanitarian Law (IHL) protection concepts put forward by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).In 2014, we celebrated the 150 years of adoption of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, 1864.[2] It was one of the first IHL treaties that tried to regulate and limit the conduct of warfare. A recent addition to this is the Additional Protocol III, 2005 to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.

The adoption of 1949 Convention was a complicated and difficult process; however, it was able to enshrine the humanitarian ideal of ensuring the protection of civilians in a legal instrument.[3]

The nineteenth century IHL treaties referred only marginally to civilians[4]; however, the twentieth century witnessed a shift in the pattern, with PoC taking a more central role in the International Laws.

During a war or armed conflict, most victims turn out to be civilians. Thus, it becomes the cornerstone of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) to protect these civilians. This protection isn’t limited to their life, but also extend to the protection of their public and private property. Some particularly vulnerable groups, like women, children and the displaced are provided with special care by the IHL.

A comprehensive legal framework has been established and guidelines have been set up to ensure that non-combatants remain protected from the military operations, considering that these guidelines are carefully implemented from both the sides.

However, violations of such guidelines and IHL have often taken up brutal forms of death, injury, rape and forcible displacement of the civilians. Apart from this, they also have to face situations like hunger, malnutrition and conflict-induced increases in diseases.

As we observe a surge in modern day conflicts, the increase in civilians caught in the crossfire cannot be ignored. This leads to a legacy of socio-economic challenges that are faced by the victims as well as their families, for a long time after the hostilities end. It wouldn’t be wrong to state that this leaves an ever-lasting scar on the life of these people.

A rapid development in this regard is necessary to protect these civilians from the hostilities of warfare. One of the major barriers to implementation of such laws is the severe lack of respect for the rules by parties during times of war.

Analysis

Sir John F. Kennedy quoted that, ‘It is an unfortunate fact that we can secure peace only by preparing for war’.

Various countries involve in unfair war practices that include surprise attacks inside the borders of another country, surgical strikes and bombardments on civilian areas, to either take over the land of other countries or to prove their strength and induce fear.

The United Nations (UN) is constantly working to develop a mechanism to ensure PoC and has also developed it as one of its potential benchmarks, to determine the success of peacekeeping mission. This concept is gaining importance both in the international as well as regional organisation associated with crisis management.

For example, in NATO’s (North Atlantic Treaty Organization) operations in Afghanistan and Libya, the significance of PoC became a specific objective rather than a counter-insurgency strategy.[5]

The plans of regional organisation are constantly being scrutinized to ensure that state militaries comply with the IHL principles and place emphasis on the well-being of non-combatants. Even the African Union along with the UN peacekeeping missions have extended their role beyond IHL obligations to establish secure environment along with positive civil-military relations, and differentiate between combatants and non-combatants (civilians).

The main issue arises in relation with the translation of thematic discussion about PoC and IHL to concrete measures to mitigate the suffering of civilians in times of war and armed conflicts. And even though civilians are not directly involved in attacks, they fall prey to its consequences and after effects.

We have an extensive legislation when it comes to PoC. However, the problem for around past 50 years, has been applications of these legislations. A key challenge is the accountability for gross violations in this regard. Countries are often seen violating the rules and guidelines in relation to PoC, but no significant action has been taken yet, in order for it to function as deterrent and prevent other countries from involving in such practices.

Moreover, many countries view the intentional killing of civilians as a method of warfare and thus, violations of IHL in a considerable amount of cases is neither accidental nor a result of inadequate efforts to minimize incidental harm.

The pragmatic nature of IHL is visible in its constant efforts to balance the military necessity with the humanitarian considerations.[6] Unfortunately, a certain level of harm/damage to the civilians is considered ‘acceptable’ while analyzing the hostile war-like situations as it is still not practically viable to imagine war and war-like situations with zero casualties.

The IHL clearly provides that civilians, under the power of enemy forces must, in all circumstances, be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction.  It also states that they must be protected against all forms of violence and degrading treatment, including murder and torture. Moreover, in case of prosecution, such civilians are entitled to a fair trial affording all essential judicial guarantees. However, it is very unlikely that the countries involved in conflict treat these civilians in a humane manner. To the contrary, it is not an unusual site to find war prisoners facing hostile treatment and severe torture if they are captivated. Also, a trial itself is a far-fetched dream that most of them are never able to see and even if they do, the chances of it being a fair trial are very low.

Some major violations, in the past few years are listed below:

1.           Myanmar’s atrocities against ethnic Rohingya Muslims
2.          United States’ retreat from Human Rights Council
3.          Repression of Turkic Muslims in Xinjiang
4.          Syrian Civil War
5.          Israel-Palestine Conflict
6.          Serbia-Kosovo Dispute
7.          Peshawar School Massacre

However, this list is not exhaustive in nature and various other cases of severe atrocities also exist. Many civilians in or around the area of conflict either succumb to these atrocities or have to migrate to other places, in many cases to other countries to seek shelter. They not only suffer from the trauma of leaving their motherland, but also have to face conditions of sheer poverty and are often not accepted by many countries. Also, in most of the cases, they aren’t recognized as the citizens of a country and have no access to the rights and benefits available.

The choice of weapon plays a crucial role when considering protection of civilians in an urban environment. The use of high explosive munitions, such as artillery and weapons that have the capacity to destroy a large area should be kept away from civilian areas.

The UN secretary-general, in his 2009 report on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, showed concern over use of explosives in densely-populated areas as it might have a severe and indiscriminate humanitarian impact on the civilians killed or injured by the damage, along with the loss to infrastructure.[7]

Almost 60 years have passed since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions, and still deliberate attacks on and abuses against civilians during armed conflict are widespread. It wouldn’t be incorrect to refer to them as an inevitable by-product of war.

In various recent on-going conflicts, civilians have been subjected to indiscriminate attacks. It is a common practice states blame such attacks on the civilian population on the terrorist organisations or non-state actors. However, these attacks are not only the result of non-state actors or terrorist organisations, but also are preferred by state related actors.

Few atrocities that these civilians are subjected to include:

•        war-crimes like genocide
•       ethnic cleansing
•        forced displacement
•       indiscriminate attacks
•        sexual harassment and violence – including rape and sexual slavery
•        unlawful recruitment and use of children as soldiers
•       killing and maiming of children, etc

The lack of respect towards such civilians is one of the major concerns of recent times that leads to the adoption of such brutish measures as mentioned above. In USA, State and federal prisons continue to hold over 2 million people, with another 4.5 million on probation or parole.[8]

The Global Protection Cluster (GPC) is currently looking into the situation and is developing a guidance note to address the challenges faced by humanitarians and peacekeeping forces in interacting the military actors.

The UN Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA) has devised 5 guidelines to ensure PoC in conflict zones around the world:[9]

1.    Parties to conflict should avoid the use of explosive weapons in populated areas
2.    The UN Security Council should not accept attacks on children as the “new normal” of armed conflict
3.    States should ensure that civilians in conflict zones can access medical care and humanitarian assistance and enable humanitarian and health workers to work in safety
4.    States should ensure better protection and assistance of people forcibly displaced within their country by upholding their human rights
5.    States should condition their arms exports on respect for international humanitarian and human rights law

Various other such remedies and solutions have been suggested theoretically; however, we are still finding it difficult to incorporate these in the practical scenario.

Therefore, a shift of focus is needed to ensure that the proposed laws, regulations and guidelines are strictly adhered to, accountability of States in matters of violation should be increased, prosecution in cases of serious violations of IHL should be ensured, remedial and reparative mechanisms should be devised for victims and comprehensive strategies should be adopted to enhance the compliance with IHL, both by the state as well as non-state actors.

Also, we should focus on establishing peace by preventing situations where armed conflict can arise. Peaceful connections between the States will not only help us develop a better world for living, but will also help us secure and preserve various resources that are used in wars and conflicts each year thereby enhancing the quality of life.As quoted by Sir H.G. Wells, ‘If we don’t end wars, wars will end us’.

Conclusion

The IHL is a comprehensive framework of laws that aims at providing protection to civilians in midst of conflict. However, some fingers have been pointed out towards the Geneva law in recent times. Thus, it becomes mandatory to establish a more effective compliance mechanism to prevent violation of IHL.

Also, a sense of ownership needs to be induced in all state and non-state actors, to respect the rights of the civilians and ensure that no harm is caused to them irrespective of their motives and beliefs. A broader approach that entails integrated response to threats by identifying the trends that are giving rise to humanitarian concerns along with development of punitive for PoC. Thus, it becomes a common responsibility of the human kind as a whole to adopt and assume their responsibilities to protect and respect civilians during an armed conflict.