International protection of civilian objects from destruction
moatinoon
A study on the international protection of civilian objects from destruction during armed conflicts was published by Mohammed Thammer on the site of the civilized dialogue. The author reviewed the relevant international laws and charters. According to the study, the laws of war stipulate that an attacker must attempt to distinguish between military and civilian objectives if he does not commit a war crime of indiscriminate attack. If the attack results in excessive, intentionally unnecessary damage, it is also guilty of arbitrary destruction.
The Hague Convention of 1907 prohibits the destruction or seizure of the enemys property unless such destruction or seizure is inevitably required by the necessities of war. It is forbidden to attack or shell towns, villages, homes and unprotected buildings, regardless of the means used. Before proceeding with the bombing, the commander of the attacking units must do his utmost to warn the authorities, except in cases of forcible attack. In the event of a blockade or bombing, all necessary measures must be taken to avoid, as far as possible, attacks on buildings dedicated to worship, the arts, science, charitable works, historical monuments, hospitals and sites where sick and wounded are collected, provided that, in the circumstances then prevailing, they are not used for military purposes.
Those trapped must place on these buildings or places of assembly specific visible marks to be notified in advance of the enemy. On this basis, it can be said that the Hague Conventions have referred to three means of protecting cultural property and institutions: To follow the necessary protective measures in order to attach them to the language and interpretation of this content. This means should be applied in the circumstances of the blockade or the throwing of any weapon technique used, and the shooting requirements, to identify the firing sites and avoid the spread of shelling beyond the throwing limits. It also categorically prohibits confiscation, looting, vandalism and intentional harm.
According to Mohammed Thammers study, if such acts constitute crimes under the Hague Conventions, they are also war crimes under Additional Protocol I. However, this category also includes acts that violate the right to protection of humanitarian assistance and peacekeeping missions conducted in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations as long as they are entitled to the protection of civilians and civilian objects and do not participate directly in hostilities.
In addition, deliberately launching an attack, knowing that such an attack may cause severe, widespread and long-term damage to the environment, is a clear excess of concrete, direct and foreseeable military advantage. and deliberately attacks against facilities dedicated to religion, education, art, science, charitable purposes, historical monuments, hospitals and places of assembly of sick and wounded persons, provided that military objectives are also war crimes.
Article 52 of Additional Protocol I of 1977 permits the deliberate destruction of those objects, but only if those objects make an effective contribution to military action, whether by their nature, location, purpose or use, whose total or partial destruction, seizure or disruption in the circumstances then prevailing, results in a definite military advantage, as this provision deals with a situation in which armed forces directly attack their civilian blindness.
Article 85 of Protocol I promises to launch an attack on engineering works or installations containing dangerous forces, knowing that such an attack causes severe loss of life, injury to civilian persons or damage to civilian objects as stated in article 57, paragraph II.1 ter, as serious violations if committed intentionally.
Article VIII of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court for acts such as war crimes If committed against property protected by the Convention where it includes widespread destruction and seizure of property without military necessity, in violation of the law and in a vain manner, as well as deliberate attacks against civilian sites s Republic of Korea , i.e. sites that do not constitute military objectives and attack and bombing cities, villages, homes or unarmed buildings that are not military objectives by any means whatsoever. Attacks are deliberately directed against premises, resources, medical units, means of transport and individuals using the distinctive emblems enshrined in the Geneva Conventions in accordance with international law and the destruction and seizure of enemy property unless such destruction is necessary for the necessity of war, as well as deliberate attacks against buildings intended for religious, educational, artistic or charitable purposes, historical monuments, hospitals and places of assembly of sick and wounded persons provided they are not military objectives.
With regard to the International Criminal Court dealing with such cases, judges may have a problem with regard to the deliberate term mentioned in respect of certain crimes under article VIII, which is not repeated in the elements of crimes. The court would have to decide whether there was a harmony between the rule mentioned in article 30 and the definition of intentional conduct contained in the special courts advisory opinions. Paragraph IV provides some guidance to judges on dealing with the ethical evaluation element, as Syracuses report states that the investigator does not have to prove that the accused conducted an ethical evaluation, meaning that the accused was considered acts of Inhuman or cruel, the prevailing view being that this is too clear to require greater detail in the elements of the crime.
Nevertheless, the Preparatory Committee found it necessary to provide a clear indication that the standard of knowledge required by article 30 of the statute did not apply in that regard. On the basis of this explanation in the General Introduction, it is the prerogative of judges to determine whether a particular form of conduct is not ideal or severe. It was not necessary for the perpetrator to acknowledge the moral significance of his actions, nor was it necessary for the claimant to make it more clear that the perpetrator was aware that, in the ordinary context of events, his actions would result in harm. Thus, the defendant does not accept a defence of the kind: Yes, I knew I would cause damage, but I did not know that such damage would be of such severity.
For the offence of attacking or bombing unarmed towns, villages, dwellings or buildings that are not military targets by any means Article 8.2.b. In 5 of the statute, the Preparatory Committee decided to retain essentially the terms of the Hague Regulations -- article 25 -- and not to use the terms of article 59 of Additional Protocol I, in particular the conditions laid down in paragraph 2, where the application of the Hague Regulations was more broadly established. However, marginal note No. 38 was added to the Elements of Crimes document, which is derived from a slight amendment to article 59 - 3 of Additional Protocol I.
The taking of demilitarized zones as the object of the attack is a grave violation of Additional Protocol I. The demilitarized zone is generally understood as an area agreed between the parties to the conflict, which may not be occupied or used by any party to the conflict for military purposes. Such zones can be established in peacetime as in time of armed conflict, and although article 60-3 of Additional Protocol I provides a blueprint for the terms of the agreement on demilitarized zones. This article recognizes that such an agreement may be formulated as the situation requires. The DMZs protection would cease if a party committed a gross violation of the agreement under which it was established.
It should be noted that the Washington Convention of 1922 prohibited, in article 1, the attack on merchant vessels without warning and the safety of their passengers.
