September 11 - A global human rights agenda

Frequently Asked Questions - Armed conflict and the laws of war

Frequently Asked Questions Prisoners, human rights and the quest for justice Basics: Why September 11 is a human rights concern Afghanistan: a vicious circle of human rights abuse What is "terrorism"? Armed conflict and the laws of war Weapons and their trade Protecting refugees

Much of the media coverage connected to the events of September 11 have used the term “war”. For example, “America’s New War” and the “War on Terrorism”. The attack on the US has also been described as an “act of war.” What does this word mean in international law?

Just as the words “terrorist” and “terrorism” provoke a strong emotional response, so does the word “war”. Describing an attack as an “act of war,” for example, often serves to legitimize the use of military force in response.

Any use of military force against targets in another state must conform to a body of international laws known humanitarian law or the “laws of war”, most of which are embodied in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. These laws were established especially for the protection of civilians and captured combatants and they apply to all international use of military force. They include prohibition of murder, torture, hostage taking, deliberate targeting of civilians and indiscriminate attacks that recklessly endanger civilians lives. These laws apply to anyone engaged in international use of armed force regardless of a war has been declared or the actions have been characterized as being part of a war.

Does AI support armed intervention?

Amnesty International neither supports nor opposes armed intervention. However, we do insist that any such intervention should only be contemplated after exhausting all diplomatic and judicial avenues and must be consistent with the principles of humanitarian law, including taking all precautions to spare civilians.

Common Article 3 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions (the main body of Humanitarian Law) requires all parties to internal armed conflict to treat humanely those taking no active part in the conflict, or who are no longer taking active part. Common Article 3 also prohibits murder, cruel and degrading treatment, torture, and hostage taking.

The fullest statement of the rules governing the conduct of hostilities in international armed conflict is in Protocol I (1977) Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 which has been ratified by over 150 states. Although the US has not ratified it, the fundamental rules on the protection of civilians are widely considered to be part of international customary law and are therefore binding on all states. The rules categorically prohibit:

• direct attacks against civilians or civilian objects (vehicles, buildings and other materials, structures or locations)
• indiscriminate attacks (attacks which do not attempt to distinguish between military targets and civilians or civilian objects)
• disproportionate attacks (attacks which, although aimed at a legitimate military target, have a disproportionate impact on civilians or civilian objects)

In addition, the rules of International Humanitarian Law require those who plan or decide upon an attack to do everything feasible to verify that the objectives targeted are not civilian. When it is unclear whether a target is used for military purposes, it shall be presumed to be a civilian object. Effective advance warning must be given of attacks which may affect the civilian population, unless circumstances do not permit.

When military action does result in civilian casualties, AI requests the relevant military authorities to provide an explanation as to what caused such casualties as well as what measures are being taken to avoid repetition of such incidents. If there is evidence that the rules of International Humanitarian Law have not been respected, a full investigation should be carried out and appropriate measures — including disciplinary or criminal proceedings — taken against anyone found responsible for wrongdoing.