Civilians in war
▻http://ottawacitizen.com/news/world/civilians-in-war
The law of armed conflict doesn’t directly define civilians except as non-combatants.
The official history of the civilian is that since the codification of the laws of armed conflict in the Hague and Geneva Conventions, civilians are increasingly protected by international law. Armed forces publicly declare the importance of protecting, sparing, and liberating civilians. Ideal civilians doesn’t exist. Where people live under military occupation figuring as liberation, they engage in nonviolent political action against foreign rule instead of patiently waiting for deliverance.
Underneath the official celebratory story about international law’s protection of civilians lurks another story: The codification of the international law of armed conflict in the late 19th and early 20th century has coincided with immense atrocities, not only in the two World Wars, but also in countless colonial wars that were not even recognized as wars.
International law has done little to curb this violence and much to hide it. For example, in 1925, in response to a Syrian revolt against the French “protectorate” under the auspices of the League of Nations, French troops bombed Damascus, a city that was not defended by anyone other than the French forces themselves, killing hundreds of residents. At the time, many international lawyers deplored the bombardment. Yet they also agreed that since this was a not an international war, but a domestic police action, the rules of international law don’t apply.
We have come a long way since the 1920s, but we need to remember that the international law of armed conflict was, by agreement of the colonial powers, not intended to protect colonized peoples from oppression . For example, the term civilian originally applied to white European servants and non-military personnel engaged in colonial rule. The colonial powers insisted on the protection of “their” civilians but did not legally recognize civilians among the people under their rule. Before civilians are killed, their civilian status is challenged or erased, and international law has been repeatedly called upon to justify these erasures.
We see echoes of this history in the Israeli Defence Forces’ persistent efforts to disqualify Palestinians from the status of civilian. Palestinians in Gaza live in inescapable proximity to Hamas combatants. They are exposed to the gaze of Israeli drones whose operators equate spatial proximity with association and guilt as well as to the terrifying force of Israeli bombs. They are also exposed to an international context in which many are quick to condemn the violence of non-state militaries like as Hamas and slow to condemn the violence of state armed forces like the IDF. When the footage of the boys killed on the beach emerged, we watched in horror. It is certainly wrong to kill children. Yet when we see children being shot dead, we also need to acknowledge the ways in which we have dehumanized and demonized their families and friends who are no longer children and whose deaths become less noteworthy because we are less convinced of their innocence.
International law is often championed as a tool against violence and dehumanization, but the history of international law is entwined with histories of colonialism, oppression and racism. When we turn to international law, we need to be cognizant of this past and ask ourselves how we use this law and this history: to lessen violence, or to justify it; to analyze oppression, or to gloss over it. We must pay attention to civilian casualties, and we must also pay attention to the ways that the categories of combatant and civilian are constructed.
#civils #droit international #victimes_civiles
