15 Sep Amnesty Report on Hezbollah War Crimes
Amnesty International has just released a report concluding that Hezbollah is guilty of war crimes for its indiscriminate attacks on Israeli civilians. The report is available here. Here is an excerpt from the press release:
“The scale of Hizbullah’s attacks on Israeli cities, towns and villages, the indiscriminate nature of the weapons used, and statements from the leadership confirming their intent to target civilians, make it all too clear that Hizbullah violated the laws of war,” said Amnesty International’s Secretary General Irene Khan.
“The fact that Israel has also committed serious violations in no way justifies violations by Hizbullah. Civilians must not be made to pay the price for unlawful conduct on either side.”
The briefing … is based on Amnesty International field research in Israel and Lebanon, interviews with victims, official statements, discussions with Israeli and Lebanese government officials and senior Hizbullah officials.
Amnesty International’s briefing includes evidence of:
* Hizbullah’s firing of some 900 inherently inaccurate Katyusha rockets into urban areas in northern Israel in clear violation of the principle of distinction between civilian and military targets under international law;
* Hizbullah’s use of modified Katyusha rockets packed with metal ball bearings, designed to inflict maximum death and injury; one such rocket killing eight railway workers;
* Statements from Hasan Nasrallah and other senior Hizbullah leaders that the group intended to target civilians as a form of reprisal, violating the prohibition on direct attacks on civilians as well as the prohibition on reprisals against the civilian population;
* The flight of civilians from northern Israel and the existence of shelters preventing a higher death toll than the 43 civilian fatalities recorded.
I think following reports by HRW and Amnesty concerning Israel’s and Hezbollah’s violations of the rules of war, two very important issues should be addressed: 1) what methods can be taken to hold the responsible parties accountable (both political and legal) and 2) what about third state individual criminal responsibility under rules of attribution and state responsibility.
So, what was the category of this armed conflict? If the answer is “the Supreme Court held common article 3 applies to all amed conflicts not qualifying as common article 2 armed conflicts”, where does common article 3 address methods and means of warfare? I think what is most profound about reports like this is that that reflect – actually assume – an emerging norm of what might be called transnational armed conflicts. Such armed conflicts trigger more than just the humane treatment mandate of common article 3: they trigger all foundational principles of the law of armed conflict, including rules regulating the methods and means of warfare. It is a theory I think is both valid and necessary to address the evolving nature of warfare. This conflict has exposed (perhaps in an even more compelling manner than the Hamdan decision) a simple truth: no matter how “war” is defined by diplomats, policy makers, and scholars, soldiers and the civilians who suffer from conflict know what “war” is, and more importantly when the regulatory framework of the law of armed conflict must be invoked. Condemning a non-state armed entity operating outside Israel with “war crimes” for indiscriminate targeting must be… Read more »
I was hoping to read a reaction from Professor Avi Bell to see if he still stands with his previous assertions about AI and HRW’s one-sided reporting on the recent Lebanese war.
Annabel, Amnesty only released this report after catching a virtual firestorm of condemnation from their one-sided coverage.
Why he should change his view because of their rather pitiful attempt to seem fair well after the fact is beyond me.
I am not saying he should change his view, but as he mentioned in one of his own posts “neutrality” is never neutral and the same was true about his own contributions. Hoping to read his reaction doesn’t imply that I am defending AI in this matter. My only concern is with the innocent civilians on both sides of the conflict. On the basis of my understanding of international law on the use of force and of IHL, I don’t think we can say that only one of the sides has blood on its hands. But that’s merely my personal opinion, I don’t wish to re-open the debate that has been raging on this blog beforehand. Given that this is an academic blog, I believe though that it would benefit from an “academic” approach to the debate: trying to reach over partisan goals, use a variety of sources to form a well-informed view and contribute to the debate from that broader perspective. While I acknowledge that we’ll never be able to achieve total objectivity, I see no reason why we should not strive for that. And to be honest, that’s exactly what I missed in Professor Bell’s earlier posts. I… Read more »