Reclaiming the Protection of Civilians under International Humanitarian Law

Mr. Eide based his opening statement on the following points:

Dear Foreign Minister Spindelegger, dear Austrian colleagues, dear participants,

It is a great pleasure for me to join the Austrian Foreign Minister in welcoming you all to this fourth – and final – regional seminar on “Reclaiming the Protection of Civilians under International Humanitarian Law”. I would also like to thank the Austrian Government for its willingness to co-host this seminar. Austria has been a close partner, both in the process to ban cluster munitions, as well as in other processes aimed at addressing the civilian harm caused by armed conflicts. We are all grateful for the warm hospitality shown to us all.

The previous regional seminars, held in Indonesia, Argentina and Uganda, have all demonstrated that there is broad agreement on the need to discuss how we can strengthen in practical terms the protection of civilians in today’s armed conflicts. I am grateful that representatives of the co-hosts of the previous regional seminars have made the long trip to Vienna in order to share their experiences.

The experiences drawn from these regional seminars, as well as from this seminar, will form the basis for the discussions in a Global Conference to be held in Oslo on 23 and 24 May this year. Invitations to this conference will be sent out shortly. I hope you will all join us there and contribute to making this a genuinely global dialogue on how to oblige parties to conflict to live up to their obligations under international humanitarian law. To ensure this, we need to identify concrete, practical measures that may be taken by the different actors operating in conflict areas in order to improve the situation for civilians during armed conflict.

For the last weeks and months, media reports around the world have been filled with images of civilians being killed or injured, or forced to flee their homes, in countries such as Syria, DR Congo and Mali. Such horrifying images are, however, nothing new. Nearly all the armed conflicts since the outset of the Second World War tell the same story: one of vast numbers of civilians being caught in the midst of hostilities, being killed or maimed for life, their homes and livelihoods destroyed and often rendered useless for years or decades after the conflict has ended. Civilians are affected by armed conflict in a myriad of ways. They may be killed, injured, raped, or forcibly displaced. They may also be more indirectly affected by diseases exacerbated and spread by conflict, or by hunger and malnutrition.

This does not mean that we do not have rules on how parties to armed conflicts should conduct their military operations. From the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration on exploding bullets to the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, and beyond: Over the last 150 years, international humanitarian law has developed into a comprehensive and robust legal framework, binding for all, with clear obligations to protect the civilians affected by armed conflicts. There is a need to continually review and at times strengthen existing international humanitarian law (IHL) in order to keep up with new and emerging humanitarian concerns. Still, there is also broad agreement that these rules, if only faithfully implemented, afford civilians significant protection from the effects of military operations.

Why, then, do we still see that the vast majority of victims of both on-going and recent armed conflicts today are civilians?

One of the main reasons for this is that many parties to these conflicts do not operate in accordance with IHL. In many situations, the actors faced are non-state armed groups with little organization and knowledge about the rules. It is important that we increase efforts to engage such actors in a dialogue on respect for IHL and the protection of civilians.

However, we also face actors, both states and non-state armed groups, who are aware of the rules, but still choose to operate in obvious and blatant disregard of their obligations. This is happening despite all the efforts of the international community to exert pressure on such actors to change their behaviour, and to ensure that perpetrators are held accountable for their violations of international law. Unfortunately, all too often we also see that lack of agreement within the international community as to how to deal with such situations is interpreted by some as a “carte blanche” to continue committing atrocities against civilians. This has to be stopped. We need to both strengthen existing measures and explore new possibilities in order to change the behaviour of such actors. Increased dialogue is an important tool in this regard.

At the same time, it should be stressed that most states are trying their best to abide by the law. Indeed, it is my impression that most states agree, not only that protecting civilians during military operations is a legal obligation, and not only that it is the morally right thing to do. There is also a growing recognition – including among the military, that an increased focus on the protection of civilians during military operations is also the smart thing to do. Today’s armed conflicts are not won by military means alone, and experience has clearly shown that widespread harm to civilians undermines the political goals that the use of military force was intended to achieve.

However, the fact remains that military actors often struggle to see how they are to apply the law in the complex combat situations they often face in modern armed conflicts.

We no longer live in a time when war is fought by the armies of two countries, as in the Napoleonic wars; lined up on a battlefield, far removed from the civilian populations. The conflicts of today are quite different, often involving a myriad of actors – both state and non-state actors and, often with one or more of the parties not acting in accordance with international humanitarian law. In too many cases, we see such actors hiding among or not separating themselves from the civilian population. This makes it very difficult for other actors both to defend themselves and to distinguish between those who are taking part in the fighting and those who are not. In such situations, it is absolutely essential that states recognise the fact that even if their adversaries do not follow the rules, this does not relieve them of their obligation to do so.

In many situations, to avoid risking the lives of one’s own personnel, it may seem tempting to use types of weapons that are delivered from far away from the combat scene, such as air-delivered bombs or heavy artillery. As most modern conflicts tend to take place within urban areas, this vastly increases the risk for the civilians in the area. The use of drones to carry out attacks – often operated by personnel situated far away from the strike site, with more or less accurate information regarding the possibility of the presence of civilians in the vicinity of the attack, has also caused the loss of a great number of civilian lives.

At the same time, there is also good news. In the course of the last decades, the increased international focus and continuous media reporting from conflict areas by humanitarian organisations, civil society and the media has also drastically reduced the overall tolerance for civilian losses. The development of more precise weapons has also led to a growing expectation that such weapons are to be used, and to an increased condemnation of the use of less accurate weapons.

This can be illustrated by comparing the NATO military campaign in Kosovo in 1999 with the international military operation in Libya in 2011. Norway took part in both operations. For instance, we have seen that several categories of possible targets – in particular so-called “dual use” facilities (facilities used both for military and civilian purposes) were considered legitimate military targets in 1999 were not approved as such in 2011, as the potential for civilian casualties would be higher for such targets. Furthermore, we have seen how the general acceptance for the use of weapons with a wide area effect, in particular in densely populated areas, has been drastically reduced.

I believe this is part of an on-going trend. A trend we need to capitalize on, and which underlines the need for a structured, sophisticated discussion of what practical measures the military – as well as other actors – need to take during military operations in order to enhance the protection of civilians.

Dear participants,

There are also a number of other challenges we need to address in order to provide civilians with the protection they are entitled to under IHL. To mention one of the most pressing needs, how do we protect the humanitarian workers and health personnel who are there to protect the civilians?

Every state is responsible for protecting its citizens and providing an environment conducive to proper health care. However, in armed conflicts, the state’s ability to fulfil its obligations is often impaired. It may need additional capacity to meet the needs of its people. In such situations, the humanitarian community has a clear co-responsibility for providing the necessary and life-saving relief. Far too often, we see threats and attacks against health care workers, facilities and vehicles, with devastating humanitarian consequences. These threats and attacks directly affect the security of health personnel, with the multiplying effect of fundamentally striking those who need their services the most – the victims of armed violence and conflict.

In Syria, for instance, we are on a daily basis seeing hospitals and ambulances being directly targeted by all sides to the conflict. In January 2012, the Secretary-General of the Syrian Arab Red Crescent, Dr Abd-al-Razzaq Jbeiro, was killed. The vehicle he was in was clearly marked with the Red Crescent emblem. He was one of many Syrians risking their lives and health every day to help fellow citizens in need and to save lives. According to the Norwegian doctor Dag Horntvedt, who recently spent seven weeks in Syria working for Médecins Sans Frontières, there is a dire need for medical services. However, many people are afraid of seeking medical assistance.

How are we to address this? The ICRC “Health Care in Danger” initiative seeks to find solutions to these challenges – in both armed conflicts and other situations involving widespread armed violence. In addition to supporting this initiative, we need to discuss all possible ways of increasing the protection of those whose job it is to protect and alleviate the human suffering caused.

For instance, it may be necessary to remind the parties to a conflict about their obligations under IHL. In the case of Syria, Norway is seeking to secure the engagement of states that may be able to influence the parties to the conflict in Syria and remind them of their obligation to respect international humanitarian law and to protect health workers, hospitals and ambulances.

If we are to prevent further violations of human rights, protect civilians and promote accountability in post-conflict situations, it is essential that all military actors properly document how they conduct their military operations. We must also strive for increased transparency, both during armed conflicts and in their aftermath.

The role played by the media in reporting from conflict areas must be respected if we are to ensure the proper documentation of military operations. This role must be respected even if we dislike or disagree with the media coverage. The tendency we have seen on the part of certain states to limit access for the free press to conflict areas – or even to attack media stations or journalists – is of great concern. Not only because journalists are entitled to the same protection as other civilians, but also because we have seen the atrocities civilians may be subjected to, if the eyes of the world are not watching.

Dear participants,

These are only a few of the current challenges we need to discuss. I hope this conference will provide a good opportunity for an in-depth discussion of both these and other questions. I also hope you will all contribute to identifying practical ways and means of addressing the challenges at hand.

I wish you all a fruitful seminar.

*****