tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post131479468520705276..comments2024-03-27T20:37:08.065+01:00Comments on Defence and Freedom: The Israel conflicts and our fallibilityUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-42214470070357348432009-01-17T03:15:00.000+01:002009-01-17T03:15:00.000+01:00Well, it begins with the simple fact that everythi...Well, it begins with the simple fact that everything is allowed unless it's forbidden.<BR/>Combatants are therefore allowed to move among civilians (as has been done since millennia - you can bet that all armies preferred camping in a settlement over camping in tents.) unless they are explicitly forbidden to do so.<BR/><BR/>Now, the Geneva conventions forbid human shields (without actually using the term).<BR/>This reads like<BR/>"7. The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not direct the movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives from attacks or to shield military operations."<BR/>http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/WebART/470-750065?OpenDocument#top<BR/><BR/>Or here<BR/>http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/FULL/380?OpenDocument<BR/>"Article 28<BR/><BR/>The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations."<BR/>The commentary:<BR/>http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600033?OpenDocument<BR/><BR/><BR/>I've seen other treaty articles that were more detailed (but can't find them right now) and made it clear what human shields are; the deliberate use of civilians to protect military movements & locations.<BR/><BR/>To take POW and set them up in Saddam's bunkers to prevent air attacks is human shielding.<BR/>To take a civilian and push him around during house searches to prevent booby traps is illegal.<BR/><BR/>To carry a dozen civilian hostages on a railway carriage in front of your locomotive in order to prevent mine attacks is illegal.<BR/><BR/>Combatants in a city is legal.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>In short; to take hostages is illegal (GC IV, article 34), but proximity to civilians is not.<BR/><BR/><BR/>The article was not related to 'human shields'; I wrote "I would like to add..."S Ohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03359796414832859686noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-68994015730267725992009-01-17T02:34:00.000+01:002009-01-17T02:34:00.000+01:00Okay, read it, and I still don't see if/where ther...Okay, read it, and I still don't see if/where there's the elucidation of human shields. So, could you provide please? <BR/>Thanks.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-386077914312449748.post-60819905025309041772009-01-17T01:38:00.000+01:002009-01-17T01:38:00.000+01:00"but not least the definition of 'human shields' t..."but not least the definition of 'human shields' that does not prohibit that combatants stay in settlements like Hamas does in the Gaza Strip"<BR/><BR/>First, I'm not trying to start a fight Ortman.<BR/><BR/>I'm confused by this comments. Are you saying that there exists a legal priciple that people can stay in settlements? If so, provide please(even if it's a nonEnglish periodical). I find that interesting.<BR/>Or, are you saying that there's a different 'type' of "human shield"?<BR/><BR/>No, haven't read the article yet, but just trying to anticipate not being satisfied intellectually.<BR/>Cheers,<BR/>ryAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com