The international codes governing the rights and treatment of those inwar zones are also relected in the codes of conduct laid out by individual countries. In its Laws of Armed Conlict (LOAC), the United Statesmilitary explains the regulatory principleswhich govern thewaging ofwar.


Its threemajor points are tightly interrelated and are laid out below: MilitaryNecessity: Eachmilitary actionmust be evaluated based on the


degree towhich itwill lead to the speedy end ofmilitary conlict, the defeat or surrender of the enemy.


Distinction: Distinctionmust bemade between civilians and those engaging in ighting. It is never acceptable to target civilians or civilian property. The differentiation is speciically laid out between lawful combatants, civilians and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are those who are authorized by LOAC or a governing body to engage in combat. They must be marked somehow as belonging to this body and operate within a clear hierarchical system. Unlawful combatants are those who engage in combat, but are not marked as combatants. The rule of distinction also applies to defenders. Military structures, such as munitions factories, may not be placed next to Civilian structures, such as hospitals or schools.


Proportionality: Themilitary beneit of carrying out a given combative action must be weighed against the damage it is likely to cause to civilians and civilian property.


Humanity: The military may not cause unnecessary suffering. Certain weapons are banned entirely as are certainmethods of use of otherwise legal weapons. The sufferingmust not outweigh themilitary effectiveness.


US Soldiers in Afghanistan, 2010


Some have pointed out that these guidelines no longer fully relect the manner inwhichwars are fought on the ground. Modern conlict often does not take the formof two armies facing one another, but of guerilla strikes and bitter urban warfare with unmarked assailants. Such ighters who do not designate themselves clearly as soldiers of an army are classiied as “unlawful combatants” and are not entitled to the same treatment when captured as “lawful combatants.” This


differentiation has created signiicant clashes in political andmilitary discussion over howthese individuals ought to be dealtwith after capture.


22


www.defensemedianetwork.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14  |  Page 15  |  Page 16  |  Page 17  |  Page 18  |  Page 19  |  Page 20  |  Page 21  |  Page 22  |  Page 23  |  Page 24