Considering Civilian Casualties of
Airstrikes
Jacqueline Wojcik
October 5, 2015
The
article “Airstrike Hits Doctors Without Borders Hospital in Afghanistan” by
Alissa J. Run addresses the United States airstrike that damaged a hospital in
Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing at least nineteen people and injuring thirty-seven
in what was stated to be possible collateral damage. The United Nations and various humanitarian
organizations have condemned this action.
It renews the discussion of civilian casualties caused by United States
airstrikes. This event raises the
question of how to combat a terrorist organization with minimum loss of
civilian life.
Kunduz
has been this site of conflict between Afghan government forces, backed by the
United States, and the Taliban. In
response to the Taliban’s capture of the city on Monday, the United States
military began airstrikes, assisting Afghan government forces. The Doctors Without Borders, also known by
their acronym of MSF, operated a hospital in the city, providing medical care
to all injured in the conflict. Its
specific location was repeatedly given to United States and Afghan military
officials. In the early hours of October
3rd, bombs began falling on the hospital, continuing for thirty to
forty minutes despite calls alerting officials of the situation. Reports regarding the instigation of the
bombing vary and are under investigation.
The United States and Afghan forces said there was fighting around and
shooting from within the hospital. MSF
doctors and nurses stated there was no fighting in the immediate vicinity, and
the organization’s director asserted that there were no Taliban fighters in the
facility at the time of the strike.
Regardless of the presence of lack of Taliban soldiers, civilian
humanitarians and their patients were killed and injured in the airstrike,
drawing criticism and calls for a transparent investigation from the
international community.
The
United Nations high commissioner for human rights described the airstrike as
“utterly tragic, inexcusable, and possibly even criminal.” It may have been a violation of the Geneva
Conventions and Protocols, but depends on how they can be applied. The relevance of the Geneva Conventions and
Protocols becomes challenging when a non-state terrorist organization is involved. Convention IV, Article 2 states the
Convention applies in all cases of occupation of territory of a High
Contracting Party. This appears to imply
that the Convention applies in this situation, as the territory of Afghanistan
was occupied. Protocol I states in its
first article that it follows the same rules of applicability as the
Conventions. However, the United States
has only signed Protocol I and not yet ratified it; this raises questions of
how the Protocol affects the United States, but also whether or not the
Protocol should be followed regardless of a lack of internal ratification. Article 1 of the Protocol states that even in
cases where it does not apply, civilians are still protected under common
international law, the principles of humanity, and the public conscious. The specific applicability of the Conventions
and Protocol may be muddled by the involvement of a non-state organization and
incomplete ratification, but the MSF faculty and their patients should have
been protected by common law and the public conscious.
If
the Geneva Conventions and Protocols can be applied to the airstrike, it could
be a violation of them. Protocol I
mandates parties distinguish between civilian objects and military objectives,
forbidding direct and indiscriminate attacks on civilian objects. One definition of an indiscriminate attack is
an attack that anticipates civilian damage without anticipation of a concrete
and direct military gain. Investigations
will clarify how these rules will apply.
If insufficient evidence of fighting in the near vicinity of the
hospital is found and no adequate anticipation of concrete, direct military
gain is demonstrated by the United States to justify the strike, it may be a
violation of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol, and likely of public
conscious. If evidence of conflict is
found, it raises questions of the value and morality of engaging terrorists
when civilian casualties are expected.
Significant context is added with the United States’ history of causing civilian
casualties in Afghanistan with airstrikes.
Until investigations reveal more information, no concrete conclusions
can be drawn.
Public
conscious, reflected in the statements of officials, reflects grief and demands
justice. Common ethics dictate that the
bombing of a humanitarian hospital is immoral.
However, complications arise with conflicting reports, and applications
of law cannot be concluded until investigations are complete. While these are underway, the tragic event
will renew conversation regarding the use of airstrikes by the United States
throughout the Middle East and how best to prevent the deaths and injuries of
civilians while effectively combatting terrorist organizations.
Source Article:
Additional Sources:
Geneva
Convention (IV)
Geneva Protocol
(I)
No comments:
Post a Comment