5cjxburmr

States have departed from ancient and medieval practices of war between entire peoples, andinstead, as much as possible, have treated war as a contention between the professional militaryforces of warring States. 15 This separation of the armed forces and the civilian population hasgreatly mitigated the evils of war. 164.2.2 No Person May Claim the Distinct Rights Afforded to Both Combatants andCivilians at the Same Time. The classes of combatants and civilians have distinct rights, duties,and liabilities; no person may claim the distinct rights afforded both classes at the same time. 17For example, a person may not claim the combatant’s right to attack enemy forces while alsoclaiming the civilian’s right not to be made the object of attack. 184.2.3 Mixed Cases. Certain classes of persons do not fit neatly within the dichotomy ofthe armed forces and the civilian population, i.e., combatants and civilians. Each of thesethe “inoffensive individual,” or the “inoffensive citizen of the hostile country” is the rule) (emphasis added);VATTEL, THE LAW OF NATIONS 282 (3.8.145) (“Women, children, feeble old men, and the sick … these are enemieswho make no resistance, and consequently the belligerent has no right to maltreat or otherwise offer violence tothem, much less to put them to death.”).15 See, e.g., LAUTERPACHT, II OPPENHEIM’S INTERNATIONAL LAW 204 (§57) (“During antiquity, and the greater partof the Middle Ages, war was a contention between the whole populations of the belligerent States. In time of warevery subject of one belligerent, whether an armed and fighting individual or not, whether man or woman, adult orinfant, could be killed or enslaved by the other belligerent at will. But gradually a milder and more discriminatingpractice grew up, and nowadays the life and liberty of such private subjects of belligerents as do not directly orindirectly belong to their armed forces, and, with certain exceptions, their private property, are protected byInternational Law.”); LIEBER CODE art. 22 (“Nevertheless, as civilization has advanced during the last centuries, sohas likewise steadily advanced, especially in war on land, the distinction between the private individual belonging toa hostile country and the hostile country itself, with its men in arms. The principle has been more and moreacknowledged that the unarmed citizen is to be spared in person, property, and honor as much as the exigencies ofwar will admit.”).16 See SPAIGHT, WAR RIGHTS ON LAND 37 (“The separation of armies and peaceful inhabitants into two distinctclasses is perhaps the greatest triumph of International Law. Its effect in mitigating the evils of war has beenincalculable.”); G. SHERSTON BAKER, II HALLECK’S INTERNATIONAL LAW 20-22 (20.3) (1908) (“But afterwards inItaly, and more particularly during the lawless confusion of the feudal ages, hostilities were carried on by all classesof persons, and everyone capable of being a soldier was regarded as such, and all the rights of war attached to hisperson. But as wars are now carried on by regular troops, or, at least, by forces regularly organised, the peasants,merchants, manufacturers, agriculturists, and, generally, all public and private persons, who are engaged in theordinary pursuits of life, and take no part in military operations, have nothing to fear from the sword of the enemy.So long as they refrain from all hostilities, pay the military contributions which may be imposed on them and quietlysubmit to the authority of the belligerent who may happen to be in the military possession of their country, they areallowed to continue in the enjoyment of their property, and in the pursuit of their ordinary avocations. This systemhas greatly mitigated the evils of war, … .”).17 See, e.g., 1956 FM 27-10 (Change No. 1 1976) 60 (dividing into “prisoners of war” and “the civilianpopulation,” and noting that “[p]ersons in each of the foregoing categories have distinct rights, duties, anddisabilities.”); 1940 RULES OF LAND WARFARE 8 (“The enemy population is divided in war into two generalclasses, known as, the armed forces and the peaceful population. Both classes have distinct rights, duties, anddisabilities, and no person can belong to both classes at one and the same time.”); 1934 RULES OF LAND WARFARE8 (same); 1914 RULES OF LAND WARFARE 29 (same).18 See 1958 UK MANUAL 86 (“It is one of the purposes of the law of war to ensure that an individual who belongsto one class or the other shall not be permitted to enjoy the privileges of both. Thus he must not be allowed to kill orwound members of the army of the opposing belligerent and subsequently, if captured, to claim that he is a peacefulcitizen.”).101