5cjxburmr

In applying its rules on “doubt,” some Parties to AP I have interpreted these rules in amore limited way (e.g., applying a “substantial doubt” standard) than its text would suggest. 815.5.4 Failure by the Defender to Separate or Distinguish Does Not Relieve the Attackerof the Duty to Discriminate in Conducting Attacks. A party that is subject to attack might fail totake feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm to civilians, such as by separating the civilianpopulation from military objectives. 82 Moreover, in some cases, a party to a conflict mayattempt to use the presence or movement of the civilian population or individual civilians inorder to shield military objectives from seizure or attack. 83When enemy persons engage in such behavior, commanders should continue to seek todiscriminate in conducting attacks and to take feasible precautions to reduce the risk of harm tothe civilian population and civilian objects. 84 However, the ability to discriminate and to reducethe risk of harm to the civilian population likely will be diminished by such enemy conduct. Inaddition, such conduct by the adversary does not increase the legal obligations of the attackingparty to discriminate in conducting attacks against the enemy. 855.5.5 Permissible Location of Attacks. In general, attacks may be conducted againstmilitary objectives wherever located, outside neutral territory. 86 Attacks, however, may not beconducted in special zones established by agreement between the belligerents, such as hospital,safety, or neutralized zones. 8781 See, e.g., 2004 UK MANUAL 5.3.4 (“In the practical application of the principle of civilian immunity and the ruleof doubt, (a) commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks necessarily haveto reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources which is available to them atthe relevant time, (b) it is only in cases of substantial doubt, after this assessment about the status of the individual inquestion, that the latter should be given the benefit of the doubt and treated as a civilian, and (c) the rule of doubtdoes not override the commander’s duty to protect the safety of troops under his command or to preserve themilitary situation.”).82 Refer to § 5.14 (Feasible Precautions to Reduce the Risk of Harm to Protected Persons and Objects by the PartySubject to Attack).83 Refer to § 5.16 (Prohibition on Using Protected Persons and Objects to Shield, Favor, or Impede MilitaryOperations).84 See FINAL REPORT ON THE PERSIAN GULF WAR 615 (“As correctly stated in Article 51(8) of Protocol I, a nationconfronted with callous actions by its opponent (such as the use of ‘human shields’) is not released from itsobligation to exercise reasonable precaution to minimize collateral injury to the civilian population or damage tocivilian objects. This obligation was recognized by Coalition forces in the conduct of their operations.”).85 See W. Hays Parks, Air War and the Law of War, 32 AIR FORCE LAW REVIEW 1, 163 (1990) (“While an attackerfacing a target shielded from attack by civilians is not relieved from his duty to exercise reasonable precautions tominimize the loss of civilian life, neither is he obligated to assume any additional responsibility as a result of theillegal acts of the defender. Were an attacker to do so, his erroneous assumption of additional responsibility withregard to protecting the civilians shielding a lawful target would serve as an incentive for a defender to continue toviolate the law of war by exposing other innocent civilians to similar risk.”).86 Refer to § 15.3.1.2 (Inviolability of Neutral Territory - Prohibition on Hostile Acts or Other Violations ofNeutrality).87 Refer to § 5.14.3 (Establishing Areas Where Civilians or the Wounded and Sick Are Protected).198