UN Releases Report on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Libya
(December 23, 2014) See more at:
http://www.asil.org/blogs/un-releases-report-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-libya-december-23-2014#sthash.VkwNkVsZ.dpufBy:
Amy Morello | January 16, 2015 - 4:28pmAmy Morello, UN Releases
Report on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Libya (December 23,
2014), available from
http://www.asil.org/blogs/un-releases-report-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-libya-december-23-2014#sthash.VkwNkVsZ.dpuf;
Internet; accessed 30 March 2015On December 23, 2014, the UN Human
Rights Office and the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) released
a jointreportentitled, Update on Violations of International Human
Rights and Humanitarian Law During the Ongoing Violence in Libya
(the Report). Based on evidence gathered between September and
mid-December 2014, the Report found that widespread international
human rights abuses persist, causing hundreds of deaths, mass
displacement and a humanitarian crisis in many areas [of Libya].
According to anews article, the Report documents indiscriminate
shelling of civilian areas, the abduction of civilians, torture,
and reports of executions, as well as deliberate destruction of
property, among other serious . . . violations of international
law. In apress releaseaccompanying the Reports publication, UN High
Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad Al Hussein warned all
parties involved in the violence that they remain criminally liable
under international law if [they] commit or order the commission of
grave human rights abuses or fail to take reasonable and necessary
measures to prevent or punish their commission. High Commissioner
Zeid also stated in the press release that the International
Criminal Court is currently investigating the continuing conflict
in Libya. - See more at:
http://www.asil.org/blogs/un-releases-report-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-libya-december-23-2014#sthash.VkwNkVsZ.dpufUpdate
on violations of international human Rights and humanitarian law
during the ongoing Violence in Libya,
http://reliefweb.int/report/libya/update-violations-international-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-during-ongoingRelief
International, Update on violations of international human Rights
and humanitarian law during the ongoing Violence in Libya;
available from
http://reliefweb.int/report/libya/update-violations-international-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-during-ongoing;
Internet; accessed 30 March 2015
(revised version incorporating clarification issued on 26
December 2014)GENEVA / TRIPOLI (23 December 2014) Fighting in
recent months between armed groups in western and eastern Libya, as
well as in the south, has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths,
mass displacement and acute humanitarian conditions for those
trapped in conflict zones, a new UN human rights report released
Tuesday warns.The report published jointly by the UN Support
Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the UN Human Rights Office, documents
indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas, the abduction of
civilians, torture and reports of executions, as well as deliberate
destruction of property, among other serious abuses and violations
of international law in various parts of the country.In western
Libya, in the area of Warshafana, fighting between rival armed
groups has killed an estimated 100 people and injured 500 between
late August and early October. The fighting has caused a
humanitarian crisis, with at least 120,000 people forced to flee
their homes and severe shortages of food and medical supplies.
Hundreds of houses, farms and other businesses have also been
destroyed. Fighting in the Nafusa mountains, bordering Warshafana,
has also reportedly resulted in 170 deaths.In Benghazi, since the
fighting escalated in mid-October, 450 people have reportedly been
killed. Residents are facing serious shortcomings in medical care,
as hospitals have been hit or occupied by armed groups. Tit-for-tat
attacks on property have also led to the destruction of many
houses. More than 15,000 families some 90,000 people have been
displaced from Benghazi. Of these, more than 5,600 Tawerghans have
been displaced for the second time three years after their first
forcible displacement by armed groups from Misrata.Dozens of
civilians have been abducted by all sides, solely for their actual
or suspected tribal, family or religious affiliation, often as
hostages in order to exchange them for others held by the opposing
side, the report states. UNSMIL has also received allegations of
torture and other abuses which are consistent with earlier patterns
of ill-treatment of detainees, but are a cause of even greater
concern because of the heightened political tensions and the
ongoing active hostilities.Political and human rights activists,
media professionals and other public figures have been targeted by
armed groups, with many having been abducted, threatened or had
their homes looted or burned.UN High Commissioner for Human Rights
Zeid Raad Al Hussein warned all the parties involved in the
fighting that grave abuses of international human rights and
international humanitarian law are criminally liable, including
before the International Criminal Court which is investigating the
situation in Libya.As a commander of an armed group, you are
criminally liable under international law if you commit or order
the commission of grave human rights abuses or fail to take
reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish their
commission, High Commissioner Zeid warned.I urge all those in
positions of authority to declare publicly that acts amounting to
violations and abuses of international human rights and
humanitarian law will not be tolerated.The Special Representative
of the Secretary-General for Libya, Bernardino Leon, urged all
sides of the conflict to immediately cease armed hostilities.All
those suffering in this violence deserve to live in safety with
their rights fully protected, Leon said. "I appeal to all Libyan
political and military leaders to engage, as a matter of urgency,
in a genuine political dialogue to take Libya out of the current
crisis.
Libya violence: Islamic State attack 'kills 40' in
al-QubbahFebruary 20, 2015Islamist militants in eastern Libya
recently pledged allegiance to the IS group
A bombing by suspected Islamic State (IS) militants in Libya has
killed at least 40 people and wounded dozens in the eastern town of
al-Qubbah.Three bombs exploded, targeting a petrol station, a
police station and the home of parliamentary speaker Agila Salah, a
security source told BBC News.According to an online statement, IS
fighters said they struck in retaliation for Egyptian air
strikes.Egypt launched strikes after IS killed 21 Egyptian
Christians it had abducted.The al-Qubbah attack is one of the
deadliest in Libya since the toppling of Col Muammar Gaddafi four
years ago.The country remains in a state of chaos with two
governments vying for legitimacy and territory.'Revenge'Medics at
the scene of the bombings said the majority of casualties were at
the petrol station, where there was a long queue of motorists.Agila
Salah was not at home at the time of the attack, they added.
Speaking to Saudi-owned TV channel Al-Arabiya, he announced seven
days of mourning for the bomb victims."I think this operation was
revenge for what happened in Derna," Mr Salah said.On Monday, Egypt
bombed targets in Derna, killing between 40 and 50 people,
according to a Libyan air force commander.The Derna link was
confirmed by a statement released by the IS-affiliated group in
Libya, which said the attacks targeted an "operations room" used by
Libyan military chief General Khalifa Haftar."This is a message to
anyone who is tempted to attack the soldiers of the caliphate [IS]
or any Muslim," the statement said.Al-Qubbah lies on the road
between Bayda, seat of the official Libyan government, and Derna,
which is largely controlled by the Libyan affiliate of IS
Civilians killed in airstrike as violence in Libya
escalateshttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/23/civilians-killed-in-airstrike-as-violence-in-libya-escalates/Published
March 23, 2015Libyan government war planes targeting an Islamist
militia killed eight civilians in an airstrike near Tripoli, the
U.S. ambassador said Monday.Air Force Commander Saqer al-Joroushi
said the attack occurred in the town of Tarhouna -- which has been
held by an armed rebel group, Reuters reported.U.S. Ambassador
Deborah K. Jones reacted to the reports via Twitter. Terrible news
today from Tarhouna, where 8 innocent displaced Tawergha killed in
airstrikes," Jones tweeted, referring to a minority group in
Libya."This violence serves no one's interests," said Jones, who is
based outside Libya.Also Monday, soldiers shot down a war plane
flown by the rival, Tripoli-based government that's allied with
Islamist militias, an official with Libya's internationally
recognized government, Mohammed al-Masri said.The plane was downed
after it bombed Zintan, a mountainous western town supportive of
the elected government. There was no immediate report of
casualties.Libya is split between rival governments and warring
militias after its 2011 civil war and the death of dictator Muammar
Qaddafi. It also faces the rise of an affiliate of the Islamic
State group.The Associated Press contributed to
Libya violence: Foreign oil workers
'kidnapped'http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31802393 9 March
2015Al-Ghani oil field is one of 11 rendered non-operational
following attacks in recent weeksIslamic State (IS) militants are
said to have kidnapped nine foreign oil workers in a raid in Libya,
when they reportedly beheaded eight guards.Four Filipinos, an
Austrian, a Bangladeshi, a Czech and a Ghanaian were taken with an
unidentified ninth foreigner, Austrian officials say.The foreign
ministry in Vienna said IS had attacked the al-Ghani oil field.A
Libyan army spokesman told the BBC the field 700km (440 miles)
south-east of Tripoli had been attacked on Friday.One oil worker
died of a heart attack after seeing the beheadings, he added.The
foreigners were working for oilfield management company Value Added
Oilfield Services (VAOS) at the field.VAOS said it did not know
which militants had carried out the attack or where the oil workers
had been taken.It insisted that none of its employees had "died or
were physically harmed in the attack".
Analysis: Rana Jawad, BBC News, TripoliLibya is getting more
dangerous by the day. As with the attack on the Mabruk oil field
last month, the guards at al-Ghani were brutally killed, the
foreigners were taken, and the local staff allowed to leave.The
only information available is from shell-shocked witnesses lucky
enough to have been allowed to live. We are told that the
assailants did not linger around.These latest attacks do not bear
the hallmarks of militias driven by local grievances or political
rivalry, as seen in the past.Instead, their wider aim appears to be
to instil fear, mark territory and demonstrate the capacity to
wreak havoc.
Confirming that four of the missing workers were their
nationals, the Philippines said it brought to seven the number of
Filipinos now missing in Libya.'Burn, destroy and steal'A spokesman
for Libya's National Oil Corporation, Mohamed Al-Harari, told the
BBC he could not confirm the abduction of foreign oil
workers.However, he added that local oil workers at the field had
been held for two hours before being released."These oil workers
have said that the gunmen kidnapped a number of foreigners," he
said.
Libyan army spokesman Ahmed al-Mesmari told the BBC he had "no
information or verified reports" about the missing
foreigners.Speaking after a string of attacks on fields in recent
weeks, he said militants aimed to do maximum damage."The attackers
don't want to control the oil fields, that's not their aim - it
seems their aim is to burn, destroy and steal whatever they can,"
he told the BBC.After burning the biggest oil storage tank in the
al-Ghani field, they headed for another oil field, al-Zoueitina,
but were repelled, he added.Last week, Islamist militants were
reported to be behind an attack on two oil fields in Bahi and
Mabruk.Rival militias have been fighting for control in Libya since
Muammar Gaddafi was ousted in 2011.
Libya: UN urges end to 'senseless cycle of violence' as country
reels from latest attackUnited Nations, Libya: UN urges end to
'senseless cycle of violence' as country reels from latest attack;
available from:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49694#.VRi0IvyUda;
Internet; accessed 30 March 2015
The streets of Sirte were the most heavily damaged after a
nine-month war in 2011. Photo: IRIN/Heba Aly27 December 2014 The
United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) today strongly
condemned the latest spate of violence to afflict the country as
unidentified gunmen renewed attacks against Libyan oil
installations leaving numerous storage tanks ablaze and further
destabilizing the security situation in the war-torn nation.These
attacks are in clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions
on Libya, UNSMIL said in a statement issued earlier this morning as
the Mission called for an immediate halt to these attacks.Libyan
oil belongs to all the Libyan people and is the country's economic
lifeline, the statement continued. The Mission reiterates its call
on all sides to safeguard Libya's oil installations and to desist
from any action that endangers this strategic national
asset.According to reports, unknown assailants attacked Libyan oil
installations at the Sidra oil terminal on 25 December, igniting
three storage tanks and killing more than 20 soldiers in the
process.The Sidra oil terminal lies in the country's critical Oil
Crescent area.In addition, UNSMIL noted, another attack by
unidentified gunmen on the same day claimed the lives of an
undisclosed number of guards on duty at a power station near the
city of Sirte, along the Mediterranean coast.The attacks are the
latest spell of violence to rattle the beleaguered nation following
the beginning of its civil war in 2011 which resulted in the ouster
of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.In western Libya, in the area
of Warshafana, fighting between rival armed groups has resulted in
the deaths of an estimated 100 people and injured 500 more in a
spell of hostilities that lasted from late August to early
October.At the same time, recent fighting in the neighbouring
Nafusa mountains has left 170 people dead. In addition to the
casualties, the fighting has also caused a humanitarian crisis with
at least 120,000 people forced to flee their homes, resulting in
consequent shortages in both food and medical supplies.Meanwhile,
in the eastern city of Benghazi, an uptick in violence has seen 450
people killed since October as residents continue to face shortages
in medical care. Moreover, upwards of 15,000 families some 90,000
people have been displaced.Following the events in Sidra, the UN
Mission warned of the environmental and economic consequences as a
result of the destruction of the oil facilities, and urged the
forces on the ground to cooperate in order to allow the fire crews
to extinguish the blaze.Moreover, it cautioned, the latest
escalation of hostilities in the Oil Crescent area not only risks
negatively impacting the country's economy but also further
undermines the ongoing efforts to convene a political dialogue
which, in turn, threatens to further widen the conflict.UNSMIL
urges Libya's influential actors to make every effort to bring an
end to this senseless cycle of violence, the statement added.The
Mission stresses that there can be no winners in the current
conflict, and that the continuing violence in the Oil Crescent
area, Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya will only deepen the rift
among the Libyans and further destroy their country's
infrastructure and state institutions.
Libya: UN warns of human rights violations as factional fighting
continueshttp://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49669#.VRirVPyUda7United
Nations, Libya: UN warns of human rights violations as factional
fighting continues, available from:
http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49669#.VRirVPyUda7;
Internet; accessed 30 March 2015
A destroyed house in Ahy Badr in the town of Mizdah in the
Nafusa mountains in Libya after tribal conflict in March 2013.
Photo: IRIN/Jorge Vitoria Rubio23 December 2014 Libyan civilians
have been subject to targeted killings, forced displacement and
acute humanitarian conditions amid an escalation in fighting in the
North African country, a new United Nations human rights report has
warned.According to thereport, released today and jointly produced
by the UN Human Rights Office and the UN Support Mission in Libya
(UNSMIL), civilians caught in the fighting have been subjected to
indiscriminate shelling, abduction, torture and execution as well
as deliberate destruction of property as factional violence ripples
across the country.In western Libya, in the area of Warshafana,
fighting between rival armed groups has resulted in the deaths of
an estimated 100 people and injured 500 more in a spell of
hostilities that lasted from late August to early October.At the
same time, the report notes, fighting in the neighbouring Nafusa
mountains left 170 people dead. In addition to the casualties, the
fighting has also caused a humanitarian crisis with at least
120,000 people forced to flee their homes, resulting in consequent
shortages in both food and medical supplies.Meanwhile, in the
eastern city of Benghazi, an uptick in violence has seen 450 people
killed since October as residents continue to face shortages in
medical care. Moreover, upwards of 15,000 families some 90,000
people have been displaced, according to reports received by
UNSMIL.Dozens of civilians have been abducted by all sides, solely
for their actual or suspected tribal, family or religious
affiliation, often as hostages in order to exchange them for others
held by the opposing side, continues the report. UNSMIL has also
received allegations of torture and other abuses which are
consistent with earlier patterns of ill-treatment of detainees, but
are a cause of even greater concern because of the heightened
political tensions and the ongoing active hostilities.In apress
releaseaccompanying the reports publication, UN High Commissioner
for Human Rights, Zeid Raad Al Hussein, warned all parties involved
in the violence that they remained responsible for any human rights
violations committed during the fighting.As a commander of an armed
group, you are criminally liable under international law if you
commit or order the commission of grave human rights abuses or fail
to take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish
their commission, he explained. I urge all those in positions of
authority to declare publicly that acts amounting to violations and
abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law will not
be tolerated. All those suffering in this violence deserve to live
in safety with their rights fully protected, the Special
Representative of the Secretary-General for Libya and head of
UNSMIL, Bernardino Lon, added in the press release. I appeal to all
Libyan political and military leaders to engage, as a matter of
urgency, in a genuine political dialogue to take Libya out of the
current crisis.At the same time, as the situation in the country
rapidly deteriorates with the displacement and re-displacement of
populations in the western outskirts of Tripoli, Benghazi and the
southern region of Ubari, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees
(UNHCR) warned that Libyan civilians are facing a deepening
humanitarian crisis as well.Winterization items needed to shelter
the displaced from the fast-advancing cold weather are increasingly
in demand, the agency said in a press release, as displaced
families continue to live in public facilities such as schools,
parks and abandoned buildings. Nonetheless, despite the fighting,
UNHCR is working to provide 2,000 sleeping mats, 1,460 mattresses,
1,590 plastic sheets, 1,485 kitchen sets, 1,620 school bags and
1,810 jerry cans to over 1,000 families in distress.Although the
security situation in Libya continues to be volatile, UNHCR has
managed to resume distribution of core relief items in the country
from our warehouse, Saado Quol, the agencys Chief of Mission in
Libya announced. We understand assistance is also needed in the
east and south, where access is severely restricted. We are
exploring how additional humanitarian items can be distributed to
the eastern cities.Meanwhile, in New York, the Security Council
expressed grave concern about the serious deterioration on the
security situation and the continuing fighting in Libya, after
hearing a briefing from Mr. Lon via videoconference.Speaking to
reporters following the closed-door session, Ambassador Mahamat
Zene Cherif of Chad, which holds the Councils rotating presidency
for December, said the inflow of unregulated weaponry into the
country was also of concern to the 15-member body, as it was
contributing to the crisis despite the arms embargo.The Council
reiterated its support for Mr. Lons mission and called on all
Libyan stakeholders to accept an immediate ceasefire and engage in
the dialogue process.
HCHR press release: Libyan human rights defenders under attack
UN
reporthttp://unsmil.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=3543&ctl=Details&mid=6187&ItemID=2013819&language=en-USGENEVA
(25 March 2015) A UN human rights report released on Wednesday
reveals a catalogue of violent attacks and threats against Libyan
rights defenders, across Libya and in some cases even after they
are forced to leave the country.
Attacks, including killings, abductions, torture and other
ill-treatment, unlawful deprivation of liberty and death threats by
phone and on social media since the escalation of fighting in May
2014 have been documented in the joint report by the UN Support
Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the UN Human Rights Office. Armed
groups across the country have targeted human rights defenders
seeking to shed light on and address human rights violations and
abuses.
Most recently, prominent civil society activist Entissar
al-Hassaeri was shot dead last month in Tripoli. Her body and that
of her aunt were found in the trunk of her car on 23 February. Two
members of the National Commission for Human Rights-Libya, a human
rights NGO, were abducted on 13 and 14 February in central Tripoli.
Both have since been released, but other human rights defenders and
members of civil society remain missing or have gone into
hiding.
Given the increasing risks, the killings of prominent human
rights defenders and repeated threats, many have fled the country,
fallen silent, or have been forced to work in secret at great risk
to themselves and their loved ones, the report notes.
Those who managed to flee abroad face a plethora of problems
linked to their residency status, expiration of passports with no
possibility of extension at some local Libyan consulates, loss of
income, and other financial difficulties. Some human rights
defenders who have fled have explained that they continued to
receive death threats on their mobile phones and social media
pages. In at least two cases human rights defenders were physically
assaulted in Tunisia, apparently by Libyans.
In one such case, a media professional and womens rights
defender from Benghazi, left the country in late 2014 after
numerous threats, including a text message threatening abduction of
her son. Her car was struck, apparently deliberately, by another
vehicle and a factory she owned was set on fire. She has continued
to be outspoken and has continued to be threatened after moving
abroad.
On 19 October 2014, as she was walking to the train station, she
was stopped by a car with Libyan license plates, the report says.
The passenger threw a cup of coffee at her warning: youactivist and
journalistnext time it will be acid.
Another journalist and human rights defender received threats,
including of sexual violence, on her Facebook page. We will come to
your house and break your honour, read one post. After fleeing
Libya in August 2014, she continued to receive threats via Viber
and text messages.
Another human rights defender left Tripoli in September 2014
after being repeatedly subjected to physical assaults, short-term
detentions and abduction threats directed at his family.
Civilians in Libya, including human rights defenders, have few
or no avenues to seek protection or access to remedy for the harm
suffered, the report warns. The breakdown of law and order has led
to the failure of the criminal justice system in some parts of
Libya, especially Derna, Benghazi and Sirte, while severe
disruptions have been reported elsewhere. Justice sector
officialshave been violently targeted by armed groups.
The murders of several prominent individuals in Benghazi last
year, including newspaper editor Muftah Abu Zeid, human rights
defender Salwa Bughaigis, and two young civil society activists,
Tawfik Bensaud and Sami al-Kawafi, remain unsolved.
Another human rights defender said she found a piece of paper on
her car soon after the murder of Bughaigis in June 2014, stating
your turn is next. Other defenders have had family members detained
or abducted.
Staff members of Jurists without Chains, a human rights
organization in Benghazi, shut its premises late last year
following numerous threats, a raid, and the firing of a projectile
into their office. The national human rights institution of Libya,
the National Council for Civil Liberties and Human Rights, also
closed its offices in Tripoli in late 2014 as a result of
intimidation, threats and raids.
Armed groups across political, tribal, regional and ideological
dividesare responsible for violations of international human rights
and humanitarian law and abuses of human rights, including
abductions, extra-judicial executions and other unlawful killings,
torture and other ill-treatment. Human rights defenders seeking to
document and denounce such violations and abuses have faced
reprisals, the report says.
The report warns that those committing crimes under
international law, including many detailed in the report, are
criminally liable, including before the International Criminal
Court. It stresses the crucial need to resume building State
institutions, particularly law enforcement agencies and the overall
justice system. The report also urges all sides to publicly condemn
attacks against civil society members.
Neighbouring countries and the international community should
also ensure the protection of Libyan human rights defenders,
including by issuing emergency visas and providing temporary
shelter, the report urges.
The report also calls on the Libyan authorities and on those
with effective control on the ground to immediately refrain from,
and take action to stop, attacks on human rights defenders, and
work towards creating a safer and more enabling environment for
them to conduct their indispensable work for the protection and
promotion of human rights in Libya.Libya: UN report details serious
human rights abuses in Tripoli, BenghaziUN Office of the High
Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),Overview of Violations of
International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law during the ongoing
Violence in Libya, 4 September 2014,available at:
http://www.refworld.org/docid/540d627e4.html; accessed 30 March
2015
GENEVA / TRIPOLI (4 September 2014) Serious violations of
international human rights and humanitarian law are taking place in
the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi with dire consequences
for civilians and civilian infrastructure, a new UN report
warns.The joint report by the United Nations Support Mission in
Libya (UNSMIL) and the UN Human Rights Office gives an overview of
abuses including indiscriminate shelling and attacks on civilian
objects, the shelling of hospitals, the abduction of civilians,
torture and unlawful killings. It details accounts of civilian
casualties including women, children and foreign nationals.The
report states that fighters appear to disregard the likely impact
of their action on civilians and have inadequate training and
discipline. In addition, the use of badly maintained and faulty
weapons and ammunition increases inaccuracy. These factors suggest
that many attacks carried out in Tripoli and Benghazi are
indiscriminate.Between mid-May and the end of August, which is the
period covered by the report, dozens of civilians were reportedly
abducted in Tripoli and Benghazi solely for their actual or
suspected tribal, family or religious affiliation, and have
remained missing since the time of their abduction. Such abductions
may amount to enforced disappearances if the parties to the
conflict do not acknowledge their whereabouts, the report states.
UNSMIL is raising cases of those detained with the relevant armed
groups and welcomes further information from concerned
parties,Protection of civilians must be a priority, the report
states. All armed groups must comply with the principles of
distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack.All armed
groups must desist from violations of international human rights
and humanitarian law, in particular all acts that may amount to war
crimes, including indiscriminate shelling, enforced disappearances,
murder, abductions, torture and other ill-treatment, and
destruction of property.The report urges all armed groups to
release or hand over to the justice system individuals who they
have detained. It also stresses that the lack of compliance with
international human rights and humanitarian law by one party does
not absolve other parties from their obligations to comply with
these standards.All armed groups must remove from active duty and
hand over to the justice system those among their members suspected
of having committed abuses, the report warns.Political or military
leaders can be held criminally responsible not only if they order
crimes, but also if they are in a position to stop them and do not
do so.UNSMIL also estimates that at least 100,000 Libyans have been
internally displaced by the fighting including Tawerghans who were
already in their displacement camps since 2011, and that a further
150,000 people, including many migrant workers, have left the
country.Migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are particularly
exposed in the current context and are facing difficulties in
crossing borders.The report also notes the continued harassment of
and attacks against journalists by all parties to the conflict,
including restrictions of movement, confiscation of equipment,
abductions and assassinations.The fighting has also severely
affected the administration of justice. The courts in Tripoli and
Benghazi effectively stopped functioning as a result.The deepening
political polarization, the fighting and the risk of retaliation by
armed groups have generated a climate of fear in which people are
reluctant to talk about certain violations and abuses.It has also
led many activists, including in particular women activists, to
leave the country.UNSMIL and OHCHR have appealed to all sides of
the conflict to cease all armed hostilities and engage in an
inclusive political dialogue to build a state based on the respect
of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. UNSMIL continues to
engage with all sides to end the fighting and ensure that civilians
are protected.
Intl justice resource
centerhttp://www.ijrcenter.org/international-humanitarian-law/International
humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war and the law
of armed conflict, is the legal framework applicable to situations
of armed conflict and occupation.As a set of rules and principles
it aims, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed
conflict.Fundamental to IHL are the following two principles:1. The
protection of persons who are not, or are no longer, participating
in hostilities; and2. The right of parties to an armed conflict to
choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimitedIHL is a part
of public international law. Public international law is a broad
set of treaties, customary law, principles and norms. The framework
traditionally regulated relationships only between states. It has
evolved, however, to cover a broad range of actors. IHL is notable
in this regard, as it recognizes obligations for both states and
non-state armed groups that are parties to an armed conflict.IHL
regulates activity during armed conflict and situations of
occupation. It is distinct from, and applies irrespective of, the
body of law that regulates the recourse to armed force. This
framework is known as thejus ad bellum, and is enshrined in the UN
Charter. It regulates the conditions under which force may be used,
namely in self-defense and pursuant to UN Security Council
authorization. Once there is an armed conflict IHL applies to all
the parties, whether or not a party was legally justified in using
force underjus ad bellumprinciples.At its core IHL represents a
balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations
in the context of conflict. Humanity, as a cornerstone of IHL,
represents the imperative during conflict to alleviate suffering
and save lives, and to treat humanely and respectfully each
individual. Military necessity is the justification of measures
necessary to achieve a military goal, provided these measures
comply with international humanitarian law.The balancing of
humanity and military necessity is seen in the foundational IHL
norms of distinction and proportionality. Parties to an armed
conflict are required to distinguish, at all times, between
civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military
objectives. Additionally, an attack may not be launched if it is
anticipated to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to
civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in
relation to the direct military advantage anticipated. Additional
IHL principles include the duty to take precautions to spare the
civilian population before and during an attack, the prohibition
against infliction of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury,
and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.Qualification of
Armed ConflictIHL classifies armed conflicts as international armed
conflict (IAC) or non-international armed conflict
(NIAC).Qualifying an armed conflict is an important threshold
question necessary to determine which set of rules apply to the
conflict: those for IAC (found mainly in the four Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocol I) or those for NIAC (found
mainly in Article Three common to the four Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol II). Situations of occupation are regulated by
IHL, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol
I.Whether or not an armed conflict is an IAC or NIAC has
significant implications.For instance, POW status, as well as
combatant status, is found only in the rules applicable to IAC. The
rules regulating the conduct of hostilities, as well as
humanitarian access and assistance, are more detailed in IAC. All
together the treaty rules applicable to IAC total close to 600;
those applicable to NIAC number less than 30. This dearth of
guidance can pose a challenge because the majority of contemporary
conflicts are NIAC. To address this one can look to customary
international law, which includes a number of rules that have
evolved to address both IAC and NIAC situations.Thedefinition of an
IACis found in Article Two common to the four Geneva Conventions.
It states that the rules of IAC apply to all cases of declared war
or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more
of the High Contracting Parties . . . . Thus, an IAC can only be
between two or more states.In Article Three common to the four
Geneva Conventionsa NIAC is definedin the negative, as an armed
conflict not of an international character. Thus, if a non-state
armed group is a party to the armed conflict, it will be
categorized as a NIAC. This could be if a state is fighting an
armed group, or if two armed groups are fighting each other. Common
Article three and customary international law would regulate both
scenarios. For Additional Protocol II to apply certain requirements
must be satisfied. In the armed conflict a state must be on one
side, fighting against an armed group. That state must have signed
Additional Protocol II for it to apply. Additionally, the non-state
armed group must be organized, under a responsible command, and
exercise control over part of the territory in such a manner that
the group is able to carry out military operations.The use of the
phraseglobal war on terrorresulted in some misunderstanding
regarding the application of IHL to certain situations. The global
war on terror is a political phrase, not a legal term of art. Thus,
the global war on terror is not an armed conflict. The appropriate
analysis is to look at the conflict locations Iraq, Afghanistan,
Somalia, Yemen, etc. and assess each one in terms of whether or not
it is an IAC or NIAC, regulated by the relevant framework.There is
some academic debate regarding cross-border NIACs, as well as at
what point a NIAC might become an IAC, or an IAC might become a
NIAC. These analyses are context and fact-dependent. Despite the
theoretical debate, practitioners can often work around them by
relying on customary international law to argue for protections
owed to civilians.KEY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
INSTRUMENTSTreaties and customary international law are the two
main sources of IHL rules and regulations. Treaties are agreements
between states, and those states that sign on to a treaty are bound
by its terms. Though a non-state armed group cannot sign a treaty,
IHL treaty rules like Common Article Three and Additional Protocol
II nonetheless apply to these actors.Many IHL rules are now
considered to reflect customary international law, as
well.Customary international law consists of rules derived from the
consistent practice of states based on a belief that the law
requires them to act in that way. Such rules are binding on both
states and non-state armed groups. The International Committee of
the Red Crosspublished a study and created a databaseon customary
international humanitarian law.The key IHL treaties include the
1907 Hague Regulations, four Geneva Conventions, and their
Additional Protocols. 1907 Hague Regulations(Convention (IV)
respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex:
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The
Hague, 18 October 1907) Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the
Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field,
Geneva, 12 August 1949 Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the
Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces
at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949 Convention (III) relative to the
Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 Convention
(IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
Geneva, 12 August 1949 Protocol Additional to the Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of
Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949,
and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977 Protocol additional to
the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the
Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), 8
December 2005
International humanitarian law in domestic
lawhttps://www.icrc.org/en/document/international-humanitarian-law-domestic-lawINTL
COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSSFor the treaties of international
humanitarian law (IHL) and other relevant instruments to be
accepted worldwide, national governments must formally adopt them
by the process of ratification or accession. States must then pass
legislation and take regulatory and practical measures for the
rules of IHL to be fully effective.IHL treaties and other relevant
instruments cover a wide range of topics, from the protection of
wounded and sick military personnel, prisoners of war and
civilians; the prohibition or limitation of certain weapons such as
anti-personnel landmines, chemical and biological weapons, and
cluster munitions; to the restriction of certain combat tactics.The
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977
and 2005 constitute the core IHL instruments. All States have
accepted the Conventions, thereby being bound by the obligations
contained therein. Through the years, several treaties and other
instruments regulating specific IHL issues have been adopted.In
order for the rules of IHL to be truly effective, it is important
that States ratify or accede to the many treaties and other
relevant instruments that make up the body of IHL. However,
adopting these treaties is only a first step.Most IHL instruments
oblige States to undertake certain domestic actions of compliance,
including taking up legislative, regulatory and practical measures.
For example, under the Geneva Conventions, States are obliged to
put an end to all violations contained therein and to prosecute and
punish those violations that are considered the most serious,
called "grave breaches" and regarded as war crimes.Practical
measures that States are to take include the following: integrating
IHL into training and military manuals, marking protected objects
such as cultural heritage sites, and delivering identification
cards to combatants and protected persons. In addition, States have
to spread the knowledge of IHL.To facilitate all this work, many
States have established national IHL committees and similar
interministerial bodies.The ICRC plays a key role in supporting
national implementation and enforcement of IHL. TheICRC's Advisory
Serviceoffers legal advice and technical assistance to States
authorities; it providesspecialized tools for IHLimplementation,
including ratification kits, model laws, thematic factsheets, a
comprehensive manual on domestic implementation of IHL, and
supports the work of IHL Committees and similar bodies.
https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/terrorism-faq-050504.htmWhat
does IHL say about terrorism?"It is a basic principle of IHL that
persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish
between civilians and combatants..."International humanitarian law
(IHL) is the body of international law applicable when armed
violence reaches the level of armed conflict, whether international
or non-international. The best known IHL treaties are the four
Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of
1977, but there are a range of other IHL treaties aimed at reducing
human suffering in times of war, such as the 1997 Ottawa Convention
on landmines. IHL - sometimes also called the Law of Armed Conflict
or the Law of War - does not provide a definition of terrorism, but
prohibits most acts committed in armed conflict that would commonly
be considered " terrorist " if they were committed in peacetime.It
is a basic principle of IHL that persons fighting in armed conflict
must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants
and between civilian objects and military objectives. The "
principle of distinction " , as this rule is known, is the
cornerstone of IHL. Derived from it are many specific IHL rules
aimed at protecting civilians, such as the prohibition of
deliberate or direct attacks against civilians and civilian
objects, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks or the use of "
human shields " . IHL also prohibits hostage taking.In situations
of armed conflict, there is no legal significance in describing
deliberate acts of violence against civilians or civilian objects
as " terrorist " because such acts would already constitute war
crimes. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, war crimes
suspects may be criminally prosecuted not only by the state in
which the crime occurred, but by all states.See theTreaty database,
containing about 100 IHL treaties, the four Geneva Conventions and
their Additional Protocols and an up-to-date list of signatures and
ratifications Does IHL specifically mention terrorism?Yes, IHL
specifically mentions and in fact prohibits " measures of terrori
sm " and " acts of terrorism " . The Fourth Geneva Convention
(Article 33Article 4) states that " Collective penalties and
likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are
prohibited " , while Additional Protocol II ( ) prohibits " acts of
terrorism " against persons not or no longer taking part in
hostilities. The main aim is to emphasise that neither individuals,
nor the civilian population may be subject to collective
punishments, which, among other things, obviously induce a state of
terror.Both Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions also
prohibit acts aimed at spreading terror among the civilian
population. " The civilian population as such, as well as
individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or
threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread
terror among the civilian population are prohibited " (AP I,Article
51Article 13(2) and AP II, (2)).These provisions are a key element
of IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities i.e. the way
military operations are carried out. They prohibit acts of violence
during armed conflict that do not provide a definite military
advantage. It is important to bear in mind that even a lawful
attack on military targets can spread fear among civilians.
However, these provisions outlaw attacks that specifically aim to
terrorise civilians, for example campaigns of shelling or sniping
of civilians in urban areas. Do some aspects of the fight against
terrorism amount to a "transnational" armed conflict? As already
mentioned IHL is only applicable in armed conflict. A central
element of the notion of armed conflict is the existence of "
parties " to the conflict. The parties to an international armed
conflict are two or more states (or states and national liberation
movements), whereas in non-international armed conflict the parties
may be either states and armed groups for example, rebel forces- or
just armed groups. In either case, a party to an armed conflict has
a military-like formation with a certain level of organization and
command structure and, therefore, the ability to respect and ensure
respect for IHL.The rules of IHL apply equally to all parties to an
armed conflict. It does not matter whether the party concerned is
the aggressor or is acting in self-defence. Also, it does not
matter if the party in question is a state or a rebel group.
Accordingly, each party to an armed conflict may attack military
objectives but is prohibited from direct attacks against
civilians.The equality of rights and obligations under IHL enables
all parties to a conflict to know the rules within which they are
allowed to operate and to rely on similar conduct by the other
side. It is the existence of at least two parties to an armed
conflict and the basic equality among them under IHL, as well as
the intensity of violence involved and the means used, which
distinguishes warfare from law enforcement.Specific aspects of the
fight against terrorism launched after the attacks agai nst the
United States on 11 September 2001 amount to an armed conflict as
defined under IHL. The war waged by the US-led coalition in
Afghanistan that started in October 2001 is an example. The 1949
Geneva Conventions and the rules of customary international law
were fully applicable to that international armed conflict, which
involved the US-led coalition, on the one side, and Afghanistan, on
the other side.However, much of the ongoing violence taking place
in other parts of the world that is usually described as "
terrorist " is perpetrated by loosely organized groups (networks),
or individuals that, at best, share a common ideology. On the basis
of currently available factual evidence it is doubtful whether
these groups and networks can be characterised as party to any type
of armed conflict, including "transnational"."...terrorist acts
committed outside of armed conflict should be addressed by means of
domestic or international law enforcement..."Even if IHL does not
apply to such acts they are still subject to law. Irrespective of
the motives of their perpetrators, terrorist acts committed outside
of armed conflict should be addressed by means of domestic or
international law enforcement, but not by application of the laws
of war.Most of the measures taken by states to prevent or suppress
terrorist acts do not amount to armed conflict. Measures such as
intelligence gathering, police and judicial cooperation,
extradition, criminal sanctions, financial investigations, the
freezing of assets or diplomatic and economic pressure on states
accused of aiding suspected terrorists are not commonly considered
acts of war." Terrorism " is a phenomenon. Both practically and
legally, war cannot be waged against a phenomenon, but only against
an identifiable party to an armed conflict. For thes e reasons, it
would be more appropriate to speak of a multifaceted " fight
against terrorism " rather than a " war on terrorism " .What law
applies to persons detained in the fight against terrorism?States
have the obligation and right to defend their citizens against
terrorist attacks. This may include the arrest and detention of
persons suspected of terrorist crimes. However, this must always be
done according to a clearly defined national and/or international
legal framework.Persons detained in relation to an international
armed conflict involving two or more states as part of the fight
against terrorism the case with Afghanistan until the establishment
of the new government in June 2002 - are protected by IHL
applicable to international armed conflicts."if the POW status of a
prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a
competent tribunal should be established to rule on the
issue..."Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status
(POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that
international armed conflict. POWs cannot be tried for mere
participation in hostilities, but may be tried for any war crimes
they may have committed. In this case they may be held until any
sentence imposed has been served. If the POW status of a prisoner
is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent
tribunal should be established to rule on the issue.Civilians
detained for security reasons must be accorded the protections
provided for in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Combatants who do not
fulfil the requisite criteria for POW stat us (who, for example, do
not carry arms openly) or civilians who have taken a direct part in
hostilities in an international armed conflict (so-called "
unprivileged " or " unlawful " belligerents) are protected by the
Fourth Geneva Convention provided they are enemy nationals.Contrary
to POWs such persons may, however, be tried under the domestic law
of the detaining state for taking up arms, as well as for any
criminal acts they may have committed. They may be imprisoned until
any sentence imposed has been served. Read the full text of
theFourth Geneva ConventionPersons detained in relation to a
non-international armed conflict waged as part of the fight against
terrorism as is the case with Afghanistan since June 2002 - are
protected byArticle 3common to the Geneva Conventions and the
relevant rules of customary international humanitarian law. The
rules of international human rights and domestic law also apply to
them. If tried for any crimes they may have committed they are
entitled to the fair trial guarantees of international humanitarian
and human rights law. Read more about theprotection of victims of
non-international armed conflictsAll persons detained outside of an
armed conflict in the fight against terrorism are protected by the
domestic law of the detaining state and by international human
rights law. If tried for any crimes they may have committed they
are protected by the fair tria l guarantees of these bodies of
law.What is important to know is that no person captured in the
fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is
no such thing as a " black hole " in terms of legal protection.What
is the ICRC's role with respect to persons detained in the fight
against terrorism?Under the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC must be
granted access to persons detained in an international armed
conflict, whether they are POWs or persons protected by the Fourth
Geneva Convention.The ICRC has repeatedly called for a
determination of the precise legal status of each individual held
at Guantanamo Bay [and a] legal framework applicable to all persons
held in the fight against terrorism...It is in this context that
the ICRC has been visiting a number of persons detained, for
example, as a result of the international armed conflict in
Afghanistan, both in Afghanistan and at the US naval base in
Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The ICRC has repeatedly called for a
determination of the precise legal status of each individual held
at Guantanamo Bay, as well as for a determination of the legal
framework applicable to all persons held in the fight against
terrorism by the US authorities.If the fight against terrorism
takes the form of a non-international armed conflict, the ICRC can
offer its humanitarian services to the parties to the conflict and
gain access to persons detained with the agreement of the
authorities involved.Outside of armed conflict situations, the ICRC
has a right of humanitarian initiative under the Statutes of the
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Thus, many
persons regularly visited by the ICRC have been detained for
security reasons in peacetime.Some of the existing international
conventions on terrorism include specific provisions providing that
states may allow ICRC access to persons detained on suspicion of
terrorist activities.The scope and application of the principle of
universal jurisdiction: ICRC statement to the United Nations,
2014https://www.icrc.org/en/document/scope-and-application-principle-universal-jurisdiction-icrc-statement-united-nations-2014
Statement15 OCTOBER 2014United Nations, General Assembly, 69th
session, Sixth Committee, item 83 of the agenda, statement by the
ICRC, New York, 15 October 2014.The International Committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) is grateful for the opportunity to address the
Sixth Committee on this important item.Universal Jurisdiction plays
a vital role in the effective enforcement of International
Humanitarian Law (IHL). States bear the primary responsibility for
preventing impunity and bringing to justice alleged perpetrators of
serious violations of IHL. States are under an obligation to
investigate and prosecute such crimes, whether committed by their
own nationals, in their own territory, or otherwise under their
jurisdiction. Where States are unable or unwilling to prosecute
alleged perpetrators in their territory or under their
jurisdiction, and when international courts cannot exercise
jurisdiction, the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other
States, offers a subsidiary basis for ensuring accountability and
addressing the impunity gap.The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and
Additional Protocol I of 1977 establish mandatory universal
jurisdiction over those violations defined as grave breaches. Other
international instruments, such as The Hague Convention for the
Protection of Cultural Property (1954) and its Second Protocol
(1999), the Convention against Torture (1984), and the
International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from
Enforced Disappearance (2006), similarly recognize that States must
assert universal jurisdiction to prosecute serious violations of
the Conventions including in an armed conflict. Under customary
IHL, States can exercise universal jurisdiction over war crimes
committed during international and non-international armed
conflicts.The ICRC is pleased to note that many States have
established some form of universal jurisdiction over serious
violations of IHL in their national legal systems. Most of these
States have adopted legislation granting such jurisdiction over any
or a combination of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and
Additional Protocol I, as well as violations of other instruments
and the war crimes listed in the International Criminal Court
Statute. Recent national court decisions and legal initiatives by
States have also demonstrated how the principle of universal
jurisdiction can be applied in practice.The ICRC notes that most
States, when establishing universal jurisdiction over war crimes,
have attached certain conditions to its exercise. Most common is
the requirement of a link between the accused and the forum State,
like the presence of the accused in the prosecuting State, or the
consent of a governmental authority. This trend is highlighted in
the ICRCs submission to the Secretary-Generals report pursuant to
General Assembly resolution 68/117(2014).While recognizing the will
of States to better frame the application of universal
jurisdiction, the ICRC is convinced that the conditions for opening
criminal proceedings, or for justifying a refusal to do so, should
be clearly defined at the national level. Such conditions should
strengthen the effectiveness and predictability of the principle of
universal jurisdiction, rather than limit its application.The ICRC
is aware of the major challenges associated with the implementation
of universal jurisdiction whether technical, legal, practical or in
terms of resources. Given these challenges, we deem it essential
that States keep investing in nationalcapacitybuilding and the
enactment of appropriate national legislation to prosecute war
crimes on the basis of both national and extraterritorial
jurisdiction, including universal jurisdiction.This will deter such
crimes from being committed and allow perpetrators to be prosecuted
when violations occur. States should also improve international
judicial cooperation and assistance by affording one another the
greatest possible assistance in criminal proceedings brought in
respect of international crimes.Promoting the prevention and
repression of war crimes is among the primary activities of the
ICRCs Advisory Service on IHL. Universal jurisdiction is an
important aspect of this process. The ICRC has thus developed
expert legal and technical resources on relevant State practice
through its databases on customary IHL and national implementation,
as well as its manual on domestic implementation of IHL.The ICRC
reaffirms its willingness to support States in their efforts to
build an effective system against impunity.
By what authority was the no-fly zone against Libya created?The
United Nations Security Council (SC) on March 17, 2011, by a vote
of 10 to 0 with 5 abstentions, enacted SC Resolution 1973, which
creates a "no-fly zone" in Libya under Chapter VII of the UN
Charter.[1] Resolution 1973 also calls for an immediate ceasefire
and an end to all violence and abuses against civilians. It demands
that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under
international law, including international humanitarian law, and
that they ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian
assistance.[2]What does the no-fly zone in Libya provide?SC
Resolution 1973 places a ban on all aircraft flights in Libyan
airspace in order to help protect civilians (para. 6). It provides
UN member states that have notified the UN secretary-general and
the secretary-general of the League of Arab States with wide powers
to use military force to enforce the no-fly zone (para. 8).The
resolution authorizes enforcing states to "take all necessary
measures" to protect civilians and populated areas under threat of
attack in Libya, including the city of Benghazi (para. 4). It
specifically prohibits "a foreign occupation force of any form on
any part of Libyan territory" (para. 4). Enforcing states could
therefore use military force against a wide range of military
targets, including anti-aircraft batteries, military aviation
control centers, grounded aircraft, military supply depots, and
other military objectives.SC Resolution 1973 states that the no-fly
zone does not apply to flights "whose sole purpose is humanitarian,
such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance,
including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related
assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals" from Libya. It also
permits states to authorize flights that are deemed necessary "for
the benefit of the Libyan people" (para. 7).What international
humanitarian law is applicable in Libya?Fighting between armed
forces acting under SC Resolution 1973 and Libyan armed forces is
governed by the laws of war for an international armed conflict,
that is, hostilities between states. Applicable international law
includes the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and customary laws of war.
Libya and most states that might be involved in hostilities,
including France and the United Kingdom, are also parties to the
First Additional Protocol of 1977 (Protocol I) to the Geneva
Conventions. Although the United States is not a party to Protocol
I, it accepts most of its provisions as reflective of customary
international law. Protocol I provides the fullest articulation of
the laws of war as they pertain to the methods and means of
warfare.Fighting between Libyan armed forces and Libyan opposition
armed groups amounts to a non-international (internal) armed
conflict. It is regulated by Common Article 3 to the Geneva
Conventions and the Second Additional Protocol of 1977 to the
Geneva Conventions (Protocol II), as well as customary laws of
war.What are the basic principles of the laws of war?The laws of
war - whether in international or internal armed conflicts - seek
to minimize unnecessary pain and suffering during wartime,
particularly by protecting civilians and other noncombatants from
the hazards of armed conflict. It addresses the conduct of
hostilities - the means and methods of warfare - by all sides to a
conflict. A fundamental principle is that parties must distinguish
at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians and
civilian objects may never be the object of attacks. Warring
parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize
harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks
that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail
to discriminate between combatants and civilians. International
humanitarian law also provides a number of fundamental protections
for noncombatants, (such as civilians, captured combatants, and
those who are unable to fight because of wounds or illness). It
prohibits violence against such persons - particularly murder,
cruel treatment and torture - as well as outrages against their
personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment.Do the laws
of war apply to air warfare?The general principles of the laws of
war apply to air warfare. However, the specific application of
these rules, such as with respect to precautions necessary to spare
civilian objects from attack, may entail different practical
measures from ground warfare. For example, taking all feasible
precautions to determine that an aircraft is a military target may
include such factors as visual identification, responses to radio
warnings, infrared radar and electronic signatures, identification
modes, aircraft number and formation, and altitude, speed and other
flight characteristics.[3]What laws of war apply to no-fly zones
generally?Enforcement of a no-fly zone must be in accordance with
the laws of war concerning the methods and means of armed conflict.
Specifically, the laws of war only permit attacks on military
objectives, such as military airplanes, helicopters and targets on
the ground. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects, such as
commercial airlines and other civilian aircraft, are prohibited.
Civilian objects become subject to legitimate attack when they
become military objectives - that is, when they are making an
effective contribution to military action and their destruction,
capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage.
This would include the deployment of military forces in what are
normally civilian objects, such as civilian aircraft. Where there
is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be
civilian.Civilian aircraft may be intercepted or diverted to
prevent them from entering a no-fly zone. However, by entering a
no-fly zone, they do not lose their civilian status and their
protection from attack. According to the UK Military Manual,
"attacks on ostensibly civil aircraft ought only to be carried out
as a last resort when there is reason to believe that it is itself
deployed on an attack."[4]Civilians may be targeted for attack only
when they are "directly participating in hostilities." In the
context of the no-fly zone, directly participating in hostilities
would include flying military aircraft or civilian aircraft as part
of a military operation; engaging in electronic warfare; loading
aircraft with ordnance, such as missiles and bombs; planning
military air operations; and repairing or servicing military
aircraft directly prior to participating in military
operations.What targets are subject to military attack?The laws of
war limit permissible means and methods of warfare by parties to an
armed conflict and require that they respect and protect civilians
and captured combatants. The fundamental tenets of this law are
"civilian immunity" and the principle of "distinction." While
humanitarian law recognizes that some civilian casualties are
inevitable during armed conflict, it imposes a duty on warring
parties at all times to distinguish between combatants and
civilians, and to target only combatants and other military
objectives. Civilians lose their immunity from attack during the
time they are "directly participating in the hostilities."The laws
of war also protect civilian objects, which are defined as anything
not considered a military objective. Prohibited are direct attacks
against civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of
worship, hospitals, schools, and cultural monuments - unless they
are being used for military purposes. Civilian objects become
subject to legitimate attack when they become military objectives -
that is, when they are making an effective contribution to military
action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a
definite military advantage. This would include the deployment of
military forces in what are normally civilian objects. Where there
is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be
civilian.The laws of war prohibit indiscriminate attacks.
Indiscriminate attacks are of a nature to strike military
objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
Examples of indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed
at a specific military objective or that use weapons that cannot be
directed at a specific military objective. Prohibited
indiscriminate attacks include area bombardment, which are attacks
by artillery or other means that treat as a single military
objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military
objectives located in an area containing a concentration of
civilians and civilian objects.Also prohibited are attacks that
violate the principle of proportionality. Disproportionate attacks
are those that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian
life or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated
from the attack.What kinds of targets may be attacked under SC
Resolution 1973?Enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya permits
denial of Libyan airspace to all aircraft, including airplanes and
helicopters. The laws of war only permit attacks on aircraft that
are Libyan military or are non-military aircraft taking part in
military operations (for example, civilian aircraft transporting
Libyan soldiers).However, SC Resolution 1973 not only authorizes a
no-fly zone, but it provides broad powers to enforcing states to
"take all necessary measures" to protect civilians. Thus, they
could use military force against a wide array of military targets
to enforce the no-fly zone, such as anti-aircraft defenses,
military depots and other military objectives.It would be unlawful
for countries taking part in enforcement of the no-fly zone to
declare all or any part of the zone as subject to unrestricted air
attacks in which any aircraft in the zone could be attacked,
regardless of its military or civilian status.What are the
obligations of the warring parties regarding fighting in populated
areas?International humanitarian law does not prohibit fighting in
urban areas, although the presence of many civilians places greater
obligations on warring parties to take steps to minimize harm to
civilians.The laws of war require that the parties to a conflict
take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian
population and to "take all feasible precautions" to avoid or
minimize the incidental loss of civilian life and damage to
civilian objects. These precautions include doing everything
feasible to verify that the objects of attack are military
objectives and not civilians or civilian objects, and giving
"effective advance warning" of attacks when circumstances
permit.Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating
military objectives near densely populated areas, and endeavor to
remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives.
Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military
objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to
purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military
forces or areas immune from attack.At the same time, the attacking
party is not relieved from its obligation to take into account the
risk to civilians simply because it considers the defending party
responsible for having located legitimate military targets within
or near populated areas.What precautions must be taken in carrying
out military attacks?All parties to a conflict have a legal duty to
protect the life, health and safety of civilians and other
noncombatants. The targeting of military installations and other
military objectives is permitted, but parties must take all
feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and are prohibited from
targeting civilians, launching indiscriminate attacks, or attacking
military objects if the anticipated harm to civilians will be
disproportionate to the expected military advantage. Military
commanders must choose the means of attack that can be directed at
military targets and will minimize incidental harm to civilians. If
the weapons used are so inaccurate that they cannot be directed at
military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian
harm, then they should not be deployed. Deliberately attacking
civilians is in all circumstances prohibited. Individuals who
attack civilians with criminal intent are responsible for war
crimes.
Are warring parties permitted to target infrastructure such as
airports, roads, bridges and power stations?Airports, roads and
bridges are civilian objects that become military objectives
subject to attack if they are actually used for military purposes.
Even then, the rule of proportionality applies, requiring the
parties to the conflict to weigh the short and long-term harm on
civilians against the military advantage served; they must consider
all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians; and they should not
undertake attacks if the expected civilian harm outweighs the
definite military advantage. Among the factors to be considered are
whether the destruction of particular roads or bridges serve in
fact to impede military transport in light of readily alternative
routes - that is, whether the infrastructure attacked is making an
"effective" contribution to the party's military action and its
destruction offers a "definite military advantage" - or whether its
destruction seems aimed more at inconveniencing the civilian
population and even preventing it from fleeing the fighting and
seeking safety. While electrical facilities that supply the army as
well as the civilian population might be a military objective, the
harm to civilians when electricity supplies fail is often enormous,
affecting refrigeration, sanitation, hospitals and other
necessities of modern life; in urban society, electricity is
arguably "indispensable to the survival of the civilian
population," meaning that it can be attacked only in extremely
narrow circumstances or in a manner that limits the impact to the
short term. Meanwhile, the military effect of targeting electrical
facilities serving the civilian population often can be achieved in
more focused ways, such as by attacking military facilities
themselves or the portion of an electrical grid directly serving a
military facility. May coalition forces attack Libyan radio and
television stations?Military attacks on broadcast facilities used
for military communications are legitimate under the laws of war.
Such attacks on civilian television or radio stations are
prohibited if they are designed primarily to undermine civilian
morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population.
Civilian television and radio stations are legitimate targets only
if they meet the criteria for a legitimate military objective; that
is, if they are used in a way that makes an "effective contribution
to military action" and their destruction in the circumstances
ruling at the time offers "a definite military advantage."
Specifically, Libyan government broadcast facilities could become
military targets if, for example, they are used to send military
orders or otherwise concretely to advance Libyan military
operations. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not
rendered legitimate military targets simply because they broadcast
pro-Gaddafi propaganda. Just as it is unlawful to attack the
civilian population to lower its morale, it is unlawful to attack
facilities that solely shape civilian opinion; neither directly
contributes to military operations.Should stations become
legitimate military objectives because of their use to transmit
military communications, the principle of proportionality in attack
must still be respected. This means that coalition forces should
verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in
undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated
military benefit. They should take special precautions in relation
to buildings located in urban areas, including giving advance
warning of an attack whenever possible.What is meant by using human
shields?The war crime of "shielding" has been defined as
intentionally using the presence of civilians to render certain
points, areas, or military forces immune from military attack.
While it may be unlawful, as noted above, to place forces, weapons
and ammunition within or near densely populated areas, it is only
shielding when there is a specific intent to use the civilians to
deter an attack.Opposing forces may attack a military target that
is making use of human shields, but it is still obligated to
determine whether the attack is proportionate - that is, that the
expected loss of civilian life and property is not greater than the
anticipated military advantage of the attack. The presence of
so-called "voluntary" human shields - civilians claiming or are
claimed to be intentionally surrounding a military target to deter
an enemy attack - remain part of a proportionality
determination.What obligations do warring parties have to
humanitarian agencies?Under international humanitarian law, parties
to a conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded
passage of impartially distributed humanitarian aid to the
population in need. The belligerent parties must consent to
allowing relief operations to take place and may not refuse such
consent on arbitrary grounds. They can take steps to control the
content and delivery of humanitarian aid, such as to ensure that
consignments do not include weapons. However, deliberately impeding
relief supplies is prohibited.In addition, international
humanitarian law requires that belligerent parties ensure the
freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel essential to
the exercise of their functions. This movement can be restricted
only temporarily for reasons of imperative military necessity.
Does international human rights law still apply in Libya?Human
rights law is still applicable during armed conflict situations in
which the laws of war apply. Libya is a party to several
international human rights treaties, including the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention
against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or
Punishment, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights.
These treaties outline guarantees for fundamental rights, many of
which correspond to the rights to which civilians are entitled
under international humanitarian law (e.g. the prohibition on
torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, nondiscrimination, right
to a fair trial).While the ICCPR permits some restrictions on
certain rights during an officially proclaimed public emergency
that "threatens the life of the nation," any derogation of rights
during a public emergency must be of an exceptional and temporary
nature, and must be "limited to the extent strictly required by the
exigencies of the situation." Certain fundamental rights - such as
the right to life and the right to be secure from torture and other
cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment - must always be respected,
even during a public emergency.Who can be held responsible for
violations of international humanitarian law?On February 26, 2011,
the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1970, which referred the
situation in Libya to the ICC, giving the court jurisdiction to
prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity since February 15,
2011. The resolution provides that nationals from a state outside
Libya that is not a party to the ICC Statute shall not be subject
to ICC jurisdiction for all alleged acts arising out of operations
in Libya established or authorized by the Security Council. Of the
12 countries that have provided notice to the secretary-general
about their participation in military operations under Resolution
1973 as of March 24, all are parties to the ICC Statute except the
US, the UAE,Qatar and the Ukraine. All states, including these four
countries not party to the ICC Statute, remain obligated under
international law to investigate and prosecute members of their
armed forces implicated in war crimes.Serious violations of
international humanitarian law that are committed with criminal
intent are war crimes. War crimes, listed in the "grave breaches"
provisions of the Geneva Conventions and as customary law in the
International Criminal Court (ICC) statute and other sources,
include a wide array of offenses, including deliberate,
indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks harming civilians,
hostage taking, using human shields, and imposing collective
punishments, among others. Individuals also may be held criminally
liable for attempting to commit a war crime, as well as assisting
in, facilitating, aiding or abetting a war crime.Responsibility
also may fall on persons planning or instigating the commission of
a war crime. Commanders and civilian leaders may be prosecuted for
war crimes as a matter of command responsibility when they knew or
should have known about the commission of war crimes and took
insufficient measures to prevent them or punish those
responsible.
http://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG_International%20Humanitarian%20Law%20(test).pdfInternational
Justice Resource Center,
http://www.ijrcenter.org/international-humanitarian-law/
Conflict News, Libyas Second Civil War: How did it come to
this?, available at:
http://www.conflict-news.com/libyas-second-civil-war-how-did-it-come-to-this/;
Internet; accessed 30 March 2015Human Rights Watch, Libya:
Spiraling Militia Attacks May Be War Crimes, September 8, 2014,
available at:
http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/08/libya-spiraling-militia-attacks-may-be-war-crimes;
Internet; accessed 30 March 2015
Manila Bulletin, Filipino killed, five wounded in Libya attack:
security source, March 31, 2015, available at:
http://www.mb.com.ph/filipino-killed-five-wounded-in-libya-attack-security-source/#DbG5GlJEjGpmmPgO.99l;
Internet; accessed 1 April 2015
Human Rights Watch, Libya: Spiraling Militia Attacks May Be War
Crimes, September 8, 201
International Committee of the Red Cross, ADVISORY SERVICE ON
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, July 20004