KEY
TERM >
|
Legitimate
Military Targets
By Gaby Rado |
Six
months before it ended, the war in Bosnia was brought home to the
foreign television journalists in the form of an enormous rocket that
exploded in the courtyard of the Sarajevo television building. Fired
from a Bosnian Serb stronghold, the explosiveactually a gravity
bomb strapped to rocketsdestroyed the offices of two international
television agencies as well as the European Broadcasting Union. Most
of the wounded were foreign journalists.
Faridoun Hemani, a Canadian friend employed by Worldwide Television
News, was filmed walking around with blood pouring down his face,
trying to guide others out of the building. We heard something
hit the TV station, but it didnt sound like a big deal. Then
suddenly, everything came falling down on us, recalled Margaret
Moth, a brave CNN camerawoman who had lost most of her jaw in a sniper
assault two years earlier and had gone back to work in Sarajevo.
Unbeknownst to most television reporters, customary law long ago deemed
radio and television stations to be military
objectives as are other military-industrial, military research,
infrastructure, communications, and energy targets. The logic is that
they can usually be put to military use and are essential for the
functioning of any modern military in time of conflict. Journalists
per se are not a legitimate target, but if they are wounded while
visiting or working in a legitimate target, it is considered collateral
damage.
The definition of a legitimate target is central to the laws of armed
conflict. Additional Protocol I, Article 52, defines a legitimate
military target as one which by [its] nature, location, purpose,
or use makes an effective contribution to military action and whose
total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances
ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage. Any
attack requires that it be justified, in the first place, by military
necessity. However, no object may be attacked if damage to civilians
and civilian objects would be excessive when compared to that advantage.
And if there are doubts whether a normally civilian facility is contributing
to military action, the object is presumed to be civilian.
Legitimate military targets include: armed forces and persons who
take part in the fighting; positions or installations occupied by
armed forces as well as objectives that are directly contested in
battle; military installations such as barracks, war ministries, munitions
or fuel dumps, storage yards for vehicles, airfields, rocket launch
ramps, and naval bases.
Legitimate infrastructure targets include lines and means of communication,
command, and controlrailway lines, roads, bridges, tunnels,
and canalsthat are of fundamental military importance.
Legitimate communications targets include broadcasting and television
stations, and telephone and telegraph exchanges of fundamental military
importance.
Legitimate military-industrial targets include factories producing
arms, transport, and communications equipment for the military; metallurgical,
engineering, and chemicals industries whose nature or purpose is essentially
military; and the storage and transport installations serving such
industries.
Legitimate military research targets include experimental research
centers for the development of weapons and war matériel.
Legitimate energy targets include installations providing energy mainly
for national defense, such as coal and other fuels, and plants producing
gas or electricity mainly for military consumption. Attacks on nuclear
power stations and hydroelectric dams are generally, but not always,
prohibited by the laws of war.
One of the major problems in differentiating legal from illegal or
criminal acts of war concerns apparently civilian objectives that
may have a use by the military. Most buildings used by civilians in
peacetime are protected under international law. Article 52 of Additional
Protocol I states, In case of doubt whether an object which
is normally dedicated to civilian purposes, such as a place of worship,
a house, or other dwelling or a school, is being used to make an effective
contribution to military action, it shall be presumed not to be so
used.
It is a war crime to attack
willfully anything that is not a legitimate military target. On the
other hand, incidentally causing damage to a protected person or object
is not always a war crime. Although the categories listed above indicate
facilities typically regarded in customary law as legitimate targets,
attacking forces are still obliged to meet the test of whether predictable
harm would be proportional
to the military advantage. Given that it is a balancing test which
must often be performed under condition of imperfect information,
commanders customarily have latitude to exercise their judgment. Still,
if the harm is excessive in relation to the concrete
and direct military advantage anticipated, it is a war crime.

|
|