War does not suspend the operation of law: even during an armed conflict, the use of force has limits defined by international humanitarian law
excessive harm to the civilian population.
This rule applies equally to all parties to an armed conflict. The occupying power, the defending State, and any party exercising control over a territory or conducting military operations on it must comply with the limitations governing the conduct of hostilities. The legal status of the territory, the fact of occupation, or the denial of occupation does not relieve a party from the obligation to distinguish between civilians and combatants, between
civilian objects and military objectives, and to refrain from attacks whose consequences would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
1. The Prohibition of Attacks against Civilians
One of the central rules of international humanitarian law is the prohibition of directing attacks against the civilian population as such, or against individual civilians who do not take a direct part in hostilities. The civilian population may not be treated as a military objective, as a means of pressure on the adversary, or as a permissible object of retaliation.
This rule has a deep historical and legal foundation. The 1907 Hague Regulations prohibited the attack or bombardment of undefended towns, villages, dwellings or buildings. The 1907 Hague Convention IX concerning bombardment by naval forces in time of war likewise prohibited the bombardment of undefended ports, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings. The same principle was later developed in resolutions of the League of Nations
and the United Nations, which confirmed the inadmissibility of treating the civilian population as an object of military operations.
Modern international humanitarian law formulates this rule even more clearly: parties to a conflict must at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants, and must direct their operations only against military objectives. This is not a recommendation or a political declaration. It is a legal obligation, the violation of which may entail both State responsibility and individual criminal responsibility.
2. The Principle of Distinction: Civilian Status Cannot Be Displaced by
Assumption
The principle of distinction requires each party to a conflict to identify what constitutes a lawful military objective and what remains protected as a civilian person or civilian object. An attack may be directed only against combatants and military objectives. Civilians, residential buildings, schools, hospitals, cultural and religious sites, humanitarian facilities and other civilian infrastructure may not be made the object of attack
unless they are used in a manner that turns them into military objectives under international humanitarian law.
The rule of doubt is particularly important. If there is doubt as to whether an object normally dedicated to civilian purposes is being used to make an effective contribution to military action, it must be presumed to remain civilian. The party planning or carrying out an attack bears the obligation to verify the nature of the target and may not shift the risk of error onto the civilian population.
Conduct of Hostilities
object of retaliation.
military operations.
Assumption
Accordingly, general references to “military necessity”, the “possible presence of military personnel”, or the “strategic importance of an area” cannot automatically legalize an attack on civilian objects. A lawful attack requires a concrete, verified and current military objective.
3. The Prohibition of Indiscriminate Attacks
Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. These include attacks that are not directed at a specific military objective, attacks that employ means or methods of combat that cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law, or attacks that by their nature strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.
The most dangerous examples are attacks on populated areas, densely inhabited districts or critical infrastructure where a party to the conflict effectively treats a broad area as a single military objective. Such an approach contradicts the very logic of international humanitarian law. Even if a military objective is located in a certain area, this does not mean that the entire area loses its civilian protection.
The use of weapons with wide-area effects, attacks without proper targeting, strikes in areas with a high concentration of civilians, or attacks where it is impossible to separate the military objective from civilian objects must be assessed with particular scrutiny.
4. Proportionality: Even a Military Objective Does Not Permit
Excessive Harm
The existence of a military objective does not, by itself, make every attack lawful. International humanitarian law prohibits an attack that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
This is the principle of proportionality. It does not require the absolute absence of civilian harm in every case, but it establishes a strict legal boundary: civilian harm must not be excessive. The assessment must be made before the attack, taking into account the information available at the time, the nature of the target, the anticipated military advantage, possible alternatives, and the timing, method and means of attack.
Proportionality cannot be justified by general political considerations, revenge, the demoralization of the population, or the creation of pressure on the adversary’s leadership. The military advantage must be concrete, direct and genuinely connected to the attack, not abstract or remote.
5. The Obligation to Take Precautions
Parties to a conflict are required not only to refrain from prohibited attacks, but also to actively take all feasible precautions to protect the civilian population. This includes verifying targets, choosing means and methods of attack that minimize civilian harm, providing advance warning where feasible, and cancelling or suspending an attack if it becomes apparent that the target is not military or that the expected civilian harm would be excessive.
This obligation is especially important in modern conflicts, where military operations often take place near populated areas, energy facilities, transport networks, communication systems, medical infrastructure and social infrastructure. The higher the risk to civilians, the higher the standard of verification, planning and operational control must be.
6. Occupation Does Not Suspend the Limits on the Conduct of
Hostilities
Conduct of Hostilities
object of retaliation.
military operations.
Assumption
Excessive Harm
control must be.
Hostilities
respect the rights of persons under its effective control, and refrain from collective punishment, intimidation or coercion.
Where hostilities continue on occupied territory, both the rules governing occupation and the rules governing the conduct of hostilities may apply. The occupying power cannot rely on territorial control, military necessity or security considerations to justify attacks against civilians, civilian objects or the indiscriminate use of force.
The defending State is likewise bound by international humanitarian law in its own military operations.
Violations by one party do not release the other party from its legal obligations.
7. War Crimes and Individual Responsibility
Serious violations of the rules protecting the civilian population may qualify as war crimes. These may include intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population or individual civilians, intentionally directing attacks against civilian objects, and launching attacks in the knowledge that they may cause excessive civilian harm in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Responsibility may arise not only for direct perpetrators, but also for those who planned, ordered, approved or failed to prevent such conduct where they had the relevant duty and effective capacity to act. Modern international criminal law pays particular attention to the role of command, the systematic nature of conduct, the character of targets, prior knowledge of civilian risks and the conduct of the party after the attack.
8. The Legal Importance of Documenting Violations
Proper documentation is essential for the legal assessment of excessive violence in the conduct of hostilities.
Relevant information includes the time and place of the attack, the nature of the object struck, the presence or absence of a military objective, the type of weapon used, the number of civilian casualties, damage to civilian infrastructure, the prior conduct of the parties, the feasibility of warnings and the recurrence of similar attacks.
Documentation should meet evidentiary standards. Photographs and videos, witness statements, medical records, satellite imagery, official communications, expert reports, remnants of munitions, maps and other sources should be preserved, verified and systematized. This work makes it possible to distinguish incidental harm requiring legal assessment from intentional or indiscriminate uses of force that may amount to international crimes.
Conclusion
The inadmissibility of excessive violence in the conduct of hostilities is not merely a moral imperative. It is a clear legal requirement. International humanitarian law does not prohibit the conduct of hostilities as such, but it sets limits that parties to a conflict may not cross.
The civilian population may not be made the object of attack. Civilian objects may not be destroyed without a lawful military objective. Even an attack against a military objective is prohibited if the expected harm to civilians would be excessive. Occupation, military necessity, the complexity of the battlefield, or violations by the adversary do not suspend these rules.
Respect for these limits is what separates the lawful use of force in armed conflict from a war crime.
Conduct of Hostilities
object of retaliation.
military operations.
Assumption
Excessive Harm
control must be.
Hostilities
coercion.
Conclusion
Conduct of Hostilities
object of retaliation.
military operations.
Assumption
Excessive Harm
control must be.
Hostilities
coercion.
Conclusion
Conduct of Hostilities
object of retaliation.
military operations.
Assumption
Excessive Harm
control must be.
Hostilities
coercion.