Killing Of Civilians Research Articles

Suicide Bombings: Homicidal Killing or a Weapon of War?

AbstractAfter an overview of the explanatory schemas of suicide bombing, the fastest growing form of terrorism in the world, this paper addresses a neglected but important question of whether the casualties of suicide bombings are homicidal killing or a weapon of war. The paper critically examines the distinction between war and terrorism and argues that both kill civilians and insert the coerciveness of precaution in the daily rhythm of social life. Using evidence from ethnographic studies on the nature of war and homicide, the paper concludes that suicide bombing attacks, because of the principle of substitutability which characterise war killing, could be regarded as a weapon of war. However, given that they are characterised by the wilful killing of civilians they could be regarded as ‘War Crimes’ under the Fourth Geneva Convention.

Asymmetric war, symmetrical intentions: killing civilians in modern armed conflict

During asymmetric war, a state actor often faces charges of disproportionate harm while the weaker, nonstate side must defend itself against charges of terrorism. Because the state actor faces an adversary embedded among civilians, and the nonstate actor confronts an opponent whose military targets are often so well protected that only its nonmilitary targets are vulnerable, it is difficult for either side to fight without harming civilians. While humanitarian law tries to protect noncombatants to the greatest extent possible, too strict an interpretation of terrorism and proportionality may unduly restrict either side's ability to pursue political claims by force of arms. To successfully walk the line between protecting civilians during asymmetric war and allowing each side a ‘fighting chance’, it is necessary to take another look at the idea of intentionality and the definition of combatants. While intentional harm is the hallmark of terrorism, state armies also bring intentional harm if they expect to glean military benefits from causing collateral damage to civilians. A tighter understanding of intentionality can further protect innocent, noncombatant civilians. At the same time, however, the international community must recognise that not all civilians are noncombatants. Many civilians take a direct or indirect role in the fighting. As such, some civilians are vulnerable to lethal harm while others remain subject to nonlethal harm. Asymmetric war expands the range of permissible civilian targets that each side may attack without incurring charges of terrorism or disproportionate harm.

The motivated use of moral principles

AbstractFive studies demonstrated that people selectively use general moral principles to rationalize preferred moral conclusions. In Studies 1a and 1b, college students and community respondents were presented with variations on a traditional moral scenario that asked whether it was permissible to sacrifice one innocent man in order to save a greater number of people. Political liberals, but not relatively more conservative participants, were more likely to endorse consequentialism when the victim had a stereotypically White American name than when the victim had a stereotypically Black American name. Study 2 found evidence suggesting participants believe that the moral principles they are endorsing are general in nature: when presented sequentially with both versions of the scenario, liberals again showed a bias in their judgments to the initial scenario, but demonstrated consistency thereafter. Study 3 found conservatives were more likely to endorse the unintended killing of innocent civilians when Iraqis civilians were killed than when Americans civilians were killed, while liberals showed no significant effect. In Study 4, participants primed with patriotism were more likely to endorse consequentialism when Iraqi civilians were killed by American forces than were participants primed with multiculturalism. However, this was not the case when American civilians were killed by Iraqi forces. Implications for the role of reason in moral judgment are discussed.

Selected To Go Where Murderers Lurk?

This study examines the preventive effect of peacekeeping on mass killings of civilians in intrastate conflicts. Peacekeepers may be sent to the most difficult conflicts. Control variables might capture the difficultness, for example, measures of the intensity of fighting.This is insufficient if there are factors that are difficult to pinpoint and measure that affect both the likelihood that peacekeepers are sent in and the risk of mass killings. Such unmeasured explanatory factors may bias our results.This paper applies a statistical technique, seemingly unrelated probit, that corrects for this problem and reveals a previously undetectable benign effect of peace keeping.

Military Empowerment and Civilian Targeting in Civil War

Civilians constitute a large share of casualties in civil wars across the world. They are targeted to create fear and punish allegiance with the enemy. This maximizes collaboration with the perpetrator and strengthens the support network necessary to consolidate control over contested regions. I develop a model of the magnitude and structure of civilian killings in civil wars involving two armed groups who fight over territorial control. Armies secure compliance through a combination of carrots and sticks. In turn, civilians differ from each other in their intrinsic preference towards one group. I explore the effect of the empowerment of one of the groups in the civilian death toll. There are two effects that go in opposite directions. While a direct effect makes the powerful group more lethal, there is an indirect effect by which the number of civilians who align with that group increases, leaving less enemy supporters to kill. I study the conditions under which there is one dominant effect and illustrate the predictions using sub-national longitudinal data for Colombia's civil war.

Double standards in US warfare: exploring the historical legacy of civilian protection and the complex nature of the moral-legal nexus

AbstractThis article investigates how – by breaking with the historical double standards regarding civilian protection in conflicts – by the end of the twentieth century, US warfare has come to comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Yet, civilians are still being killed. This has sparked controversies over what constitutes legitimate targeting practices and as to whether higher levels of civilian protection could be achieved. Through an engagement with these debates, including an exploration of the evolution of the norm of non-combatant immunity with specific reference to US warfare, the article argues that IHL does not provide fully satisfactory answers to these issues as it is too permissive in relation to the killing of civilians. The article proposes that more stringent moral guidelines, such as those underpinning the idea of ‘due care’, have the potential to go much further in providing protection for the innocent in war.

BENBAJI ON KILLING IN WAR AND ‘THE WAR CONVENTION’

Yitzhak Benbaji defends the view that soldiers on both the ‘just’ and the ‘unjust’ side in a war have the same liberty right to kill one another, because soldiers have ‘tacitly accepted’ the egalitarian laws of war and thereby waived their moral rights not to be attacked. I argue that soldiers on the ‘just’ side have not accepted the egalitarian laws of war; even if they had, they would not thereby have waived their moral rights not to be attacked. Moreover, the egalitarian laws of war and ‘the war convention’ are not fair and mutually beneficial, and so would not be accepted. Benbaji does not come to grips with the problem of the killing of civilians in war: his idea that states could waive the moral rights of their citizens is untenable.

De-Radicalization Initiatives in Egypt: A Preliminary Insight

This article provides a preliminary insight to the ideological revision of the two principle Islamist militant groups in Egypt, the Al-Gamaa Al-Islamiyya and Al-Jihad Al-Islami. Several leaders of these groups have taken steps to renounce violence and promote peace co-existence with the government and society. They have also repented and apologized for the past terror attacks in Egypt that led to the killing of many innocent civilians, government officials and tourists. In addition, they have gone to great lengths to counter and argue against Al Qaeda's violent ideology and to restrict its influence on the Muslim population. The ideological revision of these two groups reflects a significant shift in the efforts of the Egyptian authorities and community to address the problem of ideological extremism and terrorism in the country.

Letters to the Editor

Regarding the October 2008 article “Massacre at No Gun Ri?”: As one of the Associated Press (AP) reporters who confirmed the Korean War refugee killings, I can assure readers that the “intense controversy” over No Gun Ri, as the article calls it, is a contrived controversy. A mistake is made by placing too little faith in the straightforward, unbiased research and reporting of the world's largest news organization, and too much credence in the “investigation” by the U.S. Army, investigating itself, and in a book by a veteran of the very regiment responsible for the killings. Both the Army investigative report and the book are rife with deceit. One simple proof of their untruthfulness: Both cover up the existence of at least 19 documents in which high-ranking U.S. officers ordered or authorized the killing of South Korean civilians during the war's early months, with such words as “shoot all refugees coming across river” and “refugees are fair game.”

Iranian Legal System and Human Rights Protection

The state of human rights in the Islamic Republic of Iran has been criticized both by Iranians and international human right activists, writers, and NGOs. The United Nations General Assembly and the Human Rights Commission have condemned abuses in Iran in published critiques and several resolutions. The government of Iran is criticized both for restrictions and punishments that follow the Islamic Republic's constitution and law, and for actions that do not, such as the torture and killing of political prisoners, and the beatings and killings of dissidents and other civilians. The authors try to explain the real face of Iranian rules related to Human rights.

Fragmented power and state-corporate killings: a critique of blackwater in Iraq

Especially given the invasion of Iraq, a growing number of criminologists have been attending to the transformation of state power and security within a neo-liberal political context. Although the capacity and influence of the state is not disappearing altogether there is a discernible erosion of authority within the sovereign state. In the realm of policing, we witness continued fragmentation of authority in which state power is relinquished to expanding commercial markets. The de-coupling of policing and government raises serious questions about the changing architecture of liberal democratic societies, prompting concerns over the waning monopoly of legitimate coercion. The project here explores the controversy over the use of private military firms in occupied Iraq, particularly the recent killings of civilians by Blackwater personnel. While offering specific details of those incidents, the analysis elaborates on state–corporate crime by revealing how state power is dispersed to the private sector; by doing so, the article examines how private military personnel evade prosecution for war crimes and other human rights abuses.

Positioning Epidemiology in a Changing Environment Over the Next 25 Years: Introduction

A panel of former presidents of the American College of Epidemiology has been convened to reflect on future challenges in epidemiology and public health and how epidemiologists may be best prepared to meet these challenges. The evolving priorities in the allocation of resources, recruitment and training of health professionals, and the orientation of future intervention programs in disease prevention and control require a global perspective. We cannot afford to view a future that is limited to fulfilling only national priorities. Public health emergencies (e.g., pandemics of infectious diseases) transcend national boundaries and require international collaboration. Another compelling example would be preparedness for bioterrorism, which encompasses the intentional release of bacteria, viruses, or toxins for the purpose of harming or killing civilians (1). The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) highlighted ‘‘ten great public health achievements’’ during 1900–1999: vaccines to prevent childhood communicable diseases; measures to ensure motor vehicle safety; establishing guidelines for safety in the workplace; national morbidity and mortality surveillance of acute and chronic diseases; declining coronary heart disease and stroke mortality; increasing safety and nutritional assessment of marketed foods; improving maternal and infant health; assistance in family planning; fluoridation of drinking water; and the recognition of tobacco use as a major health hazard (2). In the latter half of the 20th century, the emergence of chronic diseases provided a stimulus for enhancing the capacity of the public health infrastructure. Epidemiologists, in recognizing the complexity of the etiology and prevention of emerging chronic diseases, developed an increasing capacity for conducting population-based studies that examined health determinants in relationship to molecular and genetic mechanisms as well as social epidemiologic studies that assessed the contextual significance of social class, neighborhood, and ethnicity (3). It is also apparent that the public health infrastructure comprises a partnership of federal, state, and municipal governmental agencies, nongovernmental organizations, academic research and training institutions, and community-based ‘‘stakeholders.’’

Suicide attacks and Islamic law

AbstractSuicide attacks are a recurrent feature of many conflicts. Whereas warfare heroism and martyrdom are allowed in certain circumstances in times of war, a suicide bomber might be committing at least five crimes according to Islamic law, namely killing civilians, mutilating their bodies, violating the trust of enemy soldiers and civilians, committing suicide and destroying civilian objects or properties. The author examines such attacks from an Islamic jus in bello perspective.

Comments on Choices Under Fire

March/April 2008 Historically Speaking 41 not kindness. (One might point out that surrender was not an option to Europe'sJews when facing the Nazis, yet anodier factor putting their plight in a separate category.) Nor did Allied airpower intentionally target the helpless (although the idea was considered by the 9th Air Force in 1945 in Europe.) We can mock the concept of "collateral damage," but it was taken most seriously at the time as a byproduct of the destruction of industrial areas in cities. Allied governments accepted the killing of civilians for military purposes because their leaders believed that the lives of their citizens were worth more than those of their enemies. From Washington 's point of view, did it really matter if the invasion of Kyushuwould have cost "only" 20,000 American lives if these same lives possibly could be saved by killing 120,000Japanese at Hiroshima and Nagasaki? The answer was quite the contrary. Indeed, the Western Allied military apparatus was designed to generate huge amounts of firepower at every level to kill the enemy. There was no moral quandary if fewer of "us" died relative to "them." Had Bess wanted to get aggressive, he might have inquiredwhether Western air forces were justified in killing diousands of French and Italian civilians. It is very possible that more of them died from Allied bombs than British perished from German bombs. De Gaulle knew this, and never raised a protest. I find it almost incomprehensible that anyone would claim to discover moral ambiguity in World War II. As Herodotus reminds us, war is unnatural because fathers bury their sons. World War II was an obscene bloodbath that poisoned the hearts of everyone involved. The degradation of civilized life was all too obvious from one end of the northern hemisphere to the other. And it is a credit to die civilized nations of the Earth that many grew to regret both the pain inflicted on the vanquished and die means used to inflict that pain. This was particularly true as time began to blur the moral calamity that overcame the world during die war. In Samson's famous article in 1946 explaining the use of the atomic bomb, it is very clear that the wise old man knew, above all, that some of his countrymen would forget what the world looked like in 1945 and how people acted in 1945. I wish more historians of today understood Stimson's point. The general public in the West, however, does not seem to suffer any major ethical quandary concerning the war. The gut-wrenching argument that Bess sees inside the West concerning the conduct of World War II exists, in my view, between a small number of people in academics against the vast bulk of the population who may regret the violence of the war but do not question for a minute its necessity . Machiavelli, criticized by Bess, was quite right when describing a necessary war as a just war. If World War II was not necessary, no war has been. Eric Bergerudisprofessorof history atLincoln University . He is the authorof Fire in the Sky: The Air War in the South Pacific (Westview Press, 1999) andseveralother books about World WarII and the Vietnam War. Comments on Choices Under Fire Michael Kort In Choices UnderFire Michael Bess critiques key Allied decisions during World War II, offering assessments of what he sees as their moral complexities. The book has received extensive attention and favorable commentary because Bess is scrupulously fair-minded and judicious in examining the complicated evidence and conflicting arguments pertaining to these issues. He will make almost anyone who reads his book with an open mind consider at least a few of the choices he discusses in a new light, regardless of whether one ultimately agrees with him or not. It is appropriate that the longest chapter in Choices Under Fire concerns the most controversial American act of the war, the use of the atomic bomb against Japan in August 1945. Bess is convincingwhen he adheres to two standards that he accepts as essential in judging the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. The first is the need to keep in mind that the...

My Lai: The Struggle Over Outrage

The 1968 My Lai massacre, during the Vietnam War, and its aftermath can be conceptualized as a struggle over outrage. Examination of the events reveals that the perpetrators and their commanders took various actions that inhibited outrage over the unprovoked killing of civilians. These actions can be classified into five methods: covering up evidence; devaluing the victims; reinterpreting the episode as a military victory; setting up superficial investigations that gave the appearance of justice; and intimidating those who might speak out. These are the same five methods regularly used by perpetrators to inhibit outrage about other types of injustices. This case gives guidance on the sorts of techniques needed to raise concern about human rights violations during wartime.

Lex Specialis? Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum of Jus Ad Bellum

Two different theories attempt to reconcile problems of application of international human rights law in time of armed conflict, to the extent that there is a potential conflict with norms set out in international humanitarian law. One, posited by the International Court of Justice, presents international humanitarian law as the lex specialis, a kind of prism through which the concept of arbitrary deprivation of life (Article 6(1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is to be understood in time of armed conflict. In effect, international humanitarian law supplants international human rights law during armed conflict. The other theory, advanced by the Human Rights Committee, views the two bodies of law as additive in effect. Both regimes apply, and the individual benefits from the more favorable one (belt and suspenders approach). Both theories profess the fundamental compatibility of the two different legal systems, yet they are predicated upon a method for resolving conflicts between them. Both theories encounter serious problems in their application. The author submits that the difficulty with these attempts to reconcile human rights law and humanitarian law lies with the failure to grasp an underlying distinction: international humanitarian law is built upon neutrality or indifference as to the legality of the war itself. Human rights law, on the other hand, law views war itself as a violation. There is a human right to peace. Because of this fundamental incompatibility of perspective with regard to jus ad bellum, human rights law and international humanitarian law can only be reconciled, as both the International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Committee desire, if human rights law abandons the right to peace and develops an indifference to the jus ad bellum. It too must accept the idea of the acceptability of collateral killing of civilians in war, even if the war itself is illegal. The author argues that it is preferable not to attempt to find a neat and seamless relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in the interests of preserving the pacifist strain within international human rights law.

The London Review of Hezbollah

Critics, mostly though not exclusively European, who hammer away at Israeli misbehavior often show no concern about the dangers that beset Israel. Their one-sided animus verges on scandal. Criticism of Israeli behavior may be justified, but it loses credit when it is not balanced by an unequivocal repudiation of the rhetoric and actions of Islamic fundamentalists: Holocaust denial, fantasies of genocidal anti-Semitism, the elimination of the state of Israel, suicide bombings, and indiscriminate killing of civilians.

The Mountain Meadows Massacre of 1857 and the Trials of John D. Lee: An Account

Called the darkest deed of the nineteenth century, the brutal 1857 murder of 120 men, women, and children at a place in southern Utah called Mountain Meadows remains one of the most controversial events in the history of the American West. Although only one man, John D. Lee, ever faced prosecution (for what probably stands as one of the four largest mass killings of civilians in United States history), many other Mormons ordered, planned, or participated in the massacre of wagon loads of Arkansas emigrants as they headed through southwestern Utah on their way to California. Special controversy surrounds the role in the 1857 events of one man, Brigham Young, the fiery prophet of the Church of Latter-day Saints who led his embattled people to the promised land in the valley of the Great Salt Lake. What exactly Brigham Young knew, and when he knew it, are questions that historians still debate.

One-Sided Violence Against Civilians in War

This article presents new data on the direct and deliberate killings of civilians, called one-sided violence, in intrastate armed conflicts, 1989—2004. These data contribute to the present state of quantitative research on violence against civilians in three important respects: the data provide actual estimates of civilians killed, the data are collected annually and the data are provided for both governments and rebel groups. Using these data, general trends and patterns are presented, showing that the post-Cold War era is characterized by periods of fairly low-scale violence punctuated by occasional sharp increases in violence against civilians. Furthermore, rebels tend to be more violent on the whole, while governments commit relatively little violence except in those few years which see mass killings. The article then examines some factors that have been found to predict genocide and evaluates how they correlate with one-sided violence as conceptualized here. A U-shaped correlation between regime type and one-sided violence is identified: while autocratic governments undertake higher levels of one-sided violence than other regime types, rebels are more violent in democratic countries.

Lex Specialis?Belt and Suspenders? The Parallel Operation of Human Rights Law and the Law of Armed Conflict, and the Conundrum ofJus ad Bellum

Two different theories attempt to reconcile problems of application of international human rights law in time of armed conflict, to the extent that there is a potential conflict with norms set out in international humanitarian law. One, posited by the International Court of Justice, presents international humanitarian law as the lex specialis, a kind of prism through which the concept of “arbitrary deprivation of life” (Article 6(1) International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) is to be understood in time of armed conflict. In effect, international humanitarian law supplants international human rights law during armed conflict. The other theory, advanced by the Human Rights Committee, views the two bodies of law as additive in effect. Both regimes apply, and the individual benefits from the more favorable one (“belt and suspenders” approach). Both theories profess the fundamental compatibility of the two different legal systems, yet they are predicated upon a method for resolving conflicts between them. Both theories encounter serious problems in their application. The author submits that the difficulty with these attempts to reconcile human rights law and humanitarian law lies with the failure to grasp an underlying distinction: international humanitarian law is built upon neutrality or indifference as to the legality of the war itself. Human rights law, on the other hand, law views war itself as a violation. There is a human right to peace. Because of this fundamental incompatibility of perspective with regard to jus ad bellum, human rights law and international humanitarian law can only be reconciled, as both the International Court of Justice and the Human Rights Committee desire, if human rights law abandons the right to peace and develops an indifference to the jus ad bellum. It too must accept the idea of the acceptability of “collateral” killing of civilians in war, even if the war itself is illegal. The author argues that it is preferable not to attempt to find a neat and seamless relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law, in the interests of preserving the pacifist strain within international human rights law.