September 11 and
International Humanitarian Law

Overview: This activity introduces students to international humanitarian law and engages them in an examination of the events of September 11, 2001 and their aftermath according to those standards.

Step One: FISHBOWL Activity

1. Facilitator will have students write down their opinion on a small piece of paper as to what the US Government’s next step should be – for example, continue war efforts, strive for non-violent, diplomatic solutions, tighten homeland security, etc.
2. All the opinions should then be thrown into the fishbowl.
3. The facilitator can then pull out the opinions, one by one, and write them on the board
4. The entire class then may be called upon to discuss the opinion(s) in general, while presenting reasons that support this opinion, as well as what the opposite or alternative to that given opinion would be, including reasons that would support it.

Step Two: International Humanitarian Law Activity

1. Ask students to read the handout International Humanitarian Law (below). Invite questions from students regarding the content of the. Questions in bold are scattered throughout the text in order to assist in comprehension.
2. Divide the class into study groups and ask each group to answer the questions in the text in writing. Ask for a spokesperson from each group to read their answers.
3. Discuss and compare student responses to these questions.

STEP THREE: DISCUSSION

Conclude this lesson with a discussion of “War – against whom, with what guidelines” using the following questions.

Discussion Questions:            -

• Did the ideas we came up with in the Fishbowl activity comply with international legal standards? Did they address the same issues? Did they ignore the standards of international humanitarian law? Did they offer stricter guidelines for military involvement?
• Are we at war? With whom are we at war?
• Did the terrorists abide by international standards/international humanitarian law in its attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon? Should/can they be held to those standards?
• Has the US abided by international standards/international humanitarian law?
• Should the US follow international humanitarian law? Are there exceptions?
• Is a military response to the terrorist attacks a good response? Why/why not?
• What are the reasons for military intervention? Are they justifiable under the conditions of International Humanitarian Law?
• What are the requirements for war?
• Should those requirements change to include hostile forces instead of simply the states? (consider state responsibilities)
• Should a state-less group be able to declare war, or act as a state and declare war and/or use violence for political ends? Accordingly, how should states respond to groups who do use violence?
• If the terrorist attack on The World Trade Center is to be considered an act of war, would it be representative of a ‘relationship between States, in which individuals are enemies only by accident; not as men, nor even as citizens, but as soldiers…’ (Jean Jacques Rousseau)? Might we need to re-assess this definition?
• Can President Bush legally declare war against Afghanistan?
• Should the US “stick to the rules” in its military activities? Does the US have a responsibility to abide by law?

Follow-up/homework activity:

Choose a conflict or war, and find examples where international humanitarian law was upheld and/or violated.

HANDOUT

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW (IHL)

Background

Whatever the practicalities of armed conflict, the rules that govern war are not chaotic. There are laws that govern under what circumstances war may be declared, and how a war may be fought. In 1945, war was declared an unacceptable way to settle political differences, and was made illegal, except in the case of self-defense. States retain the right to defend themselves, individually or collectively, against attacks on their independence or their territory, in response to a (legal or illegal) use of force. The United Nations Charter allows member States the use of force in collective action to maintain or restore international peace and security, as a form of self-defense.

Wars do, however, occur for reasons other than self-defense, and may be the result of retaliation to numerous localized situations. Whatever the provocation or justification for war, there is a need for objective international rules to limit the effects of war on people and property. The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) has been set up and developed to protect certain particularly vulnerable groups of persons.

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) consists of a series of about 30 treaties, or laws, which aim both to control the effect of a war on civilians, and to control military acts during war: The treaties have been accepted, or ‘ratified’, by the international community, and have become truly universal law. For example, one of the most famous treaties is the Geneva Convention, which has been ratified by over 150 states.

• The First World War (1914-1918) witnessed the first large-scale use of poison gas, the first-ever aerial bombardments and the capture of hundreds of thousands of prisoners of war. The Geneva Conventions of 1925 and 1929 were a response to those developments.
• The Second World War (1939-1945) saw civilians and military personnel killed in equal numbers, as against a ratio of 1:9 in the First World War. In 1949 the international community responded to those tragic figures, and more particularly to the terrible effects the war had on civilians, by revising the Conventions then in force and adopting a new instrument: the Fourth Geneva Convention for the protection of civilians.
• According to Norway's International Peace Research Institute, civilians are targeted more than ever. At the beginning of the century nine soldiers were casualties of war for every single civilian who suffered the same fate. Today the ratio has reversed, approaching 1 soldier for every 8 civilians. [www.time.com/time/magazine]

Summary of IHL:

The law governing conduct during war has three fundamental concerns.

First, the IHL aims to protect people who are not, or who are no longer fighting in the armed conflict. These people may be civilians who live and work in a country at war, wounded soldiers who are no longer able to fight, or members of the military who have surrendered. This is known as the law of Geneva. The essential rules of IHL seek to protect those people who are not directly involved in the war, and to treat them with humanity, without any unfavorable distinction. Not all civilian deaths in wartime are unlawful. In military terms, ‘collateral damage’, including civilian casualties, is to be expected in war. But there are clear rules that set limits on the conduct of hostilities. For example, the IHL makes it illegal to harm or capture medical teams bearing the flag of the Red Cross (or Red Crescent) on a white background, because they collect and care for the wounded. IHL also makes it illegal for prisoners of war to be treated without dignity or respect for their lives. Prisoners must legally be entitled to their personal rights and their political and religious convictions, to exchange news with their families, and to receive medical help.

Second, the IHL restricts the methods of warfare that the military are legally allowed to use. This is known as the law of The Hague. Neither side of the armed conflict may use weapons that are likely to cause unnecessary losses or excessive suffering. For example, it is illegal for armies to use land mines, asphyxiating, poisonous gases or bacteriological (often called biological) warfare, because these methods of combat will cause continuing harm to civilians, and to military personnel, after the war has ended. One of the cornerstones of the IHL is the principle that all possible measures must be taken to distinguish between civilian persons and objects, and military objectives. Part of the Geneva Convention sets out the ‘basic rule’ regarding the protection of civilians (often referred to as the principle of distinction’).

‘In order to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, the Parties to the conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objects and accordingly shall direct their operations only against military objectives.’

Respect for IHL

Humanitarian law is not always respected and violations of them are not always prosecuted. Opinions vary as to why IHL is often breached without prosecution. Some opinions include:

• ignorance of the law
• the very nature of war so wills it
• humanitarian law is not matched by an effective centralized system for implementing sanctions

Lastly, the international community's efforts to create a permanent international criminal court should also be noted. As the project stands at present (1997), the court would be competent to try war crimes and crimes against humanity, including genocide.

Jean Jacques Rousseau

www.icrc.org/icrceng.nsf

www.amnesty.org

From: September 11: Crisis Response Guide

Copyright: Human Rights Education Program, Amnesty International USA, 2001.