Collateral damage

Last updated

Ruins from the Allied accidental bombing of the Bezuidenhout in 1945, which killed over 500 Dutch civilians Gevolgen van het bombardement op het Bezuidenhout.jpg
Ruins from the Allied accidental bombing of the Bezuidenhout in 1945, which killed over 500 Dutch civilians
Tokyo after the massive firebombing attack on the night of 9-10 March 1945, the single most destructive raid in military aviation history. The Tokyo firebombing killed around 100,000 civilians, but the city's industrial productivity--the primary target of the bombing--was cut in half. Tokyo 1945-3-10-1.jpg
Tokyo after the massive firebombing attack on the night of 9–10 March 1945, the single most destructive raid in military aviation history. The Tokyo firebombing killed around 100,000 civilians, but the city's industrial productivity—the primary target of the bombing—was cut in half.

"Collateral damage" is a term for any incidental and undesired death, injury or other damage inflicted, especially on civilians, as the result of an activity. Originally coined to describe military operations, [1] it is now also used in non-military contexts to refer to negative unintended consequences of an action. [2] [3]

Contents

Since the development of precision-guided munitions in the 1970s, military forces often claim to have gone to great lengths to minimize collateral damage. [4]

Critics of use of the term "collateral damage" see it as a euphemism that dehumanizes non-combatants killed or injured during combat, used to reduce the perceived culpability of military leadership in failing to prevent non-combatant casualties. [5] [6] [7] [8]

Collateral damage does not include civilian casualties caused by military operations that are intended to terrorize or kill enemy civilians (e.g., the bombing of Chongqing during World War II and Russian strikes against Ukrainian infrastructure openly described as "retaliatory" and intended to "make towns uninhabitable"). [9] [10] [11] [12]

Origins and usage

The term "collateral damage" is often attributed to economist Thomas Schelling, who used it in his 1961 article Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage published in Operations Research . [13] [14] In this article, Schelling discussed military strategies that inadvertently lead to the destruction of civilian areas, not directly targeted but affected by military actions intended to affect other strategic assets. The term came into usage during the Vietnam War and over several decades became entrenched in U.S. armed forces jargon. [15]

During the 1991 Gulf War, Coalition forces used the phrase to describe the killing of civilians in attacks on legitimate military targets. According to Scottish linguist Deborah Cameron, [16] "the classic Orwellian arguments for finding this usage objectionable would be that

In 1999, "collateral damage" (German : Kollateralschaden) was named the German Un-Word of the Year by a jury of linguistic scholars. With this choice, it was criticized that the term had been used by NATO forces to describe civilian casualties during the Kosovo War, which the jury considered to be an inhuman euphemism. [17]

International humanitarian law

Military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law, governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict. Offensives causing collateral damage are not automatically classed as a war crimes. They are war crimes when the objective is excessively or solely collateral damage.

Luis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter containing his findings. A section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" elucidates this usage of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:

Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, [18] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.

Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia , an assessment of:

U.S. military approach

The USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide defines the term as the "unintentional damage or incidental damage affecting facilities, equipment, or personnel, occurring as a result of military actions directed against targeted enemy forces or facilities", [20] stating that "[s]uch damage can occur to friendly, neutral, and even enemy forces". Another United States Department of Defense document uses "[u]nintentional or incidental injury or damage to persons or objects that would not be lawful military targets in the circumstances ruling at the time", [21] which also states that "[s]uch damage is not unlawful so long as it is not excessive in light of the overall military advantage anticipated from the attack".

In U.S. military terminology, the unintentional destruction of allied or neutral targets is called "friendly fire".

The U.S. military follows a technology-based process for estimating and mitigating collateral damage. The software used is known as "FAST-CD" or "Fast Assessment Strike Tool—Collateral Damage". [22]

Non-military uses of the phrase

While not actually invented by the military, [23] its use in military context has been common. However, the term has since been widely adopted for non-military cases, and in particular, the COVID-19 pandemic. A large number of medical, [24] government sources [25] and media [26] use this term widely in relation to deaths caused indirectly as a result of government policy such as lockdowns, and not directly by the virus itself. Significant debate on the pandemic strategy has ensued, with some advocating restrictions such as lockdowns to save lives, where others claim the 'collateral damage' caused by enforced lockdowns, masks and distancing may in fact cause more deaths over a longer term. An example is the Great Barrington Declaration, purportedly signed by 3500 medical and other professionals (and mentioned in UK parliament [27] and media [28] ) has a FAQ page titled 'Lockdowns and collateral damage', [29] and refers to this phrase several times.

The term has also been borrowed by the computing community to refer to the refusal of service to legitimate users when administrators take blanket preventative measures against some individuals who are abusing systems. For example, Realtime Blackhole Lists used to combat email spam generally block ranges of Internet Protocol (IP) addresses rather than individual IPs associated with spam, which can deny legitimate users within those ranges the ability to send email to some domains.

The related term collateral mortality has been presumed to derive from the term "collateral damage" and has been applied within military and non-military contexts. Fisheries are an example of this, where bycatch such as dolphins are called collateral mortality; they are species that die in the pursuit of the legal death of fishing targets, such as tuna. [30]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War crime</span> Individual act constituting a violation of the laws of war

A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, and for any individual that is part of the command structure who orders any attempt to committing mass killings including genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Civilian casualty</span> Civilians killed, injured, or imprisoned by non-civilians

A civilian casualty occurs when a civilian is killed or injured by non-civilians, mostly law enforcement officers, military personnel, rebel group forces, or terrorists. Under the law of war, it refers to civilians who perish or suffer wounds as a result of wartime acts. The term is generally applied to situations in which violence is committed in pursuit of political goals. During periods of armed conflict, there are structures, actors, and processes at a number of levels that affect the likelihood of violence against civilians.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of war</span> International regulations of warfare

The law of war is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Airstrike</span> Attack on a specific objective by military aircraft during an offensive mission

An airstrike, air strike, or air raid is an offensive operation carried out by aircraft. Air strikes are delivered from aircraft such as blimps, balloons, fighter aircraft, attack aircraft, bombers, attack helicopters, and drones. The official definition includes all sorts of targets, including enemy air targets, but in popular usage the term is usually narrowed to a tactical (small-scale) attack on a ground or naval objective as opposed to a larger, more general attack such as carpet bombing. Weapons used in an airstrike can range from direct-fire aircraft-mounted cannons and machine guns, rockets and air-to-surface missiles, to various types of aerial bombs, glide bombs, cruise missiles, ballistic missiles, and even directed-energy weapons such as laser weapons.

A preliminary examination of possible war crimes committed by United Kingdom (UK) military forces during the invasion of Iraq in March 2003 was started by the ICC in 2005 and closed in 2006. The preliminary examination was reopened in 2014 in the light of new evidence.

Proportionality is a general principle in law which covers several separate concepts:

In nuclear strategy, countervalue is the targeting of an opponent's assets that are of value but not actually a military threat, such as cities and civilian populations. Counterforce is the targeting of an opponent's military forces and facilities. The Oxford English Dictionary, 2nd ed., records the first use of the word in 1660 and the first use in the modern sense in 1965 in which it is described as a "euphemism for attacking cities".

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War and environmental law</span>

War can heavily damage the environment, and warring countries often place operational requirements ahead of environmental concerns for the duration of the war. Some international law is designed to limit this environmental harm.

Military necessity, along with distinction, and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Targeted killing, or assassination is a tactic that the government of Israel has used during the Israeli–Palestinian conflict, the Iran–Israel proxy conflict, and other conflicts.

Distinction is a principle under international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict, whereby belligerents must distinguish between combatants and protected civilians. Combatant in this instance means persons entitled to directly participate in hostilities and thus are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict. Protected civilian in this instance means civilians who are enemy nationals or neutral citizens outside of the territory of a belligerent power.

During the 2006 Lebanon War, Amnesty International, Human Rights Watch, and United Nations officials accused both Hezbollah and Israel of violating international humanitarian law. These have included allegations of intentional attacks on civilian populations or infrastructure, disproportionate or indiscriminate attacks, the use of human shields, and the use of prohibited weapons.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Grdelica train bombing</span> US attack in the Kosovo War

The Grdelica train bombing occurred on 12 April 1999, when two missiles fired by a USAF F-15E Strike Eagle fighter bomber hit a passenger train while it was passing across a railway bridge over the South Morava river in the Grdelica gorge, some 300 kilometres (190 mi) south of Belgrade, Serbia. At least 20 civilian passengers were killed or declared missing. Estimates of the total death toll run as high as 60. It is considered the deadliest rail disaster in Serbian history.

Air warfare must comply with laws and customs of war, including international humanitarian law by protecting the victims of the conflict and refraining from attacks on protected persons.

Accusations of violations regarding international humanitarian law, which governs the actions by belligerents during an armed conflict, have been directed at both Israel and Hamas for their actions during the 2008–2009 Gaza War. The accusations covered violating laws governing distinction and proportionality by Israel, the indiscriminate firing of rockets at civilian locations and extrajudicial violence within the Gaza Strip by Hamas. As of September 2009, some 360 complaints had been filed by individuals and NGOs at the prosecutor's office in the Hague calling for investigations into alleged crimes committed by Israel during the Gaza War.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Legitimate military target</span> Target seen as valid by belligerent

A legitimate military target is an object, structure, individual, or entity that is considered to be a valid target for attack by belligerent forces according to the law of war during an armed conflict.

From July 8 to August 26, 2014, another conflict between Israel and Gaza escalated and led to the outbreak of a war between Israel and Gaza. Between 2,127 and 2,168 Gazans were killed, including 578 children. The Gaza Health Ministry reported more than 70% of the victims were civilians whilst Israel reported that 55% of the dead were civilians. On the Israeli side 66 soldiers and 5 Israeli civilians, including one child, were killed. These violent outbreaks led to various speeches regarding the Gaza Conflict in front of the United Nations, given by the Prime Minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, the President of the Palestinian National Authority, Mahmoud Abbas and members of the Human Right Watch and Representatives of the Secretary-General for Children and Armed Conflict.

Human shields are legally protected persons—either protected civilians or prisoners of war—who are either coerced or volunteer to deter attacks by occupying the space between a belligerent and a legitimate military target. The use of human shields is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a specific intent war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998. The language of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court prohibits "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations."

In international humanitarian law and international criminal law, an indiscriminate attack is a military attack that fails to distinguish between legitimate military targets and protected persons. Indiscriminate attacks strike both legitimate military and protected objects alike, thus violating the principle of distinction between combatants and protected civilians. They differ from direct attacks against protected civilians and encompass cases in which the perpetrators are indifferent as to the nature of the target, cases in which the perpetrators use tactics or weapons that are inherently indiscriminate, and cases in which the attack is disproportionate, because it is likely to cause excessive protected civilian casualties and damages to protected objects.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Non-combatant casualty value</span> Military rule of engagement

Non-combatant casualty value (NCV), also known as the non-combatant and civilian casualty cut-off value, is a military rule of engagement which provides an estimate of the worth placed on the lives of non-combatants, i.e. civilians or non-military individuals within a conflict zone. It has become an element of strategic planning and policy-making during a number of armed conflicts, providing a quantification of the proportionality principle as interpreted by the military command, and thus influencing decisions regarding the use of force and "acceptable" collateral damage. It has been described as a "central value in contemporary Western war" and "perhaps our starkest rule of engagement".

References

  1. ↑ Holland, Joseph (2007). "Military Objective and Collateral Damage: Their Relationship and Dynamics". Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law. 7: 35–78. doi:10.1017/S1389135904000352 (inactive 1 November 2024). ISSN   1389-1359.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of November 2024 (link)
  2. ↑ "Collateral Damage". Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Merriam Webster. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  3. ↑ "The meaning and origin of the expression: Collateral Damage". Phrase Finder UK. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  4. ↑ "Defense.gov News Article: U.S. Military Works to Avoid Civilian Deaths, Collateral Damage". Defenselink.mil. Retrieved 25 February 2010.
  5. ↑ "The Political Psychology of Collateral Damage". Archived from the original on 4 March 2016.
  6. ↑ Peter Olsthoorn (21 September 2010). Military Ethics and Virtues: An Interdisciplinary Approach for the 21st Century. Routledge. p. 125. ISBN   978-1-136-89429-9.
  7. ↑ Magedah Shabo (2008). Techniques of Propaganda and Persuasion. Prestwick House Inc. p. 134. ISBN   978-1-58049-874-6.
  8. ↑ George Monbiot (22 October 2014). "'Cleansing the stock' and other ways governments talk about human beings". Comment is Free .
  9. ↑ Macintyre, Ben (21 March 2014). "'The Bombers and the Bombed,' by Richard Overy". The New York Times.
  10. ↑ Ivan Arreguín-Toft (19 December 2005). How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge University Press. pp. 30–35. ISBN   978-0-521-54869-4.
  11. ↑ Ivan Arreguín-Toft (19 December 2005). How the Weak Win Wars: A Theory of Asymmetric Conflict. Cambridge University Press. pp. 41–42. ISBN   978-0-521-54869-4.
  12. ↑ Beau Grosscup (22 August 2006). Strategic Terror: The Politics and Ethics of Aerial Bombardment. Zed Books. pp. 165–166. ISBN   978-1-84277-543-1.
  13. ↑ Schelling, T. C. (1961). "Dispersal, Deterrence, and Damage". Operations Research. 9 (3): 363–370. doi:10.1287/opre.9.3.363. JSTOR   167568.
  14. ↑ "In Memoriam: Thomas C. Schelling, 1921–2016". www.wcfia.harvard.edu. Retrieved 16 November 2024.
  15. ↑ Rockel, Stephen J.; Halpern, Rick (2009). Inventing Collateral Damage: Civilian Casualties, War, and Empire. Between the Lines. ISBN   9781897071120.
  16. ↑ Deborah Cameron (1995). Verbal Hygiene. 2 – Restrictive practices. The politics of style. "Collateral damage" and the politics of discourse. Routledge, p. 72. ISBN   041510355X.
  17. ↑ "Ein Jahr, ein (Un-)Wort!". Der Spiegel (in German).
  18. ↑ Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions provides a widely accepted definition of military objective: "In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make 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" (Source: Luis Moreno-Ocampo References page 5, footnote 11).
  19. ↑ Luis Moreno-Ocampo OTP letter to senders re Iraq Archived 27 March 2009 at the Wayback Machine 9 February 2006. "Allegations concerning War Crimes" Pages 4, 5
  20. ↑ "USAF Intelligence Targeting Guide — AIR FORCE PAMPHLET 14- 210 Intelligence". 1 February 1998. p. 180. Retrieved 6 October 2007.
  21. ↑ "Joint Doctrine Library" (PDF). dtic.mil. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 August 2014. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
  22. ↑ Bradley, Graham (21 February 2003). "Military Turns to Software to Cut Civilian Casualties". The Washington Post. p. A18.
  23. ↑ "The meaning and origin of the expression: Collateral Damage". Phrase Finder UK. Retrieved 17 February 2021.[ unreliable source? ]
  24. ↑ Feral-Pierssens, Anne-Laure; Claret, Pierre-Géraud; Chouihed, Tahar (August 2020). "Collateral damage of the COVID-19 outbreak: expression of concern". European Journal of Emergency Medicine. 27 (4): 233–234. doi:10.1097/MEJ.0000000000000717. PMC   7202126 . PMID   32345850.
  25. ↑ Masroor, S. (2020). "Collateral damage of COVID-19 pandemic: Delayed medical care". Journal of Cardiac Surgery. 35 (6): 1345–1347. doi:10.1111/jocs.14638. PMC   7276840 . PMID   32419177.
  26. ↑ Gorvett, Zaria (28 May 2020). "Why most Covid-19 deaths won't be from the virus". BBC Future.
  27. ↑ "Covid-19: Great Barrington Declaration". The official report of all Parliamentary debates (Hansard). UK Parliament. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  28. ↑ Freeman, James (6 October 2020). "Why Won't the Media Listen to These Scientists?". The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  29. ↑ "Great Barrington Declaration FAQ". Great Barrington Declaration. Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, Dr. Sunetra Gupta and Dr. Martin Kulldorff. Retrieved 17 February 2021.
  30. ↑ Chuenpagdee, Ratana; Morgan, Lance E.; Maxwell, Sara M.; Norse, Elliott A.; Pauly, Daniel (2003). "Shifting gears: assessing collateral impacts of fishing methods in US waters". Frontiers in Ecology and the Environment. 1 (10): 517–524. doi:10.1890/1540-9295(2003)001[0517:SGACIO]2.0.CO;2. JSTOR   3868162.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.