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.
| Part of a series on |
| War (outline) |
|---|
 |
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.
Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, Article 52, provides for the general protection to protected persons, hindering attacks to military objectives in a war between two or more belligerents. Article 52 states,
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.
Any attack must be justified by military necessity: an attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy, it must be an attack on a military objective, [1] and the harm caused to protected civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". [1]
Some targets are clearly legitimate, including all military personnel directly engaging in hostilities on behalf of a belligerent party who are not hors de combat or are not members of a neutral country. [2] Some civilian infrastructure, such as rail tracks, roads, ports, airports, and telecommunications used by the military for communications or transporting assets, are all considered to be legitimate military targets. [2]
The legal situation becomes more nuanced and ambiguous if the harm to civilians or civilian property is "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". During World War II, there was a song called a thing-ummy-bob , which contains the lines "And it's the girl that makes the thing that holds the oil, that oils the ring that works the thing-ummy-bob, that's going to win the war". [3] Whether such a girl is a legitimate target is an area that probably has to be decided on a case-by-case basis. However, Protocol I suggests that if it is not clear, then the parties to the conflict should err on the side of caution, as Article 52 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". [1] [2]
International humanitarian law necessitates verification of the legality of the target by doing everything feasible to verify that the objectives attacked were military objectives and not civilians. [4] IHL further mandates that, in the case of a choice between several military objectives, the objective must be selected that is expected to cause the least danger to civilians and civilian objects. [5]
The Targeted Killings case’s definition of legitimate targets in asymmetric conflicts between states and non-state groups only allows a belligerent party to target people who directly participate in the hostilities. This is called a conduct or functional membership-based approach to targeting. [6] The government of Israel, in its 2014 Gaza Conflict Report, has diverged from this approach; in contrast it has taken a formal membership approach. [7] This approach allows the Israeli Defense Forces to target all members of the relevant armed group, regardless of their actual participation in hostilities or role in the organization. This adoption of the formal membership approach to targeting widens the scope of legitimate targets in asymmetric conflicts, such as the one in Gaza. Moreover, this approach narrows the scope of who a protected civilian is. The only other country that has supported this approach so far has been the United States. A substantial rise in the death toll in Gaza may have been among the reasons for the Israeli government’s deviation from the Targeted Killings case’s functional membership approach and its adoption of a broader definition of legitimate targets.
After the Targeted Killings case, the International Committee of the Red Cross adopted a functional approach in their Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under international humanitarian law. [8] It defines members of organized armed groups as those who hold a continuous combat function, or individuals who continuously and directly participate in hostilities as part of the group.