Legal Accountability For Civilian Casualties In Aerial And Ground Combat Operations
The issue of civilian casualties resulting from aerial and ground combat operations is a complex legal challenge in modern warfare. Under international humanitarian law (IHL), particularly the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, combatants are required to distinguish between military targets and civilians, and to avoid or minimize harm to civilians. However, the line between legitimate military objectives and collateral damage can sometimes be blurred, especially in counter-insurgency operations, where insurgents often embed themselves within civilian populations.
Afghanistan has been a case study for examining civilian casualties in both aerial and ground operations. Over the course of the conflict, both Afghan national forces, supported by NATO, and insurgent groups, such as the Taliban and ISIS-K, have been involved in combat operations that have resulted in civilian casualties.
This explanation discusses several key cases, focusing on legal accountability for civilian deaths in the context of aerial and ground combat operations. We will examine the relevant international and domestic legal frameworks, highlight specific cases, and explore the challenges in prosecuting such cases.
1. The 2010 Kunduz Airstrike – Civilian Casualties and Accountability
In 2010, a German-led NATO airstrike in Kunduz province caused the deaths of at least 60 civilians and 30 Taliban fighters. The airstrike targeted two fuel tankers that had been seized by the Taliban and were located in an area populated by civilians.
Facts of the Case:
On September 4, 2010, the airstrike was ordered after Taliban fighters seized two fuel tankers and set up a blockade, blocking a key road. The Taliban fighters were accused of using civilians as human shields.
The German commander on the ground requested air support from NATO forces, and the airstrike was carried out by a U.S. fighter jet.
While the military operation was intended to target insurgents, it resulted in a high number of civilian deaths due to the civilian presence near the fuel tankers.
Legal Implications:
International Humanitarian Law (IHL): According to IHL, military forces are required to adhere to the principle of distinction, ensuring that attacks are directed only at military objectives and not civilians. Furthermore, the principle of proportionality mandates that the expected civilian harm must not outweigh the military advantage gained.
Proportionality and Precautions: The airstrike raised significant questions about whether the principle of proportionality was violated. Given the large number of civilian casualties, one might argue that the military advantage of destroying the tankers did not justify the civilian harm. Moreover, the failure to ensure the safety of civilians, even if the insurgents were using them as shields, may indicate a failure to take adequate precautions.
Accountability: The incident triggered investigations by NATO and Germany. Although the airstrike was seen as a tactical success against insurgents, there was limited accountability for the civilian deaths. The German military issued an apology, but no individuals were held legally accountable for the deaths. This reflects the broader challenge of holding military personnel accountable for collateral damage in complex warfare environments.
Outcome:
Although the case sparked international outcry, particularly from Afghan civil society, no legal proceedings were initiated against those responsible for the airstrike. The lack of accountability demonstrated the difficulty in prosecuting violations of international humanitarian law in asymmetrical warfare involving non-state actors and complex rules of engagement.
2. The 2016 MSF Hospital Bombing in Kunduz – U.S. Aerial Attack on a Medical Facility
In 2016, a U.S. airstrike hit a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing at least 42 people, including patients and hospital staff. This bombing occurred during the Taliban’s assault on Kunduz, one of the major cities in northern Afghanistan.
Facts of the Case:
On October 3, 2015, the U.S. Air Force conducted an airstrike on the MSF hospital after being requested by Afghan forces engaged in combat with Taliban insurgents. The hospital was clearly marked, and MSF had informed military forces of its location.
Despite this, the airstrike targeted the facility, resulting in the destruction of the hospital and numerous civilian deaths.
MSF and human rights organizations condemned the attack as a clear violation of the Geneva Conventions, arguing that the hospital was a protected civilian object under international law.
Legal Implications:
Geneva Conventions: Under Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, hospitals and medical facilities are protected from direct attack, even in situations of armed conflict. The hospital's status as a medical facility made it a non-combatant object, which should have been protected from airstrikes.
Accountability for International Law Violations: The U.S. military conducted an internal investigation, which concluded that the attack was the result of human error and mistakes in the targeting process. While some personnel were reprimanded, no criminal charges were filed.
U.S. Policy and Accountability: The attack highlighted a recurring issue of U.S. military accountability for civilian casualties. While investigations were launched, there were no significant legal repercussions. The attack raised important questions about the rules of engagement and the lack of legal consequences when military operations lead to significant civilian harm.
Outcome:
The U.S. military's internal investigation determined that the strike was conducted under "inappropriate targeting" and that the facility should not have been attacked. However, despite the loss of life and the destruction of a medical facility, no military personnel were held criminally accountable. MSF's call for accountability was met with limited action, highlighting challenges in holding major powers accountable for violations of international humanitarian law.
3. The 2018 Airstrikes in Nangarhar Province – Civilian Casualties in Counterterrorism Operations
In 2018, airstrikes carried out by U.S. forces in Nangarhar Province killed at least 16 civilians, including children. The airstrikes were part of counterterrorism operations targeting ISIS-K, a faction of the Islamic State operating in Afghanistan.
Facts of the Case:
On March 6, 2018, U.S. airstrikes targeted an ISIS-K compound in the Achin district of Nangarhar, which was alleged to be a site for the manufacturing of improvised explosive devices (IEDs).
However, reports later revealed that the airstrike hit civilian houses nearby, killing a number of innocent civilians who were not involved in any combat activities.
Local Afghan officials and human rights groups condemned the airstrike for failing to sufficiently discriminate between civilian and military targets, raising concerns about the targeting process and the use of force in counterterrorism operations.
Legal Implications:
Principle of Distinction: Under IHL, the principle of distinction requires that military forces differentiate between military objectives and civilian objects, ensuring that only the former are targeted. The civilian deaths in this case suggested that the airstrike failed to properly assess the proximity of civilians to the intended military target.
Proportionality: The principle of proportionality requires that the anticipated civilian casualties must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage gained. Given the number of civilian deaths, it could be argued that the military advantage from destroying an IED manufacturing site did not outweigh the harm caused to civilians.
Lack of Accountability: The U.S. military investigated the incident but ultimately deemed the airstrike to be justified based on the information available at the time. No individuals were held accountable, and the case highlighted the difficulty in holding military forces responsible for civilian harm in counterterrorism operations.
Outcome:
Despite protests from local communities and international watchdogs, the U.S. military concluded that the airstrike was conducted in accordance with established rules of engagement. The lack of accountability for civilian casualties in such operations raised significant concerns about the proportionality and conduct of U.S. military operations in Afghanistan.
4. The 2019 Baghdis Airstrike – Civilian Deaths During Ground Assault on Taliban
In 2019, a U.S. airstrike targeted a Taliban position in Baghdis Province but mistakenly hit a civilian convoy, killing at least 14 civilians, including women and children. The civilians were attempting to flee the area during an ongoing ground assault by Afghan forces against the Taliban.
Facts of the Case:
Afghan government forces, supported by U.S. airstrikes, were engaged in heavy combat with the Taliban in Baghdis. During the operations, a convoy of civilians, attempting to escape the fighting, was mistakenly targeted by air support.
The attack led to significant civilian casualties, prompting local outrage and accusations of insufficient discrimination between combatants and civilians.
Legal Implications:
International Humanitarian Law (IHL): The principle of distinction was clearly violated in this case, as civilians fleeing from combat should not have been targeted under IHL protections.
Accountability: This case further raised concerns about accountability for civilian deaths in combat operations, especially aerial strikes that involve remote targeting. While investigations were conducted, no individuals were prosecuted, and the civilian deaths were considered a tragic consequence of aerial support in complex ground operations.
Outcome:
The U.S. military issued an apology and conducted an internal review, but no charges were filed, and no individual military personnel were held criminally accountable. The case underscored the challenges of holding military forces accountable for civilian harm when operating in environments of intense combat and humanitarian crises.
Conclusion
Legal accountability for civilian casualties in aerial and ground combat operations in Afghanistan continues to face significant challenges. Although international humanitarian law (IHL) provides clear guidelines on the treatment of civilians during armed conflict, operational realities and military strategy often result in collateral damage. The cases discussed above reflect a broader issue in which military personnel are rarely held criminally accountable for violations of IHL, despite clear evidence of harm to civilians. The lack of transparency, corruption, and political considerations often impede the accountability process, and international oversight remains limited. Until significant reforms are made, particularly in the accountability mechanisms of military forces, civilian casualties will remain a tragic but often overlooked consequence of modern warfare.
RELATED Blog
0 comments