Prosecution Of Insurgent Attacks On Healthcare And Civilian Infrastructure
Attacks on healthcare and civilian infrastructure during armed conflicts represent a serious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL) and human rights law. These violations not only cause significant harm to the civilian population but also impede humanitarian assistance and exacerbate human suffering. Under the Geneva Conventions, parties to a conflict are obligated to protect civilian infrastructure, including healthcare facilities, and ensure that medical personnel can carry out their duties without interference.
This issue has gained increased attention due to the ongoing nature of conflicts involving insurgent groups, where healthcare facilities and civilian infrastructure often become direct targets. International and domestic prosecutions of such attacks remain complex, often requiring a delicate balance between military necessity and the protection of civilians and civilian objects.
1. Case: The Attack on a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) Hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan (2015)
Overview: In October 2015, a U.S. airstrike hit a Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF) field hospital in Kunduz, Afghanistan, killing 42 people, including 14 MSF staff members. The attack, which took place during an Afghan National Army offensive against the Taliban, destroyed the hospital and led to widespread condemnation by the international community. MSF, a humanitarian NGO, provides healthcare in conflict zones and operates under the principle of neutrality, meaning it should not be targeted under IHL.
Prosecution and Accountability: The U.S. military conducted an internal investigation, concluding that the airstrike was the result of human error and not deliberate targeting. The report found that a "lack of communication and human error" led to the targeting of the hospital. However, no criminal charges were brought against the military personnel involved, despite the significant loss of life and destruction of a civilian healthcare facility.
International Legal Standards: Under Article 18 of the Geneva Conventions, civilian hospitals are protected from attack, and any violation is considered a war crime under Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). The attack on the MSF hospital is a stark example of how such violations often remain unprosecuted, even when the attack is clearly unlawful under IHL.
Case Outcome: Although the U.S. government did not prosecute the individuals involved, the attack highlighted the challenges of prosecuting such violations in asymmetric conflicts involving insurgents and international military forces. The incident led to greater calls for ensuring accountability and better safeguards for medical facilities in conflict zones.
2. Case: The 2016 Attack on Aleppo Hospitals in Syria (Syrian Civil War)
Overview: During the Syrian Civil War, hospitals in Aleppo, many of them supported by the Syrian American Medical Society (SAMS), were repeatedly targeted by Syrian government forces and Russian airstrikes. These attacks, which were seen as deliberate efforts to destroy medical infrastructure, caused significant civilian casualties and undermined the ability of humanitarian organizations to deliver aid.
Prosecution and Accountability: The international community, including the United Nations (UN), condemned the attacks on healthcare facilities, but there have been few instances of successful prosecution. While organizations like Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International documented these attacks as potential war crimes, the Syrian government and its allies, particularly Russia, have denied targeting hospitals and healthcare infrastructure.
International Legal Standards: Attacks on hospitals violate Article 18 of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Protocol I, Article 12, which clearly prohibit the targeting of medical facilities. The Rome Statute of the ICC, under Article 8(2)(b)(ix), also classifies intentional attacks on hospitals as war crimes.
Case Outcome: In practice, prosecuting such violations in Syria is exceptionally challenging due to the lack of access to independent judicial mechanisms and the protection of the perpetrators by state sovereignty. Despite documented evidence, including from the Commission of Inquiry on Syria established by the UN, these crimes remain largely unpunished.
3. Case: The 2004 NATO Airstrikes on the Serbian Television Building in Belgrade (Kosovo War)
Overview: During the NATO bombing campaign in the Kosovo War, NATO forces targeted the headquarters of the Serbian state-run television (RTS) building in Belgrade. While the building was not a healthcare facility, it was a critical civilian infrastructure target. The bombing resulted in the deaths of 16 journalists and several other civilians. NATO justified the strike as a military target to disrupt Serbian propaganda and military communications.
Prosecution and Accountability: There was no prosecution for the attack, and NATO forces did not face formal charges despite significant civilian casualties. The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY), which was investigating war crimes committed during the Kosovo War, did not bring charges related to this bombing, focusing instead on the actions of Serbian forces. However, the bombing raised important legal and ethical questions about proportionality and targeting in urban warfare.
International Legal Standards: According to Article 52 of Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions, the use of force must distinguish between military and civilian targets, and civilian infrastructure should not be targeted unless it makes an effective contribution to military action. The Rome Statute, under Article 8(2)(b)(ii), defines the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure, like a media building, as a war crime, especially when disproportionate harm to civilians occurs.
Case Outcome: While NATO faced some international criticism, the lack of formal prosecution or accountability highlighted the challenges of prosecuting state actors in international law. This case emphasized the complexities in distinguishing between military and civilian objectives in modern warfare and the legal thresholds for targeting infrastructure.
4. Case: The 2017 Bombing of the Al-Jinah Mosque in Syria (Syrian Civil War)
Overview: On March 16, 2017, U.S.-led coalition airstrikes targeted the Al-Jinah mosque in the Aleppo governorate, killing dozens of civilians. The mosque, located in an area controlled by insurgents, was bombed during prayers. Initially, the U.S. military denied responsibility, but later admitted that the airstrike was a mistake, claiming they had targeted an al-Qaeda leader who was allegedly using the mosque as a base of operations.
Prosecution and Accountability: This attack was widely criticized for hitting a civilian structure and causing significant civilian casualties. While the U.S. military conducted an investigation into the incident, no individual accountability measures were taken against military personnel involved in the airstrike. The failure to prosecute or hold individuals accountable for the bombing raised concerns about the lack of accountability for such attacks on religious and civilian infrastructure.
International Legal Standards: As with other attacks on civilian infrastructure, this bombing violated Article 18 of the Geneva Conventions and Protocol I, which provides that religious and cultural buildings should be protected from attacks, unless they are being used for military purposes. The Rome Statute, under Article 8(2)(b)(ix), also condemns attacks on civilian structures like mosques unless they are being used to further military objectives.
Case Outcome: While the bombing of the Al-Jinah mosque demonstrated the challenges of distinguishing military and civilian targets, it also highlighted the need for stronger accountability measures in coalition military operations. Despite the clear breach of IHL, there was no individual accountability in this case, raising critical questions about prosecuting airstrikes on civilian infrastructure during armed conflicts.
5. Case: The Destruction of Healthcare Facilities by Boko Haram in Nigeria
Overview: Boko Haram, the extremist insurgent group operating in northeastern Nigeria, has repeatedly targeted healthcare facilities as part of its insurgency. One of the most notable instances was the 2015 attack on a World Health Organization (WHO) polio vaccination campaign in Borno State, where several healthcare workers were killed. The group has also destroyed hospitals and clinics, depriving millions of essential health services.
Prosecution and Accountability: Although Nigerian authorities and international organizations have condemned these attacks, there have been limited prosecutions of individuals responsible. The Nigerian government has struggled to bring perpetrators to justice due to the ongoing insurgency and security challenges. Furthermore, international mechanisms like the ICC have not pursued charges related to these attacks, even though they qualify as war crimes under international law.
International Legal Standards: Boko Haram’s attacks on healthcare facilities and workers are clear violations of Article 18 of the Geneva Conventions, which mandates the protection of medical personnel and facilities during armed conflict. These attacks also constitute violations under Article 8(2)(b)(ix) of the Rome Statute, which specifically criminalizes attacks on civilian infrastructure, including healthcare.
Case Outcome: Despite strong international condemnation, the lack of effective enforcement and prosecution in Nigeria and the broader Lake Chad Basin region has meant that these crimes remain largely unpunished. The failure to hold insurgent groups accountable for their attacks on healthcare underscores the challenges in prosecuting non-state actors under international law.
Conclusion
The prosecution of insurgent attacks on healthcare and civilian infrastructure remains a significant challenge in international humanitarian law. While legal frameworks such as the Geneva Conventions, Rome Statute, and various UN conventions provide clear guidelines on the protection of civilian objects, including healthcare facilities, enforcement remains sporadic. In many cases, insurgent groups, state actors, or international coalitions are not held accountable due to issues such as lack of evidence, political resistance, and the difficulty in prosecuting individuals in active conflict zones. The failure to hold perpetrators accountable for such attacks highlights the need for stronger international mechanisms to ensure accountability and protection for civilian infrastructure during conflicts.
RELATED Blog
0 comments