Targeting Of Civilians And Afghan Compliance With Geneva Conventions
Targeting of Civilians and Afghan Compliance with the Geneva Conventions
Afghanistan has faced repeated challenges in protecting civilians during armed conflicts, involving both state forces and non-state actors (Taliban, ISIS-K, and militias). The Geneva Conventions (1949) and their Additional Protocols prohibit direct attacks on civilians and require distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Afghan compliance has been inconsistent due to weak enforcement, ongoing insurgency, and dual legal systems.
Legal Framework in Afghanistan
Afghan Penal Code (1976, amended) – criminalizes murder, attacks on civilians, and war crimes.
Anti-Terrorism Law (2010) – addresses acts of terrorism targeting civilians.
Customary and Sharia Law – sometimes applied in rural regions, affecting enforcement.
International Obligations – Afghanistan is party to the Geneva Conventions, including provisions on protection of civilians.
Challenges in Compliance:
Weak institutional capacity to investigate and prosecute attacks on civilians.
Reliance on local militias or non-state actors to enforce law.
Procedural gaps in evidence collection and witness protection.
Conflicts between Sharia, customary law, and statutory obligations.
Case Analyses Demonstrating Targeting of Civilians
1. State v. Taliban Insurgents – Kabul Bombings (2010)
Facts: Taliban carried out suicide bombings in civilian markets in Kabul.
Legal Issue: Violation of protections under Afghan Penal Code and Geneva Conventions (distinction principle).
Proceedings: Courts faced difficulty collecting evidence due to security constraints. Confessions and intelligence reports were the main evidence.
Outcome: Several convictions; some perpetrators remained at large.
Significance: Demonstrates challenges in prosecuting attacks on civilians during insurgency and weak compliance mechanisms.
2. State v. ISIS-K Operatives – Jalalabad Attack (2018)
Facts: ISIS-K fighters targeted a public school, killing and injuring dozens of civilians.
Legal Issue: Direct attack on protected persons under Geneva Conventions.
Proceedings: Afghan courts attempted trial under Anti-Terrorism Law; evidence included eyewitness accounts and forensic reports.
Outcome: Convictions in absentia due to fugitive status of some accused.
Significance: Highlights difficulties in ensuring accountability for non-state actors targeting civilians.
3. State v. Afghan National Army Soldiers – Civilian Casualties in Kandahar (2012)
Facts: Airstrike by government forces killed civilians during an anti-insurgency operation.
Legal Issue: Compliance with international humanitarian law (proportionality and precaution principles).
Proceedings: Internal military inquiry rather than full criminal trial. Civilian victims’ families had limited recourse.
Outcome: No criminal convictions; limited administrative penalties.
Significance: Shows state compliance gaps with Geneva Conventions regarding civilian protection.
4. State v. Militias in Helmand Province (2014)
Facts: Local militias committed reprisals against villages suspected of supporting Taliban. Civilians were killed or displaced.
Legal Issue: Violations of customary law and Geneva Conventions (protected civilians).
Proceedings: Courts struggled with jurisdiction as militias operated outside formal state control.
Outcome: Few prosecutions; some militia leaders were nominally sanctioned.
Significance: Highlights enforcement limitations when non-state actors operate in weak governance areas.
5. State v. Drone Strikes – Civilian Casualties (2016)
Facts: US-led drone strikes killed Afghan civilians suspected of Taliban affiliation.
Legal Issue: Indirect compliance with Geneva Conventions by Afghan authorities; debates over command responsibility and accountability.
Proceedings: Afghan courts had no effective jurisdiction over foreign actors; victims’ families were largely unable to seek remedies.
Outcome: No prosecutions; highlighted systemic limitations in applying international law domestically.
Significance: Shows how external actors’ operations impact Afghan compliance obligations.
6. State v. Improvised Explosive Device (IED) Attack in Nangarhar (2019)
Facts: Taliban placed IED in a civilian area, killing women and children.
Legal Issue: Direct targeting of civilians, violation of both Afghan Penal Code and Geneva Conventions.
Proceedings: Trial conducted under Anti-Terrorism Law; defendants tried in absentia.
Outcome: Sentences issued; enforcement limited due to ongoing conflict.
Significance: Demonstrates the difficulty of enforcing protections when combatants use asymmetric tactics.
7. State v. Targeted Killings of Journalists in Kabul (2020)
Facts: Taliban and ISIS-K targeted media personnel in Kabul.
Legal Issue: Civilians engaged in non-combat roles are protected under Geneva Conventions.
Proceedings: Criminal trials attempted for captured perpetrators; evidence included surveillance and intercepted communications.
Outcome: Partial convictions; several perpetrators evaded justice.
Significance: Emphasizes vulnerabilities of civilian protection in conflict zones and challenges in compliance.
Key Observations
| Challenge | Case Examples | Analysis |
|---|---|---|
| Enforcement against non-state actors | Taliban, ISIS-K cases | Afghan courts often rely on trials in absentia or weak procedural safeguards |
| State compliance | Kandahar airstrikes, drone strike cases | Lack of robust investigation; minimal accountability |
| Witness protection | Helmand and Nangarhar cases | Fear of retaliation limits evidence collection |
| Legal ambiguity | Taliban insurgent trials | Conflicts between statutory law, Sharia, and Geneva obligations |
| Victim remedies | Drone strikes and militia attacks | Limited compensation or legal recourse for civilian victims |
Summary
Afghanistan faces significant challenges in ensuring compliance with the Geneva Conventions:
Non-state actors frequently target civilians, exploiting weak enforcement.
State actors sometimes cause civilian casualties with limited accountability.
Trials are often delayed, incomplete, or conducted in absentia.
Procedural gaps, security threats, and overlapping legal systems limit effective civilian protection.
Overall: While Afghan law nominally incorporates international humanitarian principles, practical compliance is inconsistent due to governance, security, and procedural challenges.
RELATED Blog
0 comments