NAVAL WARFARE PUBLICATIONTHE COMMANDER'S HANDBOOK
ON THE LAW OF NAVAL
(Formerly NWP 9)
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF OF NAVAL OPERATIONS
PART II — LAW OF NAVAL WARFARE
CHAPTER 5NWPCH5.htm— PRINCIPLES AND SOURCES OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT
5.1 WAR AND THE LAW 5-1
5.2 GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF
ARMED CONFLICT 5-1
5.3 COMBATANTS AND NONCOMBATANTS 5-2
5.4 SOURCES OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT 5-2
5.4.1 Customary Law 5-2
5.4.2 International Agreements 5-3
5.5 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT 5-4
CHAPTER 6NWPCH6.htm— ADHERENCE AND ENFORCEMENT
6.1 ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT 6-1
6.1.1 Adherence by the United States 6-1
6.1.2 Department of the Navy Policy 6-1
6.1.3 Command Responsibility 6-2
6.1.4 Individual Responsibility 6-2
6.2 ENFORCEMENT OF THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT 6-2
6.2.1 The Protecting Power 6-3
6.2.2 The International Committee of
the Red Cross (ICRC) 6-3
6.2.3 Reprisal 6-3
6.2.4 Reciprocity 6-4
6.2.5 War Crimes Under International Law 6-4
CHAPTER 7NWPCH7.htm— THE LAW OF NEUTRALITY
7.1 INTRODUCTION 7-1
7.2 NEUTRAL STATUS 7-1
7.2.1 Neutrality Under the Charter
of the United Nations 7-1
7.2.2 Neutrality Under Regional and Collective
Self-Defense Arrangements 7-2
7.3 NEUTRAL TERRITORY 7-2
7.3.1 Neutral Lands 7-2
7.3.2 Neutral Ports and Roadsteads 7-3
7.3.3 Neutral Internal Waters 7-4
7.3.4 Neutral Territorial Seas 7-4
7.3.5 Neutral International Straits 7-5
7.3.6 Neutral Archipelagic Waters 7-5
7.3.7 Neutral Airspace 7-6
7.4 NEUTRAL COMMERCE 7-6
7.4.1 Contraband 7-7
7.4.2 Certificate of Noncontraband Carriage 7-8
7.5 ACQUIRING ENEMY CHARACTER 7-9
7.5.1 Acquiring the Character of an Enemy Warship or
Military Aircraft 7-9
7.5.2 Acquiring the Character of an Enemy Merchant
Vessel or Civil Aircraft 7-9
7.6 VISIT AND SEARCH 7-9
7.6.1 Procedure for Visit and Search 7-10
7.6.2 Visit and Search by Military Aircraft 7-10
7.7 BLOCKADE 7-11
7.7.1 General 7-11
7.7.2 Traditional Rules 7-11
7.7.3 Special Entry and Exit Authorization 7-12
7.7.4 Breach and Attempted Breach of Blockade 7-12
7.7.5 Contemporary Practice 7-12
7.8 BELLIGERENT CONTROL OF THE IMMEDIATE AREA
OF NAVAL OPERATIONS 7-13
7.8.1 Belligerent Control of Neutral Communications
at Sea 7-13
7.9 EXCLUSION ZONES AND WAR ZONES 7-13
7.10 CAPTURE OF NEUTRAL VESSELS AND AIRCRAFT 7-14
7.10.1 Destruction of Neutral Prizes 7-14
7.10.2 Personnel of Captured Neutral Vessels
and Aircraft 7-15
7.11 BELLIGERENT PERSONNEL INTERNED BY A
NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT 7-15
Chapter 8NWPCH8.htm— THE LAW OF TARGETING
8.1 PRINCIPLES OF LAWFUL TARGETING 8-1
8.1.1 Military Objectives 8-1
8.1.2 Civilians and Civilian Objects 8-2
8.1.3 Environmental Considerations 8-2
8.2 SURFACE WARFARE 8-2
8.2.1 Enemy Warships and Military Aircraft 8-3
8.2.2 Enemy Merchant Vessels and Civil Aircraft 8-3
8.2.3 Enemy Vessels and Aircraft Exempt from
Destruction or Capture 8-5
8.3 SUBMARINE WARFARE 8-6
8.3.1 Interdiction of Enemy Merchant Shipping by
8.3.2 Enemy Vessels and Aircraft Exempt from
Submarine Interdiction 8-7
8.4 AIR WARFARE AT SEA 8-7
8.4.1 Enemy Vessels and Aircraft Exempt from
Aircraft Interdiction 8-7
8.5 BOMBARDMENT 8-8
8.5.1 General Rules 8-8
8.5.2 Warning Before Bombardment 8-9
8.6 LAND WARFARE 8-9
8.6.1 Targeting in Land Warfare 8-9
8.6.2 Special Protection 8-9
CHAPTER 9NWPCH9.htm — CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS AND WEAPONS SYSTEMS
9.1 INTRODUCTION 9-1
9.1.1 Unnecessary Suffering 9-1
9.1.2 Indiscriminate Effect 9-1
9.2 NAVAL MINES 9-2
9.2.1 Current Technology 9-2
9.2.2 Peacetime Mining 9-2
9.2.3 Mining During Armed Conflict 9-3
9.3 LAND MINES 9-4
9.4 TORPEDOES 9-4
9.5 CLUSTER AND FRAGMENTATION WEAPONS 9-4
9.6 BOOBY TRAPS AND OTHER DELAYED ACTION DEVICES 9-4
9.7 INCENDIARY WEAPONS 9-4
9.8 DIRECTED ENERGY DEVICES 9-5
9.9 OVER-THE-HORIZON WEAPONS SYSTEMS 9-5
CHAPTER 10NWPCH10.htm— NUCLEAR, CHEMICAL, AND BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
10.1 INTRODUCTION 10-1
10.2 NUCLEAR WEAPONS 10-1
10.2.1 General 10-1
10.2.2 Treaty Obligations 10-1
10.3 CHEMICAL WEAPONS 10-3
10.3.1 Treaty Obligations 10-3
10.3.2 Riot Control Agents 10-4
10.3.3 Herbicidal Agents 10-5
10.4 BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS 10-5
10.4.1 Treaty Obligations 10-5
10.4.2 United States Policy Regarding
Biological Weapons 10-6
CHAPTER 11NWPCH11.htm— NONCOMBATANT PERSONS
11.1 INTRODUCTION 11-1
11.2 PROTECTED STATUS 11-1
11.3 THE CIVILIAN POPULATION 11-1
11.4 THE WOUNDED, SICK AND SHIPWRECKED 11-2
11.5 MEDICAL PERSONNEL AND CHAPLAINS 11-2
11.6 PARACHUTISTS 11-3
11.7 PRISONERS OF WAR 11-3
11.7.1 Trial and Punishment 11-4
11.7.2 Labor 11-4
11.7.3 Escape 11-4
11.7.4 Temporary Detention of Prisoners of War,
Civilian Internees, and Other Detained Persons
Aboard Naval Vessels 11-4
11.8 INTERNED PERSONS 11-4
11.9 PROTECTIVE SIGNS AND SYMBOLS 11-5
11.9.1 The Red Cross and Red Crescent 11-5
11.9.2 Other Protective Symbols 11-5
11.9.3 The 1907 Hague Symbol 11-5
11.9.4 1954 Hague Convention Symbol 11-5
11.9.5 The White Flag 11-6
11.9.6 Permitted Use 11-6
11.9.7 Failure to Display 11-6
11.10 PROTECTIVE SIGNALS 11-6
11.10.1 Radio Signals 11-6
11.10.2 Visual Signals 11-6
11.10.3 Electronic Identification 11-6
11.11 IDENTIFICATION OF NEUTRAL PLATFORMS 11-6
CHAPTER 12NWPCH12.htm— DECEPTION DURING ARMED CONFLICT
12.1 GENERAL 12-1
12.1.1 Permitted Deceptions 12-1
12.1.2 Prohibited Deceptions 12-1
12.2 MISUSE OF PROTECTIVE SIGNS, SIGNALS,
AND SYMBOLS 12-1
12.3 NEUTRAL FLAGS, INSIGNIA, AND UNIFORMS 12-1
12.3.1 At Sea 12-1
12.3.2 In the Air 12-1
12.3.3 On Land 12-1
12.4 THE UNITED NATIONS FLAG AND EMBLEM 12-2
12.5 ENEMY FLAGS, INSIGNIA, AND UNIFORMS 12-2
12.5.1 At Sea 12-2
12.5.2 In the Air 12-2
12.5.3 On Land 12-2
12.6 FEIGNING DISTRESS 12-2
12.7 FALSE CLAIMS OF NONCOMBATANT STATUS 12-2
12.7.1 Illegal Combatants 12-2
12.8 SPIES 12-3
12.8.1 Legal Status 12-3
CHAPTER 5Principles and Sources of
the Law of Armed Conflict
5.1 WAR AND THE LAW
Article 2 of the United Nations Charter requires all nations to settle their international disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of other nations. The United Nations Charter prohibits the use of force by member nations except as an enforcement action taken by or on behalf of the United Nations (as in the Gulf War) or as a measure of individual or collective self-defense. It is important to distinguish between resort to armed conflict, and the law governing the conduct of armed conflict. Regardless of whether the use of armed force in a particular circumstance is prohibited by the United Nations Charter (and therefore unlawful), the manner in which the resulting armed conflict is conducted continues to be regulated by the law of armed conflict. (For purposes of this publication, the term "law of armed conflict" is synonymous with "law of war.")
The law of armed conflict seeks to prevent unnecessary suffering and destruction by controlling and mitigating the harmful effects of hostilities through minimum standards of protection to be accorded to "combatants" and to "noncombatants" and their property. (See paragraphs 5.3 and 11.1.) To that end, the law of armed conflict provides that:
The law of armed conflict is not intended to impede the waging of hostilities. Its purpose is to ensure that the violence of hostilities is directed toward the enemy's forces and is not used to cause purposeless, unnecessary human misery and physical destruction. In that sense, the law of armed conflict complements and supports the principles of warfare embodied in the military concepts of objective, mass, economy of force, surprise, and security. Together, the law of armed conflict and the principles of warfare underscore the importance of concentrating forces against critical military targets while avoiding the expenditure of personnel and resources against persons, places, and things that are militarily unimportant. However, these principles do not prohibit the application of overwhelming force against enemy combatants, units and material.
The law of armed conflict is based largely on the distinction to be made between combatants and noncombatants. In accordance with this distinction, the population of a nation engaged in armed conflict is divided into two general classes: armed forces (combatants) and the civilian populace (noncombatants). Each class has specific rights and obligations in time of armed conflict, and no single individual can be simultaneously a combatant and a noncombatant.
The term "combatant" embraces those persons who have the right under international law to participate directly in armed conflict during hostilities. Combatants, therefore, include all members of the regularly organized armed forces of a party to the conflict (except medical personnel, chaplains, civil defense personnel, and members of the armed forces who have acquired civil defense status), as well as irregular forces who are under responsible command and subject to internal military discipline, carry their arms openly, and otherwise distinguish themselves clearly from the civilian population.
Conversely, the term "noncombatant" is primarily applied to those individuals who do not form a part of the armed forces and who otherwise refrain from the commission or direct support of hostile acts. In this context, noncombatants and, generally, the civilian population, are synonymous. The term noncombatants may, however, also embrace certain categories of persons who, although members of or accompanying the armed forces, enjoy special protected status, such as medical officers, corpsmen, chaplains, technical (i.e., contractor) representatives, and civilian war correspondents. (See Chapter 11.) The term is also applied to armed forces personnel who are unable to engage in combat because of wounds, sickness, shipwreck, or capture.
Under the law of armed conflict, noncombatants must be safeguarded against injury not incidental to military operations directed against combatant forces and other military objectives. In particular, it is forbidden to make noncombatants the object of attack.
Because only combatants may lawfully participate directly in armed combat, noncombatants that do so are acting unlawfully and are considered illegal combatants. See paragraphs 11.5 (Medical Personnel and Chaplains) and 12.7.1 (Illegal Combatants).
As is the case with international law generally, the principal sources of the law of armed conflict are custom, as reflected in the practice of nations, and international agreements.
5.4.1 Customary Law.The customary international law of armed conflict derives from the practice of military and naval forces in the field, at sea, and in the air during hostilities. When such a practice attains a degree of regularity and is accompanied by the general conviction among nations that behavior in conformity with that practice is obligatory, it can be said to have become a rule of customary law binding upon all nations. It is frequently difficult to determine the precise point in time at which a usage or practice of warfare evolves into a customary rule of law. In a period marked by rapid developments in technology, coupled with the broadening of the spectrum of conflict to encompass insurgencies and state-sponsored terrorism, it is not surprising that nations often disagree as to the precise content of an accepted practice of armed conflict and to its status as a rule of law. This lack of precision in the definition and interpretation of rules of customary law has been a principal motivation behind efforts to codify the law of armed conflict through written agreements (treaties and conventions.) However, the inherent flexibility of law built on custom and the fact that it reflects the actual--albeit constantly evolving--practice of nations, underscore the continuing importance of customary international law in the development of the law of armed conflict.
5.4.2 International Agreements.International agreements, whether denominated as treaties, conventions, or protocols, have played a major role in the development of the law of armed conflict. Whether codifying existing rules of customary law or creating new rules to govern future practice, international agreements are a source of the law of armed conflict. Rules of law established through international agreements are ordinarily binding only upon those nations that have ratified or adhered to them. Moreover, rules established through the treaty process are binding only to the extent required by the terms of the treaty itself as limited by the reservations, if any, that have accompanied its ratification or adherence by individual nations. Conversely, to the extent that such rules codify existing customary law or otherwise come, over time, to represent a general consensus among nations of their obligatory nature, they are binding upon party and non-party nations alike.
Principal among the international agreements reflecting the development and codification of the law of armed conflict are the Hague Regulations of 1907, the Gas Protocol of 1925, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 for the Protection of War Victims, the 1954 Hague Cultural Property Convention, the Biological Weapons Convention of 1972, and the Conventional Weapons Convention of 1980. Whereas the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Protocols Additional thereto address, for the most part, the protection of victims of war, the Hague Regulations, the Geneva Gas Protocol, 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, Hague Cultural Property Convention, Biological Weapons Convention, and the Conventional Weapons Convention are concerned, primarily, with controlling the means and methods of warfare. The most significant of these agreements (for purposes of this publication) are listed chronologically as follows:
An asterisk (*) indicates that signature or ratification of the United States was subject to one or more reservations or understandings. The United States is a party to, and bound by, all of the foregoing conventions and protocols, except numbers 13, 15, 16 and 18. The United States has decided not to ratify number 15 (Additional Protocol I). The United States has ratified number 17, Protocols I and II, but has not ratified Protocol III.
5.5 RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
During wartime or other periods of armed conflict, U.S. rules of engagement reaffirm the right and responsibility of the operational commander generally to seek out, engage, and destroy enemy forces consistent with national objectives, strategy, and the law of armed conflict.
CHAPTER 6Adherence and Enforcement
6.1 ADHERENCE TO THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT
Nations adhere to the law of armed conflict not only because they are legally obliged to do so but for the very practical reason that it is in their best interest to be governed by consistent and mutually acceptable rules of conduct. The law of armed conflict is effective to the extent that it is obeyed. Occasional violations do not substantially affect the validity of a rule of law, provided routine compliance, observance, and enforcement continue to be the norm. However, repeated violations not responded to by protests, reprisals, or other enforcement actions may, over time, indicate that a particular rule is no longer regarded as valid.
6.1.1 Adherence by the United States.The Constitution of the United States provides that treaties to which the U.S is a party constitute a part of the "supreme law of the land" with a force equal to that of law enacted by the Congress. Moreover, the Supreme Court of the United States has consistently ruled that where there is no treaty and no controlling executive, legislative, or judicial precedent to the contrary, customary international law is a fundamental element of U.S. national law. Since the law of armed conflict is based on international agreements to which the U.S. is a party and customary law, it is binding upon the United States, its citizens, and its armed forces.
6.1.2 Department of the Navy Policy.SECNAVINST 3300.1A states that the Department of the Navy will comply with the law of armed conflict in the conduct of military operations and related activities in armed conflicts. Article 0705, U.S. Navy Regulations, 1990, provides that:
It is the responsibility of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps (see OPNAVINST 3300.52 and MCO 3300.3) to ensure that:
Navy and Marine Corps judge advocates responsible for advising operational commanders are specially trained to provide officers in command with advice and assistance in the law of armed conflict on an independent and expeditious basis. The Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps have directed officers in command of the operating forces to ensure that their judge advocates have appropriate clearances and access to information to enable them to carry out that responsibility.
6.1.3 Command Responsibility.Officers in command are not only responsible for ensuring that they conduct all combat operations in accordance with the law of armed conflict; they are also responsible for the proper performance of their subordinates. While a commander may delegate some or all of his authority, he cannot delegate responsibility for the conduct of the forces he commands. The fact that a commander did not order, authorize, or knowingly acquiesce in a violation of the law of armed conflict by a subordinate will not relieve him of responsibility for its occurrence if it is established that he failed to exercise properly his command authority or failed otherwise to take reasonable measures to discover and correct violations that may occur.
6.1.4 Individual Responsibility.All members of the naval service have a duty to comply with the law of armed conflict and, to the utmost of their ability and authority, to prevent violations by others. They also have an affirmative obligation to report promptly violations of which they become aware. Members of the naval service, like military members of all nations, must obey readily and strictly all lawful orders issued by a superior. Under both international law and U.S. law, an order to commit an obviously criminal act, such as the wanton killing of a noncombatant or the torture of a prisoner, is an unlawful order and will not relieve a subordinate of his responsibility to comply with the law of armed conflict. Only if the unlawfulness of an order is not known by the individual, and he could not reasonably be expected under the circumstances to recognize the order as unlawful, will the defense of obedience of an order protect a subordinate from the consequences of violation of the law of armed conflict.
Various means are available to belligerents under international law for inducing compliance with the law of armed conflict. To establish the facts, the belligerents may agree to an ad hoc enquiry. In the event of a clearly established violation of the law of armed conflict, the aggrieved nation may:
6.2.1 The Protecting Power.Under the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the treatment of prisoners of war, interned civilians, and the inhabitants of occupied territory is to be monitored by a neutral nation known as the Protecting Power. Due to the difficulty of finding a nation which the opposing belligerents will regard as truly neutral, international humanitarian organizations, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, have been authorized by the parties to the conflict to perform at least some of the functions of a Protecting Power.
6.2.2 The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).The ICRC is a private, nongovernmental, humanitarian organization based in Geneva, Switzerland. The ruling body of the ICRC is composed entirely of Swiss citizens and is staffed mainly by Swiss nationals. (The ICRC is distinct from and should not be confused with the various national Red Cross societies such as the American National Red Cross.) Its principal purpose is to provide protection and assistance to the victims of armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions recognize the special status of the ICRC and have assigned specific tasks for it to perform, including visiting and interviewing prisoners of war, providing relief to the civilian population of occupied territories, searching for information concerning missing persons, and offering its "good offices" to facilitate the establishment of hospital and safety zones. Under its governing statute, the ICRC is dedicated to work for the faithful application of the Geneva Conventions, to endeavor to ensure the protection of military and civilian victims of armed conflict, and to serve as a neutral intermediary between belligerents.
6.2.3 Reprisal.A reprisal is an enforcement measure under the law of armed conflict consisting of an act which would otherwise be unlawful but which is justified as a response to the unlawful acts of an enemy. The sole purpose of a reprisal is to induce the enemy to cease its illegal activity and to comply with the law of armed conflict. Reprisals may be taken against enemy armed forces, enemy civilians other than those in occupied territory, and enemy property.
18.104.22.168 Requirements for Reprisal.To be valid, a reprisal action must conform to the following criteria:
22.214.171.124 Immunity From Reprisal.Reprisals are forbidden to be taken against:
126.96.36.199 Authority to Order Reprisals.The President alone may authorize the taking of a reprisal action by U.S. forces. Although reprisal is lawful when the foregoing requirements are met, there is always the risk that it will trigger retaliatory escalation (counter-reprisals) by the enemy. The United States has historically been reluctant to resort to reprisal for just this reason.
6.2.4 Reciprocity.Some obligations under the law of armed conflict are reciprocal in that they are binding on the parties only so long as both sides continue to comply with them. A major violation by one side will release the other side from all further duty to abide by that obligation. The concept of reciprocity is not applicable to humanitarian rules of law that protect the victims of armed conflict, that is, those persons protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions. The decision to consider the United States released from a particular obligation following a major violation by the enemy will be made by the NCA.
6.2.5 War Crimes Under International Law.For the purposes of this publication, war crimes are defined as those acts which violate the law of armed conflict, that is, the rules established by customary and conventional international law regulating the conduct of warfare, and which have been generally recognized as war crimes. Acts constituting war crimes may be committed by the armed forces of a belligerent or by individuals belonging to the civilian population. Belligerents have the obligation under international law to punish their own nationals, whether members of the armed forces or civilians, who commit war crimes. International law also provides that belligerents have the right to punish enemy armed forces personnel and enemy civilians who fall under their control for such offenses.
The following acts are representative war crimes:
188.8.131.52 Trials During Hostilities.Although permitted under international law, nations rarely try enemy combatants while hostilities are in progress. Such trials might provoke undesirable actions from an enemy and complicate humanitarian protections applicable to one's own nationals. Trials of unlawful combatants have been held. Yet, for similar reasons, such trials may be less than rigorously pursued during the course of hostilities. (Regarding trials of a nation's own forces, see paragraph 184.108.40.206.)
220.127.116.11 Trials After Hostilities.Even after the close of hostilities, criminal trials against lawful enemy combatants have been the exception, not the rule. After World War I, responsibility for initiating that conflict was formally assigned to Kaiser Wilhelm, and an extensive report of alleged atrocities committed by German troops was prepared by the Allies. No international trials were held against World War I combatants. Some trials were held by German authorities of German personnel as required by the Allies. Due to the gross excesses of the Axis Powers during World War II, involving not only initiation of aggressive war but also wholesale execution of ethnic groups and enslavement of occupied territories, the Allied Powers determined that large scale assignment of individual criminal responsibility was necessary. Crimes against peace and crimes against humanity were charges against the principal political, military and industrial leaders responsible for the initiation of the war and various inhumane policies. The principal offenses against combatants directly related to combat activities were the willful killing of prisoners and others in temporary custody. Since World War II such prosecutions after conflicts have not occurred.
18.104.22.168 Jurisdiction over Offenses.Except for war crimes trials conducted by the Allies after World War II, the majority of prosecutions for violations of the law of armed conflict have been trials of one's own forces for breaches of military discipline. Violations of the law of armed conflict committed by persons subject to the military law of the United States will usually constitute violations of the Uniform Code of Military Justice and, if so, will be prosecuted under that Code.
Although jurisdiction extends to enemy personnel, trials have almost exclusively been against unlawful combatants, such as persons who take part in combat operations without distinguishing themselves clearly from the civilian population during battle or those acting without state sanction for private ends.
In the United States, its territories and possessions, jurisdiction is not limited to offenses against U.S. nationals, but extends to offenses against persons of other nationalities. Violations by enemy nationals may be tried as offenses against international law, which forms part of the law of the United States. In occupied territories, trials are usually held under occupation law. Trials of such personnel have been held in military courts, military commissions, provost courts, military government courts, and other military tribunals. There is no statute of limitations on the prosecution of a war crime. (On jurisdiction generally, see paragraph 3.11.1.)
22.214.171.124 Fair Trial Standards.The law of armed conflict establishes minimum standards for the trial of foreign nationals charged with war crimes. Failure to provide a fair trial for the alleged commission of a war crime is itself a war crime.
126.96.36.199.1 Superior Orders.The fact that a person committed a war crime under orders of his military or civilian superior does not relieve him from responsibility under international law. It may be considered in mitigation of punishment. To establish responsibility, the person must know (or have reason to know) that an act he is ordered to perform is unlawful under international law. Such an order must be manifestly illegal. The standard is whether under the same or similar circumstances a person of ordinary sense and understanding would know the order to be unlawful. If the person knows the act is unlawful and only does it under duress, this circumstance may be taken into consideration either by way of defense or in mitigation of punishment.
188.8.131.52.2 Military Necessity.The law of armed conflict provides that only that degree and kind of force, not otherwise prohibited by the law of armed conflict, required for the partial or complete submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time, life, and physical resources may be applied. This principle, often referred to as "military necessity," is a fundamental concept of restraint designed to limit the application of force in armed conflict to that which is in fact required to carry out a lawful military purpose. Too often it is misunderstood and misapplied to support the application of military force that is excessive and unlawful under the misapprehension that the "military necessity" of mission accomplishment justifies the result. While the principle does recognize that some amount of collateral damage and incidental injury to civilians and civilian objects may occur in an attack upon a legitimate military objective, it does not excuse the wanton destruction of life and property disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained from the attack.
184.108.40.206.3 Acts Legal or Obligatory Under National Law.The fact that national law does not prohibit an act which constitutes a war crime under international law does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under international law. However, the fact that a war crime under international law is made legal and even obligatory under national law may be considered in mitigation of punishment.
220.127.116.11 Sanctions.Under international law, any punishment, including the death penalty, may be imposed on any person found guilty of a war crime. United States policy requires that the punishment be deterrent in nature and proportionate to the gravity of the offense.
CHAPTER 7The Law of Neutrality
The law of neutrality defines the legal relationship between nations engaged in an armed conflict (belligerents) and nations not taking part in such hostilities (neutrals). The law of neutrality serves to localize war, to limit the conduct of war on both land and sea, and to lessen the impact of war on international commerce.
Developed at a time when nations customarily issued declarations of war before engaging in hostilities, the law of neutrality contemplated that the transition between war and peace would be clear and unambiguous. With the advent of international efforts to abolish "war," coupled with the proliferation of collective security arrangements and the extension of the spectrum of warfare to include insurgencies and counterinsurgencies, armed conflict is now seldom accompanied by formal declarations of war. Consequently, it has become increasingly difficult to determine with precision the point in time when hostilities have become a "war" and to distinguish belligerent nations from neutrals. Notwithstanding these uncertainties, the law of neutrality continues to serve an important role in containing the spread of hostilities, in regulating the conduct of belligerents with respect to nations not participating in the conflict, in regulating the conduct of neutrals with respect to belligerents, and in reducing the harmful effects of such hostilities on international commerce.
For purposes of this publication, a belligerent nation is defined as a nation engaged in an international armed conflict, whether or not a formal declaration of war has been issued. Conversely, a neutral nation is defined as a nation that has proclaimed its neutrality or has otherwise assumed neutral status with respect to an ongoing conflict.
7.2 NEUTRAL STATUS
Customary international law contemplates that all nations have the option to refrain from participation in an armed conflict by declaring or otherwise assuming neutral status. The law of armed conflict reciprocally imposes duties and confers rights upon neutral nations and upon belligerents. The principal right of the neutral nation is that of inviolability; its principal duties are those of abstention and impartiality. Conversely, it is the duty of a belligerent to respect the former and its right to insist upon the latter. This customary law has, to some extent, been modified by the United Nations Charter (see paragraph 7.2.1).
Neutral status, once established, remains in effect unless and until the neutral nation abandons its neutral stance and enters into the conflict.
7.2.1 Neutrality Under the Charter of the United Nations.The Charter of the United Nations imposes upon its members the obligation to settle international disputes by peaceful means and to refrain from the threat or use of force in their international relations. In the event of a threat to or breach of the peace or act of aggression, the Security Council is empowered to take enforcement action on behalf of all member nations, including the use of force, in order to maintain or restore international peace and security. When called upon by the Security Council to do so, member nations are obligated to provide assistance to the United Nations, or a nation or coalition of nations implementing a Security Council enforcement action, in any action it takes and to refrain from aiding any nation against whom such action is directed. Consequently, member nations may be obliged to support a United Nations action with elements of their armed forces, a result incompatible with the abstention requirement of neutral status. Similarly, a member nation may be called upon to provide assistance to the United Nations in an enforcement action not involving its armed forces and thereby assume a partisan posture inconsistent with the impartiality required by the traditional law of neutrality. Should the Security Council determine not to institute an enforcement action, each United Nations member remains free to assert neutral status.
7.2.2 Neutrality Under Regional and Collective Self-Defense Arrangements.The obligation in the United Nations Charter for member nations to refrain from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state is qualified by the right of individual and collective self-defense, which member nations may exercise until such time as the Security Council has taken measures necessary to restore international peace and security. This inherent right of self-defense may be implemented individually, collectively or on an ad hoc basis, or through formalized regional and collective security arrangements. The possibility of asserting and maintaining neutral status under such arrangements depends upon the extent to which the parties are obligated to provide assistance in a regional action, or in the case of collective self-defense, to come to the aid of a victim of an armed attack. The practical effect of such treaties may be to transform the right of the parties to assist one of their number under attack into a duty to do so. This duty may assume a variety of forms ranging from economic assistance to the commitment of armed forces.
7.3 NEUTRAL TERRITORY
As a general rule of international law, all acts of hostility in neutral territory, including neutral lands, neutral waters, and neutral airspace, are prohibited. A neutral nation has the duty to prevent the use of its territory as a place of sanctuary or a base of operations by belligerent forces of any side. If the neutral nation is unable or unwilling to enforce effectively its right of inviolability, an aggrieved belligerent may take such acts as are necessary in neutral territory to counter the activities of enemy forces, including warships and military aircraft, making unlawful use of that territory. Belligerents are also authorized to act in self-defense when attacked or threatened with attack while in neutral territory or when attacked or threatened from neutral territory.
7.3.1 Neutral Lands.Belligerents are forbidden to move troops or war materials and supplies across neutral land territory. Neutral nations may be required to mobilize sufficient armed forces to ensure fulfillment of their responsibility to prevent belligerent forces from crossing neutral borders. Belligerent troops that enter neutral territory must be disarmed and interned until the end of the armed conflict.
A neutral may authorize passage through its territory of wounded and sick belonging to the armed forces of either side on condition that the vehicles transporting them carry neither combatants nor materials of war. If passage of sick and wounded is permitted, the neutral nation assumes responsibility for providing for their safety and control. Prisoners of war that have escaped their captors and made their way to neutral territory may be either repatriated or left at liberty in the neutral nation, but must not be allowed to take part in belligerent activities while there.
7.3.2 Neutral Ports and Roadsteads.Although neutral nations may, on a nondiscriminatory basis, close their ports and roadsteads to belligerents, they are not obliged to do so. In any event, Hague Convention XIII requires that a 24-hour grace period in which to depart must be provided to belligerent warships located in neutral ports or roadsteads at the outbreak of armed conflict. Thereafter, belligerent warships may visit only those neutral ports and roadsteads that the neutral nation may choose to open to them for that purpose. Belligerent vessels, including warships, retain a right of entry in distress whether caused by force majeure or damage resulting from enemy action.
18.104.22.168 Limitations on Stay and Departure.In the absence of special provisions to the contrary in the laws or regulations of the neutral nation, belligerent warships are forbidden to remain in a neutral port or roadstead in excess of 24 hours. This restriction does not apply to belligerent warships devoted exclusively to humanitarian, religious, or nonmilitary scientific purposes. (Warships engaged in the collection of scientific data of potential military application are not exempt.) Belligerent warships may be permitted by a neutral nation to extend their stay in neutral ports and roadsteads on account of stress of weather or damage involving seaworthiness. It is the duty of the neutral nation to intern a belligerent warship, together with its officers and crew, that will not or cannot depart a neutral port or roadstead where it is not entitled to remain.
Unless the neutral nation has adopted laws or regulations to the contrary, no more than three warships of any one belligerent nation may be present in the same neutral port or roadstead at any one time. When warships of opposing belligerent nations are present in a neutral port or roadstead at the same time, not less than 24 hours must elapse between the departure of the respective enemy vessels. The order of departure is determined by the order of arrival unless an extension of stay has been granted. A belligerent warship may not leave a neutral port or roadstead less than 24 hours after the departure of a merchant ship of its adversary. (Hague XIII, art. 16(3)).
22.214.171.124 War Materials, Supplies, Communications, and Repairs.Belligerent warships may not make use of neutral ports or roadsteads to replenish or increase their supplies of war materials or their armaments, or to erect or employ any apparatus for communicating with belligerent forces. Although they may take on food and fuel, the law is unsettled as to the quantities that may be allowed. In practice, it has been left to the neutral nation to determine the conditions for the replenishment and refueling of belligerent warships, subject to the principle of nondiscrimination among belligerents and the prohibition against the use of neutral territory as a base of operations.
Belligerent warships may carry out such repairs in neutral ports and roadsteads as are absolutely necessary to render them seaworthy. The law is unsettled as to whether repair of battle damage, even for seaworthiness purposes, is permitted under this doctrine. In any event, belligerent warships may not add to or repair weapons systems or enhance any other aspect of their war fighting capability. It is the duty of the neutral nation to decide what repairs are necessary to restore seaworthiness and to insist that they be accomplished with the least possible delay.
126.96.36.199 Prizes.A prize (i.e., a captured neutral or enemy merchant ship) may only be brought into a neutral port or roadstead because of unseaworthiness, stress of weather, or want of fuel or provisions, and must leave as soon as such circumstances are overcome or cease to prevail. It is the duty of the neutral nation to release a prize, together with its officers and crew, and to intern the offending belligerent's prize master and prize crew, whenever a prize is unlawfully brought into a neutral port or roadstead or, having entered lawfully, fails to depart as soon as the circumstances which justified its entry no longer pertain.
7.3.3 Neutral Internal Waters.Neutral internal waters encompass those waters of a neutral nation that are landward of the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured, or, in the case of archipelagic states, within the closing lines drawn for the delimitation of such waters. The rules governing neutral ports and roadsteads apply as well to neutral internal waters.
7.3.4 Neutral Territorial Seas.Neutral territorial seas, like neutral territory generally, must not be used by belligerent forces either as a sanctuary from their enemies or as a base of operations. Belligerents are obliged to refrain from all acts of hostility in neutral territorial seas except those necessitated by self-defense or undertaken as self-help enforcement actions against enemy forces that are in violation of the neutral status of those waters when the neutral nation cannot or will not enforce their inviolability.
A neutral nation may, on a nondiscriminatory basis, suspend passage of belligerent warships and prizes through its territorial seas, except in international straits. When properly notified of its closure, belligerents are obliged to refrain from entering a neutral territorial sea except to transit through international straits or as necessitated by distress. A neutral nation may, however, allow the "mere passage" of belligerent warships and prizes through its territorial seas. While in neutral territorial seas, a belligerent warship must also refrain from adding to or repairing its armaments or replenishing its war materials. Although the general practice has been to close neutral territorial seas to belligerent submarines, a neutral nation may elect to allow passage of submarines. Neutral nations customarily authorize passage through their territorial sea of ships carrying the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked, whether or not those waters are otherwise closed to belligerent vessels.
188.8.131.52 The 12-Nautical Mile Territorial Sea.When the law of neutrality was codified in the Hague Conventions of 1907, the 3-nautical mile territorial sea was the accepted norm, aviation was in its infancy, and the submarine had not yet proven itself as a significant weapons platform. The rules of neutrality applicable to the territorial sea were designed primarily to regulate the conduct of surface warships in a narrow band of water off neutral coasts. The 1982 Law of the Sea Convention provides that coastal nations may lawfully extend the breadth of claimed territorial seas to 12 nautical miles. The U.S. claims a 12-nautical mile territorial sea and recognizes the right of all coastal nations to do likewise.
In the context of a universally recognized 3-nautical mile territorial sea, the rights and duties of neutrals and belligerents in neutral territorial seas were balanced and equitable. Although extension of the breadth of the territorial sea from 3 to 12 nautical miles removes over 3,000,000 square miles of ocean from the arena in which belligerent forces may conduct offensive combat operations and significantly complicates neutral nation enforcement of the inviolability of its neutral waters, the 12-nautical mile territorial sea is not, in and of itself, incompatible with the law of neutrality. Belligerents continue to be obliged to refrain from acts of hostility in neutral waters and remain forbidden to use the territorial sea of a neutral nation as a place of sanctuary from their enemies or as a base of operations. Should belligerent forces violate the neutrality of those waters and the neutral nation demonstrate an inability or unwillingness to detect and expel the offender, the other belligerent retains the right to undertake such self-help enforcement actions as are necessary to assure compliance by his adversary and the neutral nation with the law of neutrality.
7.3.5 Neutral International Straits.Customary international law as reflected in the 1982 Law of the Sea Convention provides that belligerent and neutral surface ships, submarines, and aircraft have a right of transit passage through, over, and under all straits used for international navigation. Neutral nations cannot suspend, hamper, or otherwise impede this right of transit passage through international straits. Belligerent forces transitting through international straits overlapped by neutral waters must proceed without delay, must refrain from the threat or use of force against the neutral nation, and must otherwise refrain from acts of hostility and other activities not incident to their transit. Belligerent forces in transit may, however, take defensive measures consistent with their security, including the launching and recovery of aircraft, screen formation steaming, and acoustic and electronic surveillance. Belligerent forces may not use neutral straits as a place of sanctuary nor as a base of operations, and belligerent warships may not exercise the belligerent right of visit and search in those waters. (Note: The Turkish Straits are governed by special rules articulated in the Montreux Convention of 1936, which limit the number and types of warships which may use the Straits, both in times of peace and during armed conflict.)
7.3.6 Neutral Archipelagic Waters.The United States recognizes the right of qualifying island nations to establish archipelagic baselines enclosing archipelagic waters, provided the baselines are drawn in conformity with the 1982 LOS Convention. The balance of neutral and belligerent rights and duties with respect to neutral waters, is, however, at its most difficult in the context of archipelagic waters.
Belligerent forces must refrain from acts of hostility in neutral archipelagic waters and from using them as a sanctuary or a base of operations. Belligerent ships or aircraft, including submarines, surface warships, and military aircraft, retain the right of unimpeded archipelagic sea lanes passage through, over, and under neutral archipelagic sea lanes. Belligerent forces exercising the right of archipelagic sea lanes passage may engage in those activities that are incident to their normal mode of continuous and expeditious passage and are consistent with their security, including formation steaming and the launching and recovery of aircraft. Visit and search is not authorized in neutral archipelagic waters.
A neutral nation may close its archipelagic waters (other than archipelagic sea lanes whether designated or those routes normally used for international navigation or overflight) to the passage of belligerent ships but it is not obliged to do so. The neutral archipelagic nation has an affirmative duty to police its archipelagic waters to ensure that the inviolability of its neutral waters is respected. If a neutral nation is unable or unwilling effectively to detect and expel belligerent forces unlawfully present in its archipelagic waters, the opposing belligerent may undertake such self-help enforcement actions as may be necessary to terminate the violation of neutrality. Such self-help enforcement may include surface, subsurface, and air penetration of archipelagic waters and airspace and the use of proportional force as necessary.
7.3.7 Neutral Airspace.Neutral territory extends to the airspace over a neutral nation's lands, internal waters, archipelagic waters (if any), and territorial sea. Belligerent military aircraft are forbidden to enter neutral airspace with the following exceptions:
184.108.40.206 Neutral Duties In Neutral Airspace.Neutral nations have an affirmative duty to prevent violation of neutral airspace by belligerent military aircraft, to compel offending aircraft to land, and to intern both aircraft and crew. Should a neutral nation be unable or unwilling to prevent the unlawful entry or use of its airspace by belligerent military aircraft, belligerent forces of the other side may undertake such self-help enforcement measures as the circumstances may require.
7.4 NEUTRAL COMMERCE
A principal purpose of the law of neutrality is the regulation of belligerent activities with respect to neutral commerce. For purposes of this publication, neutral commerce comprises all commerce between one neutral nation and another not involving materials of war or armaments destined for a belligerent nation, and all commerce between a neutral nation and a belligerent that does not involve the carriage of contraband or otherwise contribute to the belligerent's war-fighting/war-sustaining capability. Neutral merchant vessels and nonpublic civil aircraft engaged in legitimate neutral commerce are subject to visit and search, but may not be captured or destroyed by belligerent forces.
The law of neutrality does not prohibit neutral nations from engaging in commerce with belligerent nations; however, a neutral government cannot itself supply materials of war or armaments to a belligerent without violating its neutral duties of abstention and impartiality and risking loss of its neutral status. Although a neutral may forbid its citizens from carrying on non-neutral commerce with belligerent nations, it is not obliged to do so. In effect, the law establishes a balance-of-interests test to protect neutral commerce from unreasonable interference on the one hand and the right of belligerents to interdict the flow of war materials to the enemy on the other.
7.4.1 Contraband.Contraband consists of goods which are destined for the enemy of a belligerent and which may be susceptible to use in armed conflict. Traditionally, contraband had been divided into two categories: absolute and conditional. Absolute contraband consisted of goods whose character made it obvious that they were destined for use in armed conflict, such as munitions, weapons, uniforms, and the like. Conditional contraband were goods equally susceptible to either peaceful or warlike purposes, such as foodstuffs, construction materials, and fuel. Belligerents often declared contraband lists at the initiation of hostilities to notify neutral nations of the type of goods considered to be absolute or conditional contraband as well as those not considered to be contraband at all, i.e., exempt or "free goods." The precise nature of a belligerent's contraband list varied according to the circumstances of the conflict.
The practice of belligerents since 1939 has collapsed the traditional distinction between absolute and conditional contraband. Because of the involvement of virtually the entire population in support of the war effort, the belligerents of both sides during the Second World War tended to exercise governmental control over all imports. Consequently, it became increasingly difficult to draw a meaningful distinction between goods destined for an enemy government and its armed forces and goods destined for consumption by the civilian populace. As a result, belligerents treated all imports directly or indirectly sustaining the war effort as contraband without making a distinction between absolute and conditional contraband. To the extent that international law may continue to require publication of contraband lists, recent practice indicates that the requirement may be satisfied by a listing of exempt goods.
220.127.116.11 Enemy Destination.Contraband goods are liable to capture at any place beyond neutral territory, if their destination is the territory belonging to or occupied by the enemy. It is immaterial whether the carriage of contraband is direct, involves transshipment, or requires overland transport. When contraband is involved, a destination of enemy owned or occupied territory may be presumed when:
These presumptions of enemy destination of contraband render the offending cargo liable to seizure by a belligerent from the time the neutral merchant vessel leaves its home or other neutral territory until it arrives again in neutral territory. Although conditional contraband is also liable to capture if ultimately destined for the use of an enemy government or its armed forces, enemy destination of conditional contraband must be factually established and cannot be presumed.
18.104.22.168 Exemptions to Contraband.Certain goods are exempt from capture as contraband even though destined for enemy territory. Among them are:
It is customary for neutral nations to provide belligerents of both sides with information regarding the nature, timing, and route of shipments of goods constituting exceptions to contraband and to obtain approval for their safe conduct and entry into belligerent owned or occupied territory.
7.4.2 Certificate of Noncontraband Carriage.A certificate of noncontraband carriage is a document issued by a belligerent consular or other designated official to a neutral vessel (navicert) or neutral aircraft (aircert) certifying that the cargo being carried has been examined, usually at the initial place of departure, and has been found to be free of contraband. The purpose of such a navicert or aircert is to facilitate belligerent control of contraband goods with minimal interference and delay of neutral commerce. The certificate is not a guarantee that the vessel or aircraft will not be subject to visit and search or that cargo will not be seized. (Changed circumstances, such as a change in status of the neutral vessel, between the time of issuance of the certificate and the time of interception at sea may cause it to be invalidated.) Conversely, absence of a navicert or aircert is not, in itself, a valid ground for seizure of cargo. Navicerts and aircerts issued by one belligerent have no effect on the visit and search rights of a belligerent of the opposing side. The acceptance of a navicert or aircert by a neutral ship or aircraft does not constitute "unneutral service".
All vessels operating under an enemy flag, and all aircraft bearing enemy markings, possess enemy character. However, the fact that a merchant ship flies a neutral flag, or that an aircraft bears neutral markings, does not necessarily establish neutral character. Any merchant vessel or civilian aircraft owned or controlled by a belligerent possesses enemy character, regardless of whether it is operating under a neutral flag or bears neutral markings. Vessels and aircraft acquiring enemy character may be treated by an opposing belligerent as if they are in fact enemy vessels and aircraft. (Paragraphs 8.2.1 and 8.2.2 set forth the actions that may be taken against enemy vessels and aircraft.)
7.5.1 Acquiring the Character of an Enemy Warship or Military Aircraft.Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft acquire enemy character and may be treated by a belligerent as enemy warships and military aircraft when engaged in either of the following acts:
(Paragraph 8.2.1 describes the actions that may be taken against enemy warships and military aircraft.)
7.5.2 Acquiring the Character of an Enemy Merchant Vessel or Civil Aircraft.Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft acquire enemy character and may be treated by a belligerent as enemy merchant vessels or civil aircraft when engaged in either of the following acts:
(Paragraph 8.2.2 describes the actions that may be taken against enemy merchant ships and civil aircraft.)
7.6 VISIT AND SEARCH
Visit and search is the means by which a belligerent warship or belligerent military aircraft may determine the true character (enemy or neutral) of merchant ships encountered outside neutral territory, the nature (contraband or exempt "free goods") of their cargo, the manner (innocent or hostile) of their employment, and other facts bearing on their relation to the armed conflict. Warships are not subject to visit and search. The prohibition against visit and search in neutral territory extends to international straits overlapped by neutral territorial seas and archipelagic sea lanes. Neutral vessels engaged in government noncommercial service may not be subjected to visit and search. Neutral merchant vessels under convoy of neutral warships of the same nationality are also exempt from visit and search, although the convoy commander may be required to provide in writing to the commanding officer of an intercepting belligerent warship information as to the character of the vessels and of their cargoes which could otherwise be obtained by visit and search. Should it be determined by the convoy commander that a vessel under his charge possesses enemy character or carries contraband cargo, he is obliged to withdraw his protection of the offending vessel, making it liable to visit and search, and possible capture, by the belligerent warship.
7.6.1 Procedure for Visit and Search.In the absence of specific rules of engagement or other special instructions issued by the operational chain of command during a period of armed conflict, the following procedure should be carried out by U.S. warships exercising the belligerent right of visit and search:
7.6.2 Visit and Search by Military Aircraft.Although there is a right of visit and search by military aircraft, there is no established international practice as to how that right is to be exercised. Ordinarily, visit and search of a vessel by an aircraft is accomplished by directing and escorting the vessel to the vicinity of a belligerent warship, which will carry out the visit and search, or to a belligerent port. Visit and search of an aircraft by an aircraft may be accomplished by directing the aircraft to proceed under escort to the nearest convenient belligerent landing area.
7.7.1 General.Blockade is a belligerent operation to prevent vessels and/or aircraft of all nations, enemy as well as neutral, from entering or exiting specified ports, airfields, or coastal areas belonging to, occupied by, or under the control of an enemy nation. A belligerent's purpose in establishing a blockade is to deny the enemy the use of enemy and neutral vessels or aircraft to transport personnel and goods to or from enemy territory. While the belligerent right of visit and search is designed to interdict the flow of contraband goods, the belligerent right of blockade is intended to prevent vessels and aircraft, regardless of their cargo, from crossing an established and publicized cordon separating the enemy from international waters and/or airspace.
7.7.2 Traditional Rules.In order to be valid under the traditional rules of international law, a blockade must conform to the following criteria.
22.214.171.124 Establishment.A blockade must be established by the government of the belligerent nation. This is usually accomplished by a declaration of the belligerent government or by the commander of the blockading force acting on behalf of his government. The declaration should include, as a minimum, the date the blockade is to begin, its geographic limits, and the grace period granted neutral vessels and aircraft to leave the area to be blockaded.
126.96.36.199 Notification.It is customary for the belligerent nation establishing the blockade to notify all affected nations of its imposition. Because knowledge of the existence of a blockade is an essential element of the offenses of breach and attempted breach of blockade (see paragraph 7.7.4), neutral vessels and aircraft are always entitled to notification. The commander of the blockading forces will usually also notify local authorities in the blockaded area. The form of the notification is not material so long as it is effective.
188.8.131.52 Effectiveness.In order to be valid, a blockade must be effective. To be effective, it must be maintained by a surface, air, or subsurface force or other mechanism that is sufficient to render ingress or egress of the blockaded area dangerous. The requirement of effectiveness does not preclude temporary absence of the blockading force, if such absence is due to stress of weather or to some other reason connected with the blockade (e.g., pursuit of a blockade runner). Nor does effectiveness require that every possible avenue of approach to the blockaded area be covered.
184.108.40.206 Impartiality.A blockade must be applied impartially to the vessels and aircraft of all nations. Discrimination by the blockading belligerent in favor of or against the vessels and aircraft of particular nations, including those of its own or those of an allied nation, renders the blockade legally invalid.
220.127.116.11 Limitations.A blockade must not bar access to or departure from neutral ports and coasts. Neutral nations retain the right to engage in neutral commerce that does not involve trade or communications originating in or destined for the blockaded area.
7.7.3 Special Entry and Exit Authorization.Although neutral warships and military aircraft enjoy no positive right of access to blockaded areas, the belligerent imposing the blockade may authorize their entry and exit. Such special authorization may be made subject to such conditions as the blockading force considers to be necessary and expedient. Neutral vessels and aircraft in evident distress should be authorized entry into a blockaded area, and subsequently authorized to depart, under conditions prescribed by the officer in command of the blockading force or responsible for maintenance of the blockading instrumentality (e.g., mines). Similarly, neutral vessels and aircraft engaged in the carriage of qualifying relief supplies for the civilian population and the sick and wounded should be authorized to pass through the blockade cordon.
7.7.4 Breach and Attempted Breach of Blockade.Breach of blockade is the passage of a vessel or aircraft through a blockade without special entry or exit authorization from the blockading belligerent. Attempted breach of blockade occurs from the time a vessel or aircraft leaves a port or airfield with the intention of evading the blockade, and for vessels exiting the blockaded area, continues until the voyage is completed. Knowledge of the existence of the blockade is essential to the offenses of breach of blockade and attempted breach of blockade. Knowledge may be presumed once a blockade has been declared and appropriate notification provided to affected governments. It is immaterial that the vessel or aircraft is at the time of interception bound for neutral territory, if its ultimate destination is the blockaded area. There is a presumption of attempted breach of blockade where vessels or aircraft are bound for a neutral port or airfield serving as a point of transit to the blockaded area. Capture of such vessels is discussed in paragraph 7.10.
7.7.5 Contemporary Practice.The traditional rules of blockade, as set out above, are for the most part customary in nature, having derived their definitive form through the practice of maritime powers during the nineteenth century. The rules reflect a balance between the right of a belligerent possessing effective command of the sea to close enemy ports and coastlines to international commerce, and the right of neutral nations to carry out neutral commerce with the least possible interference from belligerent forces. The law of blockade is, therefore, premised on a system of controls designed to effect only a limited interference with neutral trade. This was traditionally accomplished by a relatively "close-in" cordon of surface warships stationed in the immediate vicinity of the blockaded area.
The increasing emphasis in modern warfare on seeking to isolate completely the enemy from outside assistance and resources by targeting enemy merchant vessels as well as warships, and on interdicting all neutral commerce with the enemy, is not furthered substantially by blockades established in strict conformity with the traditional rules. In World Wars I and II, belligerents of both sides resorted to methods which, although frequently referred to as measures of blockade, cannot be reconciled with the traditional concept of the close-in blockade. The so-called long-distance blockade of both World Wars departed materially from those traditional rules and were justified instead upon the belligerent right of reprisal against illegal acts of warfare on the part of the enemy. Moreover, recent developments in weapons systems and platforms, particularly submarines, supersonic aircraft, and cruise missiles, have rendered the in-shore blockade exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to maintain during anything other than a local or limited armed conflict.
Notwithstanding this trend in belligerent practices (during general war) away from the establishment of blockades that conform to the traditional rules, blockade continues to be a useful means to regulate the competing interests of belligerents and neutrals in more limited armed conflict. The experience of the United States during the Vietnam Conflict provides a case in point. The mining of Haiphong and other North Vietnamese ports, accomplished by the emplacement of mines, was undertaken in conformity with traditional criteria of establishment, notification, effectiveness, limitation, and impartiality, although at the time the mining took place the term "blockade" was not used.
Within the immediate area or vicinity of naval operations, a belligerent may establish special restrictions upon the activities of neutral vessels and aircraft and may prohibit altogether such vessels and aircraft from entering the area. The immediate area or vicinity of naval operations is that area within which hostilities are taking place or belligerent forces are actually operating. A belligerent may not, however, purport to deny access to neutral nations, or to close an international strait to neutral shipping, pursuant to this authority unless another route of similar convenience remains open to neutral traffic.
7.8.1 Belligerent Control of Neutral Communications at Sea.The commanding officer of a belligerent warship may exercise control over the communication of any neutral merchant vessel or civil aircraft whose presence in the immediate area of naval operations might otherwise endanger or jeopardize those operations. A neutral merchant ship or civil aircraft within that area that fails to conform to a belligerent's directions concerning communications may thereby assume enemy character and risk being fired upon or captured. Legitimate distress communications should be permitted to the extent that the success of the operation is not prejudiced thereby. Any transmission to an opposing belligerent of information concerning military operations or military forces is inconsistent with the neutral duties of abstention and impartiality and renders the neutral vessel or aircraft liable to capture or destruction.
Belligerent control of an immediate area of naval operations is to be clearly distinguished from the belligerent practice during World Wars I and II of establishing broad ocean areas as "exclusion zones" or "war zones" in which neutral shipping was either barred or put at special risk. Operational war/exclusion zones established by the belligerents of both sides were based on the right of reprisal against alleged illegal behavior of the enemy and were used to justify the exercise of control over, or capture and destruction of, neutral vessels not otherwise permitted by the rules of naval warfare. Exclusion or war zones established by belligerents in the context of limited warfare that has characterized post-World War II belligerency at sea, have been justified, at least in part, as reasonable, albeit coercive, measures to contain the geographic area of the conflict or to keep neutral shipping at a safe distance from areas of actual or potential hostilities. To the extent that such zones serve to warn neutral vessels and aircraft away from belligerent activities and thereby reduce their exposure to collateral damage and incidental injury (see paragraph 18.104.22.168), and to the extent that they do not unreasonably interfere with legitimate neutral commerce, they are undoubtedly lawful. However, the establishment of such a zone does not relieve the proclaiming belligerent of the obligation under the law of armed conflict to refrain from attacking vessels and aircraft which do not constitute lawful targets. In short, an otherwise protected platform does not lose that protection by crossing an imaginary line drawn in the ocean by a belligerent.
Neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft are liable to capture by belligerent warships and military aircraft if engaged in any of the following activities:
Captured vessels and aircraft are sent to a port or airfield under belligerent jurisdiction as prize for adjudication by a prize court. Ordinarily, a belligerent warship will place a prize master and prize crew on board a captured vessel for this purpose. Should that be impracticable, the prize may be escorted into port by a belligerent warship or military aircraft. In the latter circumstances, the prize must obey the instructions of its escort or risk forcible measures. (Article 630.23 of OPNAVINST 3120.32 (series), Standard Organization and Regulations of the U.S. Navy, sets forth the duties and responsibilities of commanding officers and prize masters concerning captured vessels.)
Neutral vessels or aircraft attempting to resist proper capture lay themselves open to forcible measures by belligerent warships and military aircraft and assume all risk of resulting damage.
7.10.1 Destruction of Neutral Prizes.Every reasonable effort should be made to avoid destruction of captured neutral vessels and aircraft. A capturing officer, therefore, should not order such destruction without being entirely satisfied that the prize can neither be sent into a belligerent port or airfield nor, in his opinion, properly be released. Should it become necessary that the prize be destroyed, the capturing officer must provide for the safety of the passengers and crew. In that event, all documents and papers relating to the prize should be saved. If practicable, the personal effects of passengers should also be safeguarded.
7.10.2 Personnel of Captured Neutral Vessels and Aircraft.The officers and crews of captured neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft who are nationals of a neutral nation do not become prisoners of war and must be repatriated as soon as circumstances reasonably permit. This rule applies equally to the officers and crews of neutral vessels and aircraft which have assumed the character of enemy merchant vessels or aircraft by operating under enemy control or resisting visit and search. If, however, the neutral vessels or aircraft had taken a direct part in the hostilities on the side of the enemy or had served in any way as a naval or military auxiliary for the enemy, it thereby assumed the character of an enemy warship or military aircraft and, upon capture, its officers and crew may be interned as prisoners of war.
Enemy nationals found on board neutral merchant vessels and civil aircraft as passengers who are actually embodied in the military forces of the enemy, who are en route to serve in the enemy's armed forces, who are employed in the public service of the enemy, or who may be engaged in or suspected of service in the interests of the enemy may be made prisoners of war. All such enemy nationals may be removed from the neutral vessel or aircraft whether or not
there is reason for its capture as a neutral prize. Enemy nationals not falling within any of these categories are not subject to capture or detention.
7.11 BELLIGERENT PERSONNEL INTERNED BY A NEUTRAL GOVERNMENT
International law recognizes that neutral territory, being outside the region of war, offers a place of asylum to individual members of belligerent forces and as a general rule requires the neutral government concerned to prevent the return of such persons to their own forces. The neutral nation must accord equal treatment to the personnel of all the belligerent forces.
Belligerent combatants taken on board a neutral warship or military aircraft beyond neutral waters must be interned. Belligerent civilians taken on board a neutral warship or military aircraft in such circumstances are to be repatriated.
With respect to aircrews of non-medical belligerent aircraft that land in neutral territory, whether intentionally or inadvertently, the neutral nation must intern them.
CHAPTER 8The Law of Targeting
8.1 PRINCIPLES OF LAWFUL TARGETING
The law of targeting is premised upon the three fundamental principles of the law of armed conflict:
1. The right of belligerents to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited.
2. It is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian population as such.
3. Distinctions must be made between combatants and noncombatants, to the effect that noncombatants be spared as much as possible.
These legal principles governing targeting generally parallel the military principles of the objective, mass, and economy of force. The law requires that only objectives of military importance be attacked but permits the use of sufficient mass to destroy those objectives. At the same time, unnecessary collateral destruction must be avoided to the extent possible and, consistent with mission accomplishment and the security of the force, unnecessary human suffering prevented. The law of targeting, therefore, requires that all reasonable precautions must be taken to ensure that only military objectives are targeted so that civilians and civilian objects are spared as much as possible from the ravages of war.
8.1.1 Military Objectives.Only military objectives may be attacked. Military objectives are combatants and those objects which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to the enemy's war-fighting or war-sustaining capability and whose total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization would constitute a definite military advantage to the attacker under the circumstances at the time of the attack. Military advantage may involve a variety of considerations, including the security of the attacking force.
Proper targets for naval attack include such military objectives as enemy warships and military aircraft, naval and military auxiliaries, naval and military bases ashore, warship construction and repair facilities, military depots and warehouses, petroleums/oils/lubricants (POL) storage areas, docks, port facilities, harbors, bridges, airfields, military vehicles, armor, artillery, ammunition stores, troop concentrations and embarkation points, lines of communication and other objects used to conduct or support military operations. Proper naval targets also include geographic targets, such as a mountain pass, and buildings and facilities that provide administrative and personnel support for military and naval operations such as barracks, communications and command and control facilities, headquarters buildings, mess halls, and training areas.
Proper economic targets for naval attack include enemy lines of communication, rail yards, bridges, rolling stock, barges, lighters, industrial installations producing war-fighting products, and power generation plants. Economic targets of the enemy that indirectly but effectively support and sustain the enemy's war-fighting capability may also be attacked.
8.1.2 Civilians and Civilian Objects.Civilians and civilian objects may not be made the object of attack. Civilian objects consist of all civilian property and activities other than those used to support or sustain the enemy's war-fighting capability. Attacks on installations such as dikes and dams are prohibited if their breach or destruction would result in the loss of civilian lives disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained. (See also paragraph 22.214.171.124.) Similarly, the intentional destruction of food, crops, livestock, drinking water, and other objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, for the specific purpose of denying the civilian population of their use, is prohibited.
126.96.36.199 Incidental Injury and Collateral Damage.It is not unlawful to cause incidental injury to civilians, or collateral damage to civilian objects, during an attack upon a legitimate military objective. Incidental injury or collateral damage must not, however, be excessive in light of the military advantage anticipated by the attack. In making this determination, "military advantage" refers to the advantage anticipated from the military operation of which the attack is a part, taken as a whole, and not from isolated or particular parts of that operation. Naval commanders must take all reasonable precautions, taking into account military and humanitarian considerations, to keep civilian casualties and damage to the minimum consistent with mission accomplishment and the security of the force. In each instance, the commander must determine whether incidental injuries and collateral damage would be excessive, on the basis of an honest and reasonable estimate of the facts available to him. Similarly, the commander must decide, in light of all the facts known or reasonably available to him, including the need to conserve resources and complete the mission successfully, whether to adopt an alternative method of attack, if reasonably available, to reduce civilian casualties and damage.
8.1.3 Environmental Considerations.It is not unlawful to cause collateral damage to the natural environment during an attack upon a legitimate military objective. However, the commander has an affirmative obligation to avoid unnecessary damage to the environment to the extent that it is practicable to do so consistent with mission accomplishment. To that end, and as far as military requirements permit, methods or means of warfare should be employed with due regard to the protection and preservation of the natural environment. Destruction of the natural environment not necessitated by mission accomplishment and carried out wantonly is prohibited. Therefore, a commander should consider the environmental damage which will result from an attack on a legitimate military objective as one of the factors during targeting analysis.
8.2 SURFACE WARFARE
As a general rule, surface warships may employ their conventional weapons systems to attack enemy surface, subsurface, and air targets wherever located beyond neutral territory. (Special circumstances in which enemy warships and military aircraft may be attacked in neutral territory are discussed in Chapter 7.) The law of armed conflict pertaining to surface warfare is concerned primarily with the protection of noncombatants through rules establishing lawful targets of attack. For that purpose, all enemy vessels and aircraft fall into one of three general classes, i.e., warships and military aircraft, merchant vessels and civilian aircraft, and exempt vessels and aircraft.
8.2.1 Enemy Warships and Military Aircraft.Enemy warships and military aircraft, including naval and military auxiliaries, are subject to attack, destruction, or capture anywhere beyond neutral territory. It is forbidden, however, to target an enemy warship or military aircraft that in good faith clearly conveys a timely offer of surrender. Once an enemy warship has clearly indicated a readiness to surrender by hauling down her flag, by hoisting a white flag, by surfacing (in the case of submarines), by stopping engines and responding to the attacker's signals, or by taking to lifeboats, the attack must be discontinued. Disabled enemy aircraft in air combat are frequently pursued to destruction because of the impossibility of verifying their true status and inability to enforce surrender. Although disabled, the aircraft may or may not have lost its means of combat. Moreover, it still may represent a valuable military asset. Accordingly, surrender in air combat is not generally offered. However, if surrender is offered in good faith so that circumstances do not preclude enforcement, it must be respected. Officers and crews of captured or destroyed enemy warships, military aircraft, and naval and military auxiliaries should be made prisoners of war. (See Chapter 11 for further discussion of surrender and prisoners of war.) As far as military exigencies permit, after each engagement all possible measures should be taken without delay to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick and to recover the dead.
Prize procedure is not used for captured enemy warships and naval auxiliaries because their ownership vests immediately in the captor's government by the fact of capture.
8.2.2 Enemy Merchant Vessels and Civil Aircraft
188.8.131.52 Capture.Enemy merchant vessels and civil aircraft may be captured wherever located beyond neutral territory. Prior exercise of visit and search is not required, provided positive determination of enemy status can be made by other means. When military circumstances preclude sending or taking in such vessel or aircraft for adjudication as an enemy prize, it may be destroyed after all possible measures are taken to provide for the safety of passengers and crew. Documents and papers relating to the prize should be safeguarded and, if practicable, the personal effects of passengers should be saved. Every case of destruction of a captured enemy prize should be reported promptly to higher command.
Officers and crews of captured enemy merchant ships and civilian aircraft may be made prisoners of war. Other enemy nationals on board such captured ships and aircraft as private passengers are subject to the discipline of the captor. Nationals of a neutral nation on board captured enemy merchant vessels and civilian aircraft are not made prisoners of war unless they have participated in acts of hostility or resistance against the captor or are otherwise in the service of the enemy.
184.108.40.206 Destruction.Prior to World War II, both customary and conventional international law prohibited the destruction of enemy merchant vessels by surface warships unless the safety of passengers and crew was first assured. This requirement did not apply, however, if the merchant vessel engaged in active resistance to capture or refused to stop when ordered to do so. Specifically, the London Protocol of 1936, to which almost all of the belligerents of World War II expressly acceded, provides in part that:
During World War II, the practice of attacking and sinking enemy merchant vessels by surface warships and submarines without prior warning and without first providing for the safety of passengers and crew was widespread on both sides. Rationale for these apparent departures from the agreed rules of the 1936 London Protocol varied. Initially, such acts were justified as reprisals against illegal acts of the enemy. As the war progressed, however, merchant vessels were regularly armed and convoyed, participated in intelligence collection, and were otherwise incorporated directly or indirectly into the enemy's war-fighting/war-sustaining effort. Consequently, enemy merchant vessels were widely regarded as legitimate military targets subject to destruction on sight.
Although the rules of the 1936 London Protocol continue to apply to surface warships, they must be interpreted in light of current technology, including satellite communications, over-the-horizon weapons, and antiship missile systems, as well as the customary practice of belligerents that evolved during and following World War II. Accordingly, enemy merchant vessels may be attacked and destroyed by surface warships, either with or without prior warning, in any of the following circumstances:
1. Persistently refusing to stop upon being duly summoned to do so
2. Actively resisting visit and search or capture
3. Sailing under convoy of enemy warships or enemy military aircraft
4. If armed
Rules relating to surrendering and to the search for and collection of the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick and the recovery of the dead, set forth in paragraph 8.2.1, apply also to enemy merchant vessels and civilian aircraft that may become subject to attack and destruction.
8.2.3 Enemy Vessels and Aircraft Exempt from Destruction or Capture.Certain classes of enemy vessels and aircraft are exempt under the law of naval warfare from capture or destruction provided they are innocently employed in their exempt category. These specially protected vessels and aircraft must not take part in the hostilities, must not hamper the movement of combatants, must submit to identification and inspection procedures, and may be ordered out of harm's way. These specifically exempt vessels and aircraft include:
If an enemy vessel or aircraft assists the enemy's military effort in any manner, it may be captured or destroyed. Refusal to provide immediate identification upon demand is ordinarily sufficient legal justification for capture or destruction. All nations have a legal obligation not to take advantage of the harmless character of exempt vessels and aircraft in order to use them for military purposes while preserving their innocent appearance. For example, the utilization by North Vietnam of innocent appearing small coastal fishing boats as logistic craft in support of military operations during the Vietnam Conflict was in violation of this obligation.
8.3 SUBMARINE WARFARE
The law of armed conflict imposes essentially the same rules on submarines as apply to surface warships. Submarines may employ their conventional weapons systems to attack enemy surface, subsurface or airborne targets wherever located beyond neutral territory. Enemy warships and military aircraft, including naval and military auxiliaries, may be attacked and destroyed without warning. Rules applicable to surface warships regarding enemy ships that have surrendered in good faith, or that have indicated clearly their intention to do so, apply as well to submarines. To the extent that military exigencies permit, submarines are also required to search for and collect the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick following an engagement. If such humanitarian efforts would subject the submarine to undue additional hazard or prevent it from accomplishing its military mission, the location of possible survivors should be passed at the first opportunity to a surface ship, aircraft, or shore facility capable of rendering assistance.
8.3.1 Interdiction of Enemy Merchant Shipping by Submarines.The rules of naval warfare pertaining to submarine operations against enemy merchant shipping constitute one of the least developed areas of the law of armed conflict. Although the submarine's effectiveness as a weapons system is dependent upon its capability to remain submerged (and thereby undetected) and despite its vulnerability when surfaced, the London Protocol of 1936 (paragraph 220.127.116.11) makes no distinction between submarines and surface warships with respect to attacks upon enemy merchant shipping. The London Protocol specifies that except in case of persistent refusal to stop when ordered to do so, or in the event of active resistance to capture, a warship "whether surface vessel or submarine" may not destroy an enemy merchant vessel "without having first placed passengers, crew and ship's papers in a place of safety." The impracticality of imposing upon submarines the same targeting constraints as burden surface warships is reflected in the practice of belligerents of both sides during World War II when submarines regularly attacked and destroyed without warning enemy merchant shipping. As in the case of such attacks by surface warships, this practice was justified either as a reprisal in response to unlawful acts of the enemy or as a necessary consequence of the arming of merchant vessels, of convoying, and of the general integration of merchant shipping into the enemy's war-fighting/war-sustaining effort.
The United States considers that the London Protocol of 1936, coupled with the customary practice of belligerents during and following World War II, imposes upon submarines the responsibility to provide for the safety of passengers, crew, and ship's papers before destruction of an enemy merchant vessel unless:
8.3.2 Enemy Vessels and Aircraft Exempt From Submarine Interdiction.The rules of naval warfare regarding enemy vessels and aircraft that are exempt from capture and/or destruction by surface warships also apply to submarines. (See paragraph 8.2.3.)
8.4 AIR WARFARE AT SEA
Military aircraft may employ conventional weapons systems to attack warships and military aircraft, including naval and military auxiliaries, anywhere beyond neutral territory. Enemy merchant vessels and civil aircraft may be attacked and destroyed by military aircraft only under the following circumstances:
To the extent that military exigencies permit, military aircraft are required to search for the shipwrecked, wounded, and sick following an engagement at sea. The location of possible survivors should be passed at the first opportunity to a surface vessel, aircraft, or shore facility capable of rendering assistance.
Historically, instances of surrender of enemy vessels to aircraft are rare. If, however, an enemy has surrendered in good faith, under circumstances that do not preclude enforcement of the surrender, or has clearly indicated an intention to do so, the enemy must not be attacked.
8.4.1 Enemy Vessels and Aircraft Exempt From Aircraft Interdiction.The rules of naval warfare regarding enemy vessels and aircraft that are exempt from capture and/or destruction by surface warships also apply to military aircraft. (See paragraph 8.2.3.)
For purposes of this publication, the term "bombardment" refers to naval and air bombardment of enemy targets on land with conventional weapons, including naval guns, rockets and missiles, and air-delivered ordnance. Land warfare is discussed in paragraph 8.6. Engagement of targets at sea is discussed in paragraphs 8.2 to 8.4.
8.5.1 General Rules.The United States is a party to Hague Convention No. IX (1907) Respecting Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War. That convention establishes the general rules of naval bombardment of land targets. These rules have been further developed by customary practice in World Wars I and II, Vietnam, the Falkland/ Malvinas Conflict, and the Persian Gulf. Underlying these rules are the broad principles of the law of armed conflict that belligerents are forbidden to make noncombatants the target of direct attack, that superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering are to be avoided, and that wanton destruction of property is prohibited. To give effect to these concepts of humanitarian law, the following general rules governing bombardment must be observed.
18.104.22.168 Destruction of Civilian Habitation.The wanton or deliberate destruction of areas of concentrated civilian habitation, including cities, towns, and villages, is prohibited. A military objective within a city, town, or village may, however, be bombarded if required for the submission of the enemy with the minimum expenditure of time, life, and physical resources. Incidental injury to civilians, or collateral damage to civilian objects must not be excessive in light of the military advantage anticipated by the attack. (See Paragraph 22.214.171.124.)
126.96.36.199 Terrorization.Bombardment for the sole purpose of terrorizing the civilian population is prohibited.
188.8.131.52 Undefended Cities or Agreed Demilitarized Zones.Belligerents are forbidden to bombard a city or town that is undefended and that is open to immediate entry by their own or allied forces. A city or town behind enemy lines is, by definition, neither undefended nor open, and military targets therein may be destroyed by bombardment. An agreed demilitarized zone is also exempt from bombardment.
184.108.40.206 Medical Facilities.Medical establishments and units (both mobile and fixed), medical vehicles, and medical equipment and stores may not be deliberately bombarded. Belligerents are required to ensure that such medical facilities are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military targets in the vicinity do not imperil their safety. If medical facilities are used for military purposes inconsistent with their humanitarian mission, and if appropriate warnings that continuation of such use will result in loss of protected status are unheeded, the facilities become subject to attack. The distinctive medical emblem, a red cross or red crescent, is to be clearly displayed on medical establishments and units in order to identify them as entitled to protected status. Any object recognized as being a medical facility may not be attacked whether or not marked with a protective symbol.
220.127.116.11 Special Hospital Zones and Neutralized Zones.When established by agreement between the belligerents, hospital zones and neutralized zones are immune from bombardment in accordance with the terms of the agreement concerned.
18.104.22.168 Religious, Cultural, and Charitable Buildings and Monuments.Buildings devoted to religion, the arts, or charitable purposes; historic monuments; and other religious, cultural, or charitable facilities should not be bombarded, provided they are not used for military purposes. It is the responsibility of the local inhabitants to ensure that such buildings and monuments are clearly marked with the distinctive emblem of such sites--a rectangle divided diagonally into two triangular halves, the upper portion black and the lower white. (See paragraph 11.9.3.)
22.214.171.124 Dams and Dikes.Dams, dikes, levees, and other installations, which if breached or destroyed would release flood waters or other forces dangerous to the civilian population, should not be bombarded if the potential for harm to noncombatants would be excessive in relation to the military advantage to be gained by bombardment. Conversely, installations containing such dangerous forces that are used by belligerents to shield or support military activities are not so protected.
8.5.2 Warning Before Bombardment.Where the military situation permits, commanders should make every reasonable effort to warn the civilian population located in close proximity to a military objective targeted for bombardment. Warnings may be general rather than specific lest the bombarding force or the success of its mission be placed in jeopardy.
8.6 LAND WARFARE.
The guidance in this paragraph provides an overview of the basic principles of law governing conflict on land. For a comprehensive treatment of the law of armed conflict applicable to land warfare see FMFM 0-25 "Department of the Army Field Manual FM 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare."
8.6.1 Targeting in Land Warfare.Only combatants and other military objectives may be attacked (see paragraph 8.1.1). Noncombatants and civilian objects may not be objects of attack. Incidental injury to noncombatants and collateral damage to civilian objects incurred during an attack upon a legitimate military objective must not be excessive in relation to the military advantage to be achieved by the attack (see paragraph 126.96.36.199). When circumstances permit, advance warning should be given of attacks that might endanger noncombatants in the vicinity (see paragraph 11.2).
8.6.2 Special protection.Under the law of land warfare, certain persons, places and objects enjoy special protection against attack. Protection is, of necessity, dependent upon recognition of protected status and special signs and symbols are employed for that purpose (see paragraph 11.9). Failure to display protective signs and symbols does not render an otherwise protected person, place or object a legitimate target if that status is otherwise apparent (see paragraph 11.9.6). However, protected persons participating directly in hostilities lose their protected status and may be attacked while so employed. Similarly, misuse of protected places and objects for military purposes renders them subject to legitimate attack during the period of misuse.
188.8.131.52 Protected Persons.Protected persons include the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked (see paragraph 11.4), certain parachutists (see paragraph 11.6), and prisoners of war (see paragraph 11.7). Civilians and other noncombatants, such as medical personnel and chaplains (see paragraph 11.5), and interned persons (see paragraph 11.8) also enjoy protected status.
184.108.40.206 Protected Places and Objects.Protected places include undefended cities and towns and agreed demilitarized zones (see paragraph 220.127.116.11), and agreed special hospital zones and neutralized zones (see paragraph 18.104.22.168). Protected objects include historic
monuments and structures, works of art, medical facilities and religious, cultural, and charitable buildings and monuments (see paragraph 22.214.171.124).
126.96.36.199. The Environment.A discussion of environmental considerations during armed conflict is contained in paragraph 8.1.3. The use of herbicidal agents is addressed in paragraph 10.3.3.
CHAPTER 9Conventional Weapons and Weapons Systems
This chapter addresses the legal considerations pertaining to the use of conventional weapons and weapons systems. It is a fundamental tenet of the law of armed conflict that the right of nations engaged in armed conflict to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. This rule of law is expressed in the concept that the employment of weapons, material, and methods of warfare that are designed to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is prohibited. A corollary concept is that weapons which by their nature are incapable of being directed specifically against military objectives, and therefore that put noncombatants at equivalent risk, are forbidden due to their indiscriminate effect. A few weapons, such as poisoned projectiles, are unlawful, no matter how employed. Others may be rendered unlawful by alteration, such as by coating ammunition with a poison. Still others may be unlawfully employed, such as by setting armed contact naval mines adrift so as to endanger innocent as well as enemy shipping. And finally, any weapon may be set to an unlawful purpose when it is directed against noncombatants and other protected persons and property. (See Chapter 11—Noncombatant Persons.)
Of particular interest to naval officers are law of armed conflict rules pertaining to naval mines, land mines, torpedoes, cluster and fragmentation weapons, delayed action devices, incendiary weapons, directed energy devices and over-the-horizon weapons systems. Each of these weapons or systems will be assessed in terms of its potential for causing unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury or indiscriminate effect.
9.1.1 Unnecessary Suffering.Antipersonnel weapons are designed to kill or disable enemy combatants and are lawful notwithstanding the death, pain, and suffering they inflict. Weapons that are designed to cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury are, however, prohibited because the degree of pain or injury, or the certainty of death they produce is needlessly or clearly disproportionate to the military advantage to be gained by their use. Poisoned projectiles and small arms ammunition intended to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering fall into this category. Similarly, using materials that are difficult to detect or undetectable by field x-ray equipment, such as glass or clear plastic, as the injuring mechanism in military ammunition is prohibited, since they unnecessarily inhibit the treatment of wounds. Use of such materials as incidental components in ammunition, e.g., as wadding or packing, is not prohibited. Use of .50 caliber weapons against individual enemy combatants does not constitute a violation of this proscription against unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.
9.1.2 Indiscriminate Effect.Weapons that are incapable of being controlled (i.e., directed at a military target) are forbidden as being indiscriminate in their effect. Drifting armed contact mines and long-range unguided missiles (such as the German V-1 and V-2 rockets of World War II) fall into this category. A weapon is not indiscriminate simply because it may cause incidental or collateral civilian casualties, provided such casualties are not foreseeably excessive in light of the expected military advantage to be gained. An artillery round that is capable of being directed with a reasonable degree of accuracy at a military target is not an indiscriminate weapon simply because it may miss its mark or inflict collateral damage. Conversely, uncontrolled balloon-borne bombs, such as those released by the Japanese against the west coast of the United States and Canada in World War II lack that capability of direction and are, therefore, unlawful.
9.2 NAVAL MINES
Naval mines have been effectively employed for area denial, coastal and harbor defense, antisurface and antisubmarine warfare, and blockade. Naval mines are lawful weapons, but their potential for indiscriminate effects has led to specific regulation of their deployment and employment by the law of armed conflict. The extensive and uncontrolled use of naval mines by both sides in the Russo-Japanese War of 1904-5 inflicted great damage on innocent shipping both during and long after that conflict, and led to Hague Convention No. VIII of 1907 Relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines. The purpose of the Hague rules is to ensure, to the extent practicable, the safety of innocent shipping. These rules require that naval mines be so constructed as to become harmless should they break loose from their moorings or otherwise cease to be under the affirmative control of the belligerents that laid them. The Hague rules also require that shipowners be warned of the presence of mines as soon as military exigencies permit.
Although the Hague provisions date from 1907, they remain the only codified rules specifically addressing the emplacement of conventional naval mines. Technological developments have created weapons systems obviously not contemplated by the drafters of these rules. Nonetheless, the general principles of law embodied in the 1907 Convention continue to serve as a guide to lawful employment of naval mines.
9.2.1 Current Technology.Modern naval mines are versatile and variable weapons. They range from relatively unsophisticated and indiscriminate contact mines to highly technical, target-selective devices with state-of-the-art homing guidance capability. Today's mines may be armed and/or detonated by physical contact, acoustic or magnetic signature, or sensitivity to changes in water pressure generated by passing vessels and may be emplaced by air, surface, or subsurface platforms. For purposes of this publication, naval mines are classified as armed or controlled mines. Armed mines are either emplaced with all safety devices withdrawn, or are armed following emplacement, so as to detonate when pre-set parameters (if any) are satisfied. Controlled mines have no destructive capability until affirmatively activated by some form of arming order (whereupon they become armed mines).
9.2.2 Peacetime Mining.Consistent with the safety of its own citizenry, a nation may emplace both armed and controlled mines in its own internal waters at any time with or without notification. A nation may also mine its own archipelagic waters and territorial sea during peacetime when deemed necessary for national security purposes. If armed mines are emplaced in archipelagic waters or the territorial sea, appropriate international notification of the existence and location of such mines is required. Because the right of innocent passage can be suspended only temporarily, armed mines must be removed or rendered harmless as soon as the security threat that prompted their emplacement has terminated. Armed mines may not be emplaced in international straits or archipelagic sea lanes during peacetime. Emplacement of controlled mines in a nation's own archipelagic waters or territorial sea is not subject to such notification or removal requirements.
Naval mines may not be emplaced in internal waters, territorial seas, or archipelagic waters of another nation in peacetime without that nation's consent. Controlled mines may, however, be emplaced in international waters (i.e., beyond the territorial sea) if they do not unreasonably interfere with other lawful uses of the oceans. The determination of what constitutes an "unreasonable interference" involves a balancing of a number of factors, including the rationale for their emplacement (i.e., the self-defense requirements of the emplacing nation), the extent of the area to be mined, the hazard (if any) to other lawful ocean uses, and the duration of their emplacement. Because controlled mines do not constitute a hazard to navigation, international notice of their emplacement is not required.
Armed mines may not be emplaced in international waters prior to the outbreak of armed conflict, except under the most demanding requirements of individual or collective self-defense. Should armed mines be emplaced in international waters under such circumstances, prior notification of their location must be provided. A nation emplacing armed mines in international waters during peacetime must maintain an on-scene presence in the area sufficient to ensure that appropriate warning is provided to ships approaching the danger area. All armed mines must be expeditiously removed or rendered harmless when the imminent danger that prompted their emplacement has passed.
9.2.3 Mining During Armed Conflict.Naval mines may be lawfully employed by parties to an armed conflict subject to the following restrictions:
1. International notification of the location of emplaced mines must be made as soon as military exigencies permit.
2. Mines may not be emplaced by belligerents in neutral waters.
3. Anchored mines must become harmless as soon as they have broken their moorings.
4. Unanchored mines not otherwise affixed or imbedded in the bottom must become harmless within an hour after loss of control over them.
5. The location of minefields must be carefully recorded to ensure accurate notification and facilitate subsequent removal and/or deactivation.
6. Naval mines may be employed to channelize neutral shipping, but not in a manner to deny transit passage of international straits or archipelagic sea lanes passage of archipelagic waters by such shipping.
7. Naval mines may not be emplaced off the coasts and ports of the enemy with the sole objective of intercepting commercial shipping, but may otherwise be employed in the strategic blockade of enemy ports, coasts, and waterways.
8. Mining of areas of indefinite extent in international waters is prohibited. Reasonably limited barred areas may be established by naval mines, provided neutral shipping retains an alternate route around or through such an area with reasonable assurance of safety.
9.3 LAND MINES
Land mines are munitions placed on, under, or near the ground or other surface area and designed to be detonated or exploded by the passage of time; the presence, proximity or contact of a person or vehicle; or upon command. As with all weapons, to be lawful, land mines must be directed at military objectives. The controlled nature of command detonated land mines provides effective target discrimination. In the case of non-command detonated land mines, however, there exists potential for indiscriminate injury to noncombatants. Accordingly, special care must be taken when employing land mines to ensure noncombatants are not indiscriminately injured. International law requires that, to the extent possible, belligerents record the location of all minefields in order to facilitate their removal upon the cessation of hostilities. It is the practice of the United States to record the location of minefields in all circumstances.
Torpedoes which do not become harmless when they have missed their mark constitute a danger to innocent shipping and are therefore unlawful. All U.S. Navy torpedoes are designed to sink to the bottom and become harmless upon completion of their propulsion run.
Cluster and fragmentation weapons are projectiles, bombs, missiles, submunitions, and grenades that are designed to fragment upon detonation, thereby expanding the radius of their lethality and destructiveness. These weapons are lawful when used against combatants. When used in proximity to noncombatants or civilian objects, their employment should be carefully monitored to ensure that collateral damage and incidental injury is not excessive in relation to the legitimate military advantage sought.
Booby traps and other delayed action devices are not unlawful, provided they are not designed to cause unnecessary suffering or employed in an indiscriminate manner. Devices that are designed to simulate items likely to attract and injure noncombatants (e.g., toys and trinkets) are prohibited. Attaching booby traps to protected persons or objects, such as the wounded and sick, dead bodies, or medical facilities and supplies, is similarly prohibited. Belligerents are required to record the location of booby traps and other delayed action devices in the same manner as land mines (see paragraph 9.3).
9.7 INCENDIARY WEAPONS
Incendiary devices, such as tracer ammunition, thermite bombs, flame throwers, napalm, and other incendiary weapons and agents, are lawful weapons. Where incendiary devices are the weapons of choice, they should be employed in a manner that does not cause incidental injury or collateral damage that is excessive in light of the military advantage anticipated by the attack.
9.8 DIRECTED ENERGY DEVICES
Directed energy devices, which include laser, high-powered microwave, and particle beam devices, are not proscribed by the law of armed conflict. Lasers may be employed as a rangefinder or for target acquisition, with the possibility of ancillary injury to enemy personnel, or directly against combatants as an antipersonnel weapon. Their use does not violate the prohibition against the infliction of unnecessary suffering.
9.9 OVER-THE-HORIZON WEAPONS SYSTEMS
Missiles and projectiles with over-the-horizon or beyond-visual-range capabilities are lawful, provided they are equipped with sensors, or are employed in conjunction with external sources of targeting data, that are sufficient to ensure effective target discrimination.
CHAPTER 10Nuclear, Chemical, and Biological Weapons
Nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons present special law of armed conflict problems due to their potential for indiscriminate effect. This chapter addresses legal considerations pertaining to the development, possession, deployment and employment of these weapons.
10.2 NUCLEAR WEAPONS
10.2.1 General.There are no rules of customary or conventional international law prohibiting nations from employing nuclear weapons in armed conflict. In the absence of such an express prohibition, the use of nuclear weapons against enemy combatants and other military objectives is not unlawful. Employment of nuclear weapons is, however, subject to the following principles: the right of the parties to the conflict to adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited; it is prohibited to launch attacks against the civilian population as such; and distinction must be made at all times between combatants and noncombatants to the effect that the latter be spared as much as possible. Given their destructive potential, the decision to authorize employment of nuclear weapons should emanate from the highest level of government. For the United States, that authority resides solely in the President.
10.2.2 Treaty Obligations.Nuclear weapons are regulated by a number of arms control agreements restricting their development, possession, deployment, and use. Some of these agreements (e.g., the 1963 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty) may not apply during time of war.
10.2.2.1 Seabed Arms Control Treaty.This multilateral convention prohibits emplacement of nuclear weapons on the seabed and the ocean floor beyond 12 nautical miles from the baseline from which the territorial sea is measured. The prohibition extends to structures, launching installations, and other facilities specifically designed for storing, testing, or using nuclear weapons. This treaty prohibits emplacement of nuclear mines on the seabed and ocean floor or in the subsoil thereof. It does not, however, prohibit the use of nuclear weapons in the water column, provided they are not affixed to the seabed (e.g., nuclear armed depth charges and torpedoes).
10.2.2.2 Outer Space Treaty.This multilateral convention prohibits the placement in earth orbit, installation on the moon and other celestial bodies, and stationing in outer space in any other manner, of nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction. Suborbital missile systems are not included in this prohibition.
10.2.2.3 Antarctic Treaty.The Antarctic Treaty is a multilateral convention designed to ensure that Antarctica, defined to include the area south of 60E South Latitude, is used for peaceful purposes only. The treaty prohibits in Antarctica "any measures of a military nature, such as the establishment of military bases and fortifications, the carrying out of military maneuvers, as well as the testing of any type of weapons." Nuclear explosions are specifically prohibited. Ships and aircraft at points of discharging or embarking personnel or cargoes in Antarctica are subject to international inspection. Ships operating on and under, and aircraft operating over the high seas within the treaty area are not subject to these prohibitions.
10.2.2.4 Treaty of Tlatelolco.This treaty is an agreement among the Latin American countries not to introduce nuclear weapons into Latin America. The treaty does not, however, prohibit Latin American nations from authorizing nuclear-armed ships and aircraft of non-member nations to visit their ports and airfields or to transit through their territorial sea or airspace. The treaty is not applicable to the means of propulsion of any vessel.
Protocol I to the treaty is an agreement among non-Latin American nations that exercise international responsibility over territory within the treaty area to abide by the denuclearization provisions of the treaty. France, the Netherlands, the U.K., and the U.S. are parties to Protocol I. For purposes of this treaty, U.S. controlled territory in Latin America includes Guantanamo Bay in Cuba, the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico. Consequently the U.S. cannot maintain nuclear weapons in those areas. Protocol I nations retain, however, competence to authorize transits and port visits by ships and aircraft of their own or other armed forces in their Protocol I territories, irrespective of armament, cargo, or means of propulsion.
Protocol II is an agreement among nuclear-armed nations (China, France, Russia, the U.K., and the U.S.) to respect the denuclearization aims of the treaty, to not use nuclear weapons against Latin American nations party to the treaty, and to refrain from contributing to a violation of the treaty by Latin American nations.
10.2.2.5 Nuclear Test Ban Treaty.This multilateral treaty prohibits the testing of nuclear weapons in the atmosphere, in outer space, and underwater. Over 100 nations are party to the treaty, including Russia, the U.K., and the U.S. (France and China are not parties.) Underground testing of nuclear weapons is not included within the ban.
10.2.2.6 Non-Proliferation Treaty.This multilateral treaty obligates nuclear-weapons-nations to refrain from transferring nuclear weapons or nuclear weapons technology to non-nuclear-weapons nations, and obligates non-nuclear-weapons-nations to refrain from accepting such weapons from nuclear-weapons-nations or from manufacturing nuclear weapons themselves. The treaty does not apply in time of war.
10.2.2.7 Bilateral Nuclear Arms Control Agreements.The United States and Russia (as the successor state to the U.S.S.R.) are parties to a number of bilateral agreements designed to either restrain the growth or reduce the number of nuclear warheads and launchers and to reduce the risk of miscalculation that could trigger a nuclear exchange. Among these agreements are the Hotline Agreements of 1963 and 1971, the Accidents Measures Agreement of 1971, the 1973 Agreement on Prevention of Nuclear War, the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty of 1972 and its Protocol of 1974, the Threshold Test Ban Treaty of 1974, the 1976 Treaty on Peaceful Nuclear Explosions, the SALT Agreements of 1972 and 1977 (SALT I—Interim Agreement has expired; SALT II was never ratified), the INF Treaty of 1988, and the START treaties of 1991 (START I) and 1993 (START II). The START treaties have initiated the process of physical destruction of strategic nuclear warheads and launchers by the U.S., Russia, Ukraine, Belarus and Kazakhstan (the latter four being recognized as successor states to the U.S.S.R. for this purpose).
10.3 CHEMICAL WEAPONS
International law prohibits the use of chemical weapons in armed conflict.
10.3.1 Treaty Obligations.The 1925 Geneva Gas Protocol for the Prohibition of the use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or Other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare ("the 1925 Gas Protocol") is the principal international agreement in force relating to the regulation of chemical weapons in armed conflict. The far more comprehensive 1993 Convention on the Prohibition of Development, Production, Stockpiling and Use of Chemical Weapons and on their Destruction (the "1993 Chemical Weapons Convention") will enter into force for those nations party to it in the near future.
10.3.1.1 The 1925 Gas Protocol.The United States is a party to the 1925 Gas Protocol, as are all other NATO nations and all former Warsaw Pact nations. The United States, the U.S.S.R., and most other NATO and Warsaw Pact nations conditioned their adherence to the 1925 Gas Protocol on the understanding that the prohibition against use of chemical weapons ceases to be binding with respect to nations whose armed forces, or the armed forces of their allies, fail to respect that prohibition. This, in effect, restricted the prohibition to the "first use" of such munitions, with parties to the Protocol reserving the right to employ chemical weapons for retaliatory purposes.
The 1925 Gas Protocol does not prohibit the development, production, testing, or stockpiling of chemical weapons, nor does it prevent equipping and training military forces for chemical warfare. The United States considers the Protocol to be applicable to lethal and incapacitating agents but not to riot control agents (see paragraph 10.3.2) or herbicidal agents (see paragraph 10.3.3).
The United States considers the prohibition against first use of lethal and incapacitating chemical weapons to be part of customary international law and, therefore, binding on all nations whether or not they are parties to the 1925 Gas Protocol. Lethal chemical agents are those asphyxiating, poisonous, or other gases; analogous liquids; or materials that cause immediate death. Incapacitating agents are those producing symptoms that persist for appreciable periods of time after exposure to the agent has terminated. Consistent with its first-use reservation to the 1925 Gas Protocol, the United States maintained a lethal and incapacitating chemical weapons capability for deterrence and possible retaliatory purposes only. National Command Authorities (NCA) approval was required for retaliatory use of lethal or incapacitating chemical weapons by U.S. Forces. Retaliatory use of lethal or incapacitating chemical agents was to be terminated as soon as the enemy use of such agents that prompted the retaliation had ceased and any tactical advantage gained by the enemy through unlawful first use had been redressed. Upon coming into force of the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, any use of chemical weapons by a party to that convention, whether or not in retaliation against unlawful first use by another nation, will be prohibited. (See paragraph 10.3.1.2).
10.3.1.2 The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention.This comprehensive Convention will, upon entry into force, prohibit the development, production, stockpiling and use of chemical weapons, and mandate the destruction of chemical weapons and chemical weapons production facilities for all nations that are party to it. The Convention specifically prohibits the use of riot control agents as a "method of warfare." It does not, however, modify existing international law with respect to herbicidal agents.
The United States signed the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention on 13 January 1993. The President transmitted the Convention to the Senate on 23 November 1993 for its advice and consent to ratification.
10.3.2 Riot Control Agents.Riot control agents are those gases, liquids and analogous substances that are widely used by governments for civil law enforcement purposes. Riot control agents, in all but the most unusual circumstances, cause merely transient effects that disappear within minutes after exposure to the agent has terminated. Tear gas and Mace are examples of riot control agents in widespread use by law enforcement officials.
10.3.2.1 Riot Control Agents in Armed Conflict.
A. Under the 1925 Gas Protocol. The United States considers that use of riot control agents in armed conflict was not prohibited by the 1925 Gas Protocol. However, the United States formally renounced first use of riot control agents in armed conflict except in defensive military modes to save lives. Uses of riot control agents in time of armed conflict which the United States considers not to be violative of the 1925 Gas Protocol include:
Such employment of riot control agents by U.S. forces in armed conflict required NCA approval.
B. Under the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. Use of riot control agents as a "method of warfare" is prohibited by the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention. However, that term is not defined by the Convention. The United States considers that this prohibition applies in international as well as internal armed conflict but that it does not apply in normal peacekeeping operations, law enforcement operations, humanitarian and disaster relief operations, counter-terrorist and hostage rescue operations, and noncombatant rescue operations conducted outside of such conflicts.
The United States also considers that it is permissible to use riot control agents against other than combatants in areas under direct U.S. military control, including to control rioting prisoners of war and to protect convoys from civil disturbances, terrorists and paramilitary organizations in rear areas outside the zone of immediate combat.
10.3.2.2 Riot Control Agents in Time of Peace.Employment of riot control agents in peacetime is not proscribed by either the 1925 Gas Protocol or the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention and may be authorized by the Secretary of Defense, or in limited circumstances, by the commanders of the combatant commands. Circumstances in which riot control agents may be authorized for employment in peacetime include:
10.3.3 Herbicidal Agents.Herbicidal agents are gases, liquids, and analogous substances that are designed to defoliate trees, bushes, or shrubs, or to kill long grasses and other vegetation that could shield the movement of enemy forces. The United States considers that use of herbicidal agents in wartime is not prohibited by either the 1925 Gas Protocol or the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention but has formally renounced the first use of herbicides in time of armed conflict except for control of vegetation within U.S. bases and installations or around their immediate defensive perimeters. Use of herbicidal agents during armed conflict requires NCA approval. Use of herbicidal agents in peacetime may be authorized by the Secretary of Defense or, in limited circumstances, by commanders of the combatant commands.
10.4 BIOLOGICAL WEAPONS
International law prohibits all biological weapons or methods of warfare whether directed against persons, animals, or plant life. Biological weapons include microbial or other biological agents or toxins whatever their origin (i.e., natural or artificial) or methods of production.
10.4.1 Treaty Obligations.The 1925 Gas Protocol prohibits the use in armed conflict of biological weapons. The 1972 Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production and Stockpiling of Bacteriological (Biological) and Toxin Weapons and on their Destruction (the "1972 Biological Weapons Convention") prohibits the production, testing, and stockpiling of biological weapons. The Convention obligates nations that are a party thereto not to develop, produce, stockpile, or acquire biological agents or toxins "of types and in quantities that have no justification for prophylactic, protective, or other peaceful purposes," as well as "weapons, equipment or means of delivery designed to use such agents or toxins for hostile purposes or in armed conflict." All such materials were to be destroyed by 26 December 1975. The United States, Russia, and most other NATO and former Warsaw Pact nations are parties to both the 1925 Gas Protocol and the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
10.4.2 United States Policy Regarding Biological Weapons.The United States considers the prohibition against the use of biological weapons during armed conflict to be part of customary international law and thereby binding on all nations whether or not they are parties to the 1925 Gas Protocol or the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention.
The United States has, therefore, formally renounced the use of biological weapons under any circumstance. Pursuant to its treaty obligations, the United States has destroyed all its biological and toxin weapons and restricts its research activities to development of defensive capabilities.
CHAPTER 11Noncombatant Persons
As discussed in Chapter 5, the law of armed conflict is premised largely on the distinction to be made between combatants and noncombatants. Noncombatants are those individuals who do not form a part of the armed forces and who otherwise refrain from the commission of hostile acts. Noncombatants also include those members of the armed forces who enjoy special protected status, such as medical personnel and chaplains, or who have been rendered incapable of combat by wounds, sickness, shipwreck, or capture. This chapter reviews the categories of noncombatants and outlines the general rules of the law of armed conflict designed to protect them from direct attack.
11.2 PROTECTED STATUS
The law of armed conflict prohibits making noncombatant persons the object of intentional attack and requires that they be safeguarded against injury not incidental to military operations directed against military objectives. When circumstances permit, advance warning should be given of attacks that might endanger noncombatants in the vicinity. Such warnings are not required, however, if mission accomplishment requires the element of surprise or the security of the attacking forces would be otherwise compromised. On the other hand, a party to an armed conflict has an affirmative duty to remove civilians under its control as well as the wounded, sick, shipwrecked, and prisoners of war from the vicinity of targets of likely enemy attack. Deliberate use of noncombatants to shield military objectives from enemy attack is prohibited. Although the principle of proportionality underlying the concept of collateral damage and incidental injury continues to apply in such cases, the presence of noncombatants within or adjacent to a legitimate target does not preclude attack of it.
11.3 THE CIVILIAN POPULATION
The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, may not be the object of attack or of threats or acts of intentional terrorization. The civilian population consists of all persons not serving in the armed forces, militia, or paramilitary forces and not otherwise taking a direct part in the hostilities. Women and children are entitled to special respect and protection. Unlike military personnel (other than those in a specially protected status such as medical personnel and the sick and wounded) who are always subject to attack whether on duty or in a leave capacity, civilians, as a class, are not to be the object of attack. However, civilians that are engaged in direct support of the enemy's war-fighting or war-sustaining effort are at risk of incidental injury from attack on such activities.
Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities by taking up arms or otherwise trying to kill, injure, or capture enemy personnel or destroy enemy property lose their immunity and may be attacked. Direct participation may also include civilians serving as guards, intelligence agents, or lookouts on behalf of military forces. Direct participation in hostilies must be judged on a case-by-case basis. Combatants in the field must make an honest determination as to whether a particular civilian is or is not subject to deliberate attack based on the person's behavior, location and attire, and other information available at the time.
Members of the armed forces incapable of participating in combat due to injury or illness may not be the object of attack. Moreover, parties to the conflict must, after each engagement and without delay, take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick on the field of battle, protect them from harm, and ensure their care. When circumstances permit, an armistice or cease-fire should be arranged to enable the wounded and sick to be located and removed to safety and medical care. Wounded and sick personnel falling into enemy hands must be treated humanely and cared for without adverse distinction along with the enemy's own casualties. Priority in order of treatment may only be justified by urgent medical considerations. The physical or mental well-being of enemy wounded and sick personnel may not be unjustifiably endangered, nor may they be subjected to any medical procedure not called for by their condition or inconsistent with accepted medical standards.
Similarly, shipwrecked persons, whether military or civilian, may not be the object of attack. Shipwrecked persons include those in peril at sea or in other waters as a result of either the sinking, grounding, or other damage to a vessel in which they are embarked, or of the downing or distress of an aircraft. It is immaterial whether the peril was the result of enemy action or nonmilitary causes. Following each naval engagement at sea, the belligerents are obligated to take all possible measures, consistent with the security of their forces, to search for and rescue the shipwrecked.
Medical personnel, including medical and dental officers, technicians and corpsmen, nurses, and medical service personnel, have special protected status when engaged exclusively in medical duties and may not be attacked. Possession of small arms for self-protection, for the protection of the wounded and sick, and for protection from marauders and others violating the law of armed conflict does not disqualify medical personnel from protected status. Medical personnel may not use such arms against enemy forces acting in conformity with the law of armed conflict. Chaplains attached to the armed forces are entitled to respect and protection. Medical personnel and chaplains should display the distinctive emblem of the red cross or red crescent when engaged in their respective medical and religious activities. Failure to wear the distinctive emblem does not, by itself, justify attacking a medical person or chaplain, recognized as such. Medical personnel and chaplains falling into enemy hands do not become prisoners of war. Unless their retention by the enemy is required to provide for the medical or religious needs of prisoners of war, medical personnel and chaplains must be repatriated at the earliest opportunity.
Shipwrecked persons do not include combatant personnel engaged in amphibious, underwater, or airborne attacks who are proceeding ashore, unless they are clearly in distress and require assistance. In the latter case they may qualify as shipwrecked persons only if they cease all active combat activity and the enemy has an opportunity to recognize their condition of distress. Shipwrecked combatants falling into enemy hands become prisoners of war.
Parachutists descending from disabled aircraft may not be attacked while in the air unless they engage in combatant acts while descending. Upon reaching the ground, such parachutists must be provided an opportunity to surrender. Airborne troops, special warfare infiltrators, and intelligence agents parachuting into combat areas or behind enemy lines are not so protected and may be attacked in the air as well as on the ground. Such personnel may not be attacked, however, if they clearly indicate in a timely manner their intention to surrender.
11.7 PRISONERS OF WAR
Combatants cease to be subject to attack when they have individually laid down their arms to surrender, when they are no longer capable of resistance, or when the unit in which they are serving or embarked has surrendered or been captured. However, the law of armed conflict does not precisely define when surrender takes effect or how it may be accomplished in practical terms. Surrender involves an offer by the surrendering party (a unit or individual combatant) and an ability to accept on the part of the opponent. The latter may not refuse an offer of surrender when communicated, but that communication must be made at a time when it can be received and properly acted upon--an attempt to surrender in the midst of a hard-fought battle is neither easily communicated nor received. The issue is one of reasonableness.
Combatants that have surrendered or otherwise fallen into enemy hands are entitled to prisoner-of-war status and, as such, must be treated humanely and protected against violence, intimidation, insult, and public curiosity. When prisoners of war are given medical treatment, no distinction among them will be based on any grounds other than medical ones. (See paragraph 11.4 for further discussion of the medical treatment to be accorded captured enemy wounded and sick personnel.) Prisoners of war may be interrogated upon capture but are required to disclose only their name, rank, date of birth, and military serial number. Torture, threats, or other coercive acts are prohibited.
Persons entitled to prisoner-of-war status upon capture include members of the regular armed forces, the militia and volunteer units fighting with the regular armed forces, and civilians accompanying the armed forces. Militia, volunteers, guerrillas, and other partisans not fighting in association with the regular armed forces qualify for prisoner-of-war status upon capture, provided they are commanded by a person responsible for their conduct, are uniformed or bear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and conduct their operations in accordance with the law of armed conflict.
Should a question arise regarding a captive's entitlement to prisoner-of-war status, that individual should be accorded prisoner-of-war treatment until a competent tribunal convened by the captor determines the status to which that individual is properly entitled. Individuals captured as spies or as illegal combatants have the right to assert their claim of entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial tribunal and to have the question adjudicated. Such persons have a right to be fairly tried for violations of the law of armed conflict and may not be summarily executed.
11.7.1 Trial and Punishment.Prisoners of war may not be punished for hostile acts directed against opposing forces prior to capture, unless those acts constituted violations of the law of armed conflict. Prisoners of war prosecuted for war crimes committed prior to or after capture are entitled to be tried by the same courts as try the captor's own forces and are to be accorded the same procedural rights. At a minimum, these rights must include the assistance of lawyer counsel, an interpreter, and a fellow prisoner.
Although prisoners of war may be subjected to disciplinary action for minor offenses committed during captivity, punishment may not exceed 30 days confinement. Prisoners of war may not be subjected to collective punishment nor may reprisal action be taken against them.
11.7.2 Labor.Enlisted prisoners of war may be required to engage in labor having no military character or purpose. Noncommissioned officers may be required to perform only supervisory work. Officers may not be required to work.
11.7.3 Escape.Prisoners of war may not be punished for acts committed in attempting to escape, unless they cause death or injury to someone in the process. Disciplinary punishment may, however, be imposed upon them for the escape attempt. Prisoners of war who make good their escape by rejoining friendly forces or leaving enemy controlled territory, may not be subjected to such disciplinary punishment if recaptured. However, they remain subject to punishment for causing death or injury in the course of their previous escape.
11.7.4 Temporary Detention of Prisoners of War, Civilian Internees, and Other Detained Persons Aboard Naval Vessels.International treaty law expressly prohibits "internment" of prisoners of war other than in premises on land, but does not address temporary stay on board vessels. U.S. policy permits detention of prisoners of war, civilian internees, and detained persons on naval vessels as follows:
Detention on board vessels must be truly temporary, limited to the minimum period necessary to evacuate such persons from the combat zone or to avoid significant harm such persons would face if detained on land. Use of immobilized vessels for temporary detention of prisoners of war, civilian internees, or detained persons is not authorized without NCA approval.
11.8 INTERNED PERSONS
Enemy civilians falling under the control of a belligerent may be interned if security considerations make it absolutely necessary to do so. Civilians sentenced for offenses committed in occupied territory may also be ordered into internment in lieu of punishment. Enemy civilians may not be interned as hostages. Interned persons may not be removed from the occupied territory in which they reside except as their own security or imperative military considerations may require. All interned persons must be treated humanely and may not be subjected to reprisal action or collective punishment.
11.9.1 The Red Cross and Red Crescent.A red cross on a white field (Figure 11-1a) is the internationally accepted symbol of protected medical and religious persons and activities. Moslem countries utilize a red crescent on a white field for the same purpose (Figure 11-1b). A red lion and sun on a white field, once employed by Iran, is no longer used. Israel employs a red six-pointed star, which it reserved the right to use when it ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions (Figure 11-1c). The United States has not agreed that it is a protected symbol. Nevertheless, all medical and religious persons or objects recognized as being so marked are to be treated with care and protection.
11.9.2 Other Protective Symbols.Other protective symbols specially recognized by international law include an oblique red band on a white background to designate hospital zones and safe havens for noncombatants (Figure 11-1d). Prisoner-of-war camps are marked by the letters "PW" or "PG" (Figure 11-1e); civilian internment camps with the letters "IC" (Figure 11-1f). A royal-blue diamond and royal-blue triangle on a white shield is used to designate cultural buildings, museums, historic monuments, and other cultural objects that are exempt from attack (Figure 11-1g). In the Western Hemisphere, a red circle with triple red spheres in the circle, on a white background (the "Roerich Pact" symbol) is used for that purpose (Figure 11-1h).
Two protective symbols established by the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, to which the United States is not a party, are described as follows for informational purposes only. Works and installations containing forces potentially dangerous to the civilian population, such as dams, dikes, and nuclear power plants, may be marked by three bright orange circles of equal size on the same axis (Figure 11-1i). Civil defense facilities and personnel may be identified by an equilateral blue triangle on an orange background (Figure 11-1j).
11.9.3 The 1907 Hague Symbol.A protective symbol of special interest to naval officers is the sign established by the 1907 Hague Convention Concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War (Hague IX). The 1907 Hague symbol is used to mark sacred edifices, hospitals, historic monuments, cultural buildings, and other structures protected from naval bombardment. The symbol consists of a rectangular panel divided diagonally into two triangles, the upper black, the lower white (Figure 11-1k).
11.9.4 The 1954 Hague Convention Symbol.A more recent protective symbol was established by the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict. Cultural sites that are of artistic, historical, or archaeological interest, whether religious or secular, may be marked with the symbol to facilitate recognition. The symbol may be used alone or repeated three times in a triangular formation. It takes the form of a shield, pointed below, consisting of a royal-blue square, one of the angles of which forms the point of the shield, and of a royal-blue triangle above the square, the space on either side being taken up by a white triangle (figure 11-1).
11.9.5 The White Flag.Customary international law recognizes the white flag as symbolizing a request to cease-fire, negotiate, or surrender. Enemy forces displaying a white flag should be permitted an opportunity to surrender or to communicate a request for cease-fire or negotiation.
11.9.6 Permitted Use.Protective signs and symbols may be used only to identify personnel, objects, and activities entitled to the protected status which they designate. Any other use is forbidden by international law.
11.9.7 Failure to Display.When objects or persons are readily recognizable as being entitled to protected status, the lack of protective signs and symbols does not render an otherwise protected object or person a legitimate target. Failure to utilize internationally agreed protective signs and symbols may, however, subject protected persons and objects to the risk of not being recognized by the enemy as having protected status.
11.10 PROTECTIVE SIGNALS.Three optional methods of identifying medical units and transports have been created internationally. United States hospital ships and medical aircraft do not use these signals.
11.10.1 Radio Signals.For the purpose of identifying medical transports by radio telephone, the words PAN PAN are repeated three times followed by the word "medical" pronounced as in the French MAY-DEE-CAL. Medical transports are identified in radio telegraph by three repetitions of the group XXX followed by the single group YYY.
11.10.2 Visual Signals.On aircraft, the flashing blue light may be used only on medical aircraft. Hospital ships, coastal rescue craft and medical vehicles may also use the flashing blue light. Only by special agreement between the parties to the conflict may its use be reserved exclusively to those forms of surface medical transport.
11.10.3 Electronic Identification.The identification and location of medical ships and craft may be effected by means of appropriate standard maritime radar transponders as established by special agreement to the parties to the conflict. The identification and location of medical aircraft may be effected by use of the secondary surveillance radar (SSR) specified in Annex 10 to the Chicago Convention. The SSR mode and code is to be reserved for the exclusive use of the medical aircraft.
11.11 IDENTIFICATION OF NEUTRAL PLATFORMS.Ships and aircraft of nations not party to an armed conflict may adopt special signals for self-identification, location and establishing communications. Use of these signals does not confer or imply recognition of any special rights or duties of neutrals or belligerents, except as may otherwise be agreed between them.
Figure 11-1. Protective Signs and Symbols (Sheet 1 of 3)
Figure 11-1. Protective Signs and Symbols (Sheet 2 of 3)
Figure 11-1. Protective Signs and Symbols (Sheet 3 of 3)
CHAPTER 12Deception During Armed Conflict
The law of armed conflict permits deceiving the enemy through stratagems and ruses of war intended to mislead him, to deter him from taking action, or to induce him to act recklessly, provided the ruses do not violate rules of international law applicable to armed conflict.
12.1.1 Permitted Deceptions.Stratagems and ruses of war permitted in armed conflict include such deceptions as camouflage, deceptive lighting, dummy ships and other armament, decoys, simulated forces, feigned attacks and withdrawals, ambushes, false intelligence information, electronic deceptions, and utilization of enemy codes, passwords, and countersigns.
12.1.2 Prohibited Deceptions.The use of unlawful deceptions is called "perfidy." Acts of perfidy are deceptions designed to invite the confidence of the enemy to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protected status under the law of armed conflict, with the intent to betray that confidence. Feigning surrender in order to lure the enemy into a trap is an act of perfidy.
12.2 MISUSE OF PROTECTIVE SIGNS, SIGNALS, AND SYMBOLS
Misuse of protective signs, signals, and symbols (see paragraphs 11.9 and 11.10) in order to injure, kill, or capture the enemy constitutes an act of perfidy. Such acts are prohibited because they undermine the effectiveness of protective signs, signals, and symbols and thereby jeopardize the safety of noncombatants and the immunity of protected structures and activities. For example, using an ambulance or medical aircraft marked with the red cross or red crescent to carry armed combatants, weapons, or ammunition with which to attack or elude enemy forces is prohibited. Similarly, use of the white flag to gain a military advantage over the enemy is unlawful.
12.3 NEUTRAL FLAGS, INSIGNIA, AND UNIFORMS
12.3.1 At Sea.Under the customary international law of naval warfare, it is permissible for a belligerent warship to fly false colors and disguise its outward appearance in other ways in order to deceive the enemy into believing the vessel is of neutral nationality or is other than a warship. However, it is unlawful for a warship to go into action without first showing her true colors. Use of neutral flags, insignia, or uniforms during an actual armed engagement at sea is, therefore, forbidden.
12.3.2 In the Air.Use in combat of false or deceptive markings to disguise belligerent military aircraft as being of neutral nationality is prohibited.
12.3.3 On Land.The law of armed conflict applicable to land warfare has no rule of law analogous to that which permits belligerent warships to display neutral colors. Belligerents engaged in armed conflict on land are not permitted to use the flags, insignia, or uniforms of a neutral nation to deceive the enemy.
12.4 THE UNITED NATIONS FLAG AND EMBLEM
The flag of the United Nations and the letters "UN" may not be used in armed conflict for any purpose without the authorization of the United Nations.
12.5 ENEMY FLAGS, INSIGNIA, AND UNIFORMS
12.5.1 At Sea.Naval surface and subsurface forces may fly enemy colors and display enemy markings to deceive the enemy. Warships must, however, display their true colors prior to an actual armed engagement.
12.5.2 In the Air.The use in combat of enemy markings by belligerent military aircraft is forbidden.
12.5.3 On Land.The law of land warfare does not prohibit the use by belligerent land forces of enemy flags, insignia, or uniforms to deceive the enemy either before or following an armed engagement. Combatants risk severe punishment, however, if they are captured while displaying enemy colors or insignia or wearing enemy uniforms in combat.
Similarly, combatants caught behind enemy lines wearing the uniform of their adversaries are not entitled to prisoner-of-war status or protection and, historically, have been subjected to severe punishment. It is permissible, however, for downed aircrews and escaping prisoners of war to use enemy uniforms to evade capture, so long as they do not attack enemy forces, collect military intelligence, or engage in similar military operations while so attired. As a general rule, enemy markings should be removed from captured enemy equipment before it is used in combat.
12.6 FEIGNING DISTRESS
It is unlawful to feign distress through the false use of internationally recognized distress signals such as SOS and MAYDAY. In air warfare, however, it is permissible to feign disablement or other distress as a means to induce the enemy to break off an attack. Consequently, there is no obligation in air warfare to cease attacking a belligerent military aircraft that appears to be disabled. However, if one knows the enemy aircraft is disabled so as to permanently remove it from the conflict (e.g., major fire or structural damage) there is an obligation to cease attacking to permit possible evacuation by crew or passengers.
12.7 FALSE CLAIMS OF NONCOMBATANT STATUS
It is a violation of the law of armed conflict to kill, injure, or capture the enemy by false indication of an intent to surrender or by feigning shipwreck, sickness, wounds, or civilian status (but see paragraph 12.3.1). A surprise attack by a person feigning shipwreck, sickness, or wounds undermines the protected status of those rendered incapable of combat. Similarly, attacking enemy forces while posing as a civilian puts all civilians at hazard. Such acts of perfidy are punishable as war crimes.
12.7.1 Illegal Combatants.It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by feigning civilian, non-combatant status. If determined by a competent tribunal of the captor nation to be illegal combatants, such persons may be denied prisoner-of-war status and be tried and punished. It is the policy of the United States, however, to accord illegal combatants prisoner-of-war protection if they were carrying arms openly at the time of capture.
A spy is someone who, while in territory under enemy control or the zone of operations of a belligerent force, seeks to obtain information while operating under a false claim of noncombatant or friendly forces status with the intention of passing that information to an opposing belligerent. Members of the armed forces who penetrate enemy-held territory in civilian attire or enemy uniform to collect intelligence are spies. Conversely, personnel conducting reconnaissance missions behind enemy lines while properly uniformed are not spies.
Crewmembers of warships and military aircraft engaged in intelligence collection missions in enemy waters or airspace are not spies unless the ship or aircraft displays false civilian, neutral, or enemy marking.
12.8.1 Legal Status. Spying during armed conflict is not a violation of international law. Captured spies are not, however, entitled to prisoner-of-war status. The captor nation may try and punish spies in accordance with its national law. Should a spy succeed in eluding capture and return to friendly territory, liability to punishment terminates. If subsequently captured during some other military operation, the former spy cannot be tried or punished for the earlier act of espionage.