Session 8 Flashcards
Q: What did Amnesty International accuse the Saudi Arabia-led coalition of doing in Yemen?
A: Carrying out unlawful airstrikes on schools still in use for education, violating international humanitarian law and potentially committing war crimes.
Q: What was the educational impact of the school bombings in Yemen?
A: Over 6,500 students were affected in the five investigated schools, with more than 1,000 schools nationwide out of use due to destruction, damage, or use as shelters.
Q: Did Amnesty International find evidence of military use in the targeted schools?
A: No; Amnesty found no evidence that any of the five bombed schools were used for military purposes, and some were struck multiple times, indicating possible deliberate targeting.
Q: What psychological effects did the airstrikes have on Yemeni children?
A: The attacks caused fear, trauma, and long-term emotional distress among students, with children expressing terror at the sight of warplanes and school staff feeling a loss of humanity.
Q: What actions did Amnesty International call for in response to the attacks?
A: Independent investigations into the strikes, accountability for perpetrators, full reparations to victims, and a halt to arms transfers to coalition forces by countries like the USA and UK.
Q: How did arms transfers contribute to the continuation of these violations?
A: Despite evidence of war crimes, countries such as the US continued to supply weapons—including general-purpose bombs—used in unlawful airstrikes, violating international legal obligations.
Q: What is the fundamental principle regarding the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked in armed conflict under IHL?
A: They must be respected and protected at all times, as they are hors de combat and no longer lawful targets.
Q: What do Geneva Conventions I and II cover respectively?
A: GC I covers the wounded and sick on land; GC II covers the wounded, sick, and shipwrecked at sea.
Q: What core protections are afforded to the wounded and sick under IHL?
A: Humane treatment without discrimination, prohibition of violence or torture, and an obligation to care for them promptly.
Q: When are medical personnel, units, and transports protected under IHL?
A: When they are not used to commit hostile acts; if misused, protection may be lost after due warning.
Q: What are the recognized protective emblems under IHL, and what do they signify?
A: Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal; they signify neutrality and protection for medical services.
Q: What are some key additions provided by Additional Protocol I (1977)?
A: Rules for airborne medical evacuation, civilian medical services, medical ethics, and confidentiality.
Q: How does Common Article 3 apply in non-international armed conflicts (NIACs)?
A: It sets a minimum standard of humane treatment for all persons not taking part in hostilities.
Q: What does Additional Protocol II add to Common Article 3 in NIACs?
A: More detailed protections for the wounded, sick, medical units, and prohibitions on cruel treatment and collective punishment.
Q: Under what conditions can protection be lost by the wounded or medical personnel?
A: If they commit hostile acts or use protected status to commit harm, but only after a warning and continued abuse.
Q: What constitutes a grave breach or war crime under IHL in this context?
A: Acts like deliberately attacking the wounded or medical units, or denying medical care, are grave breaches and prosecutable as war crimes.
Q: What did the World Health Organization document between October 7 and December 12, 2023, in Gaza?
A: 231 attacks on health care, including strikes on hospitals and ambulances, detention of health workers, and militarized raids—primarily by Israeli forces.
Q: Under what four conditions can a medical facility legally be attacked under international humanitarian law (IHL)?
A: 1) Used for harmful acts to the enemy, 2) given advance warning, 3) proportional harm, and 4) clear military necessity. Otherwise, they are protected.
Q: What was Israel’s main justification for targeting hospitals like al Shifa in Gaza?
A: Claims that Hamas used hospitals for military purposes, but presented evidence (e.g., small weapons caches, tunnel entrances) does not meet IHL standards for a legitimate target.
Q: What are the consequences of the attacks on Gaza’s health system by late November 2023?
A: Over 80% of northern hospitals were out of service; southern hospitals were overwhelmed and unable to meet medical or humanitarian needs.
Q: What potential war crimes or crimes against humanity are implicated in Israel’s hospital attacks?
A: Violations include attacking protected objects (Rome Statute Art. 8), disproportionate harm (Art. 8(2)(b)(iv)), and possibly extermination and forced displacement (Art. 7).
Q: What does the article call for in terms of accountability and international response?
A: Independent investigations (e.g., by the UN and ICC), and for military aid to Israel to be conditioned on compliance with IHL and efforts to reduce civilian harm.
Q: What triggered the conflict in northern Mali in early 2012, and who were the main actors?
A: A non-international armed conflict erupted involving the Malian government and armed groups such as MNLA, AQIM, Ansar Dine, and MUJAO.
Q: What cultural heritage sites were targeted during the conflict in Timbuktu?
A: At least 9 mausoleums, 2 mosques, and 2 historic monuments were intentionally destroyed by Ansar Dine and AQIM between May and July 2012.
Q: Why did the armed groups destroy the mausoleums and monuments in Timbuktu?
A: The Islamist groups viewed the shrines and mausoleums as blasphemous and incompatible with their interpretation of Islam.
Q: Under which legal provision does attacking cultural property in conflict qualify as a war crime?
A: Article 8(2)(e)(iv) of the Rome Statute of the ICC prohibits intentional attacks on protected cultural property during non-international armed conflicts.
Q: What legal instruments protect cultural heritage in armed conflicts?
A: Key instruments include the 1954 Hague Convention, the Geneva Conventions (especially Additional Protocols I & II), and the Rome Statute of the ICC.
Q: What was the international response to the destruction of Timbuktu’s cultural heritage?
A: The Malian government referred the case to the ICC, while the UN Security Council and ECOWAS condemned the acts and called for investigations and accountability.
Q: What is the core purpose of precautionary rules in IHL?
A: To minimize civilian harm during hostilities by imposing legal obligations on both attackers and defenders to take all feasible measures to protect civilians and civilian objects.
Q: What is the legal basis for the duty to distinguish civilians from military objectives?
A: Article 48 of Additional Protocol I requires parties to direct operations only against military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects.
Q: What does Article 57(1) of AP I require regarding “constant care”?
A: Constant care must be taken during all military operations (not just attacks) to spare civilians and civilian objects.
Q: What does Article 57(2)(a)(i) require before launching an attack?
A: Commanders must do everything feasible to verify that the target is a legitimate military objective and not protected.
Q: How does Article 57(2)(a)(ii) guide the choice of weapons and tactics?
A: Attackers must choose means and methods of warfare that avoid or minimize civilian casualties, considering factors like timing, angle, and precision.
Q: What is the rule under Article 57(2)(a)(iii) on proportionality?
A: An attack must be refrained from if incidental civilian harm is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.
Q: When must an attack be cancelled or suspended under IHL?
A: If it becomes apparent that the target is not military or if the attack would cause disproportionate harm to civilians (Art. 57(2)(b)).
Q: What does Article 57(2)(c) require regarding advance warning?
A: Effective advance warnings must be given when attacks may affect civilians, unless military necessity does not permit.
Q: What are the obligations of the defending party regarding civilians?
A: Defenders must not use civilians as human shields (Art. 51(7)) and must take feasible steps to protect them (Art. 58), such as avoiding placing military objectives near them.
Q: What does IHL mean by “feasible precautions”?
A: Measures that are practicable in the circumstances, taking into account both humanitarian concerns and military factors; honest mistakes made in good faith may not be violations.
Q: Under what conditions is attacking power infrastructure lawful under IHL?
A: Only if it qualifies as a military objective by making an effective contribution to military action and its destruction offers a definite military advantage (AP I, Art. 52(2)).
Q: What is the “war-sustaining” doctrine, and is it widely accepted in IHL?
A: It’s a U.S. view that economic infrastructure supporting the war effort can be targeted, but most states and legal scholars reject it as unsupported in IHL and easily abused.
Q: What precautionary measures must be taken before attacking power infrastructure?
A: Attackers must verify military necessity, minimize civilian harm, provide effective warnings (if feasible), and choose means/methods that spare civilians (Art. 57 AP I).
Q: How does the rule of proportionality apply to power infrastructure attacks?
A: Civilian harm (direct or indirect) must not be excessive compared to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage. Foreseeable effects like hunger or hypothermia count.
Q: Can attacks that cause civilian fear be classified as acts of terror under IHL?
A: Only if the primary purpose is to terrorize civilians. Causing fear alone is not enough; intent must be proven (AP I, Art. 51(2)).
Q: What is the author’s conclusion about Russia’s attacks on Ukrainian energy systems?
A: Many likely violate IHL, as they target non-military infrastructure, cause excessive civilian harm, and show little regard for precautionary rules.
Q: What did Amnesty International accuse Ukrainian forces of doing in populated areas?
A: Establishing military bases and launching attacks from residential areas, including homes, schools, and hospitals—endangering civilians and violating IHL.
Q: Why are these tactics problematic under international humanitarian law (IHL)?
A: IHL requires parties to avoid placing military objectives near civilians and to evacuate civilians if possible. Using civilian objects for military purposes without precautions breaches this obligation.
Q: How widespread was this practice according to Amnesty’s investigation?
A: In 19 towns and villages, Ukrainian forces were found operating in civilian areas, and 22 out of 29 schools showed signs of military use.
Q: What are some examples of the human cost of these tactics?
A: Civilians were killed or injured in strikes near military positions, such as a man killed near his home in Mykolaiv and a child killed near a school used by troops.
Q: Did Amnesty excuse Russia’s conduct in light of Ukraine’s violations?
A: No—Amnesty emphasized that Ukrainian violations do not justify Russia’s indiscriminate or unlawful attacks, like cluster munitions in civilian areas.
Q: What actions does Amnesty recommend to the Ukrainian military?
A: Avoid operating in populated areas unless absolutely necessary, evacuate civilians when they do, and never use hospitals. They also urged compliance with the Safe Schools Declaration.
Q: What are the two criteria for identifying a military objective under IHL?
A: (1) It contributes effectively to enemy military action; (2) Its destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage.
Q: What must be done before confirming an object as a military objective?
A: Verify the object isn’t specially protected (e.g. hospital, cultural site), and ensure it meets both criteria for lawful targeting.
Q: What is the principle of proportionality in attack planning?
A: Civilian harm must not be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage.
Q: What does the precautionary obligation require before launching an attack?
A: All feasible steps must be taken to avoid or minimize civilian harm, including careful target verification and weapon selection.
Q: When must an attack be suspended under IHL?
A: If it becomes clear that the target is not a military objective, is specially protected, or would cause disproportionate civilian harm.
