Whilst the protection of civilians (POC) in conflict has been a recurring feature of the humanitarian discourse the same has not been true in military doctrines, where the protection of civilians has long been cast in terms of arms bearers upholding their responsibilities under international humanitarian law (IHL).
However, opportunities for and pressures on military actors to develop more specific capacities and approaches in this field have grown: partly as a response to the changing nature, location and scope of conflict, particularly the increasing proportion of internal conflicts fought by irregular armed groups in urban environments. It is also a response to the scale and complexity of protection challenges in the Balkans, Rwanda, Darfur and Libya - each of which has clearly demonstrated that threats to civilians are complex and dynamic and that no single international actor is capable of mitigating them without significant support from other institutions (O’Callaghan and Pantuliano, 2007).
Despite the enormous growth in opportunities for interaction between militaries and humanitarians there is only a very limited literature on their interaction over protection issues and evaluations of the emerging doctrines. Consequently this article charts the growth in military policies towards POC in the UN, UK, NATO and a range of other states as well as drawing attention to the challenges that still remain in operationalising responses.
What is the Protection of Civilians?
Traditionally the concept of ‘protection’ has been relatively straightforward, rooted in IHL’s protection of civilians from the consequences of war. As such, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) has traditionally occupied a key role in its application.
Later conceptualisations of ‘protection’ have broadened to encompass elements of refugee law and international human rights law (IHRL), with the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) adopting a role corresponding to that of the ICRC. As a consequence of the prominent roles played by both the ICRC and UNHCR, the implementation of protection has tended to reflect their mandates and operational approaches, manifesting itself as a ‘legally oriented, diplomatic and persuasive engagement with national state and non-state actors’ (O’Callaghan and Pantuliano 2007). Both the ICRC and the UN’s Inter Agency Standing Committee (IASC) reflect this quasi-legal approach; accepting that ‘the concept of protection encompasses all activities aimed at obtaining full respect for the rights of the individual in accordance with the letter and spirit of the relevant bodies of law
No comments:
Post a Comment