By: Joshua Norris*
Twenty-First century modern warfare, distinguished by an increased reliance on long-range air strike capabilities, is fraught with moral ambiguities and haunting dilemmas. With each air strike, strategic calculations are made on the part of civilian and military authorities to justify the neutralization of targets and the accumulation of collateral damage. Although states justify their use of force through the espoused pursuit of national interest, there are times when the execution of air strike operations stray too far from desired outcomes. In such cases, civilian casualties become a galvanizing force driving increased political and military scrutiny. Both the US air strike on the Afghan Doctors Without Borders hospital and the purported Assad regime air strike of an Al Qud field hospital in Aleppo have brought Jus in Bello (Justice in War) discussions of international law to the forefront of public discourse–all the while alluding to a single question: are states truly accountable for their actions in the province of war?
On October 3, 2015, a US AC-130 gunship bombarded what they reportedly believed to be a Taliban-controlled facility housing surface-to-air missiles. For one hour, in fifteen minute increments, the AC-130 unleashed its payload onto the facility. In actuality, the airship had bombarded a Doctor’s Without Borders hospital located 400 meters from its intended target, thus killing 42 innocent individuals and wounding at least 37. Doctors Without Borders has proclaimed that this tragic event constitutes a war crime and that the US Soldiers should be tried as war criminals. However, based upon its own internal investigation, the US military has concluded that the incriminated soldiers are not war criminals, for their actions were “unintentional” and partially due to an equipment malfunction. In addition to offering the victims and their family condolences, the US military has issued punishments to the respective soldiers including the removal of command, letters of reprimand, retraining, and counseling. Critics contend that these insufficient punitive measures, and the United States’ refusal to allow an independent investigation to be held, demonstrate a blatant disregard for the principles of justice enshrined in international humanitarian law.
According to the US State Department, the Assad Regime launched an air-to-ground missile strike on April 27, 2016, deliberately targeting a hospital backed by Doctors Without Borders in a rebel-controlled area of Aleppo, Syria. The air strike killed Mohammad Wassim Maaz, Aleppo’s last pediatrician, along with at least 49 other patients and staff. Despite eyewitness accounts, and the Assad regime’s infamous record of targeting civilian facilities, the Syrian government has denied its involvement in the air strike. Controversially, in addition to the International Committee of the Red Cross and Doctors Without Borders, United States’ Secretary of State, John Kerry, has proclaimed his country’s “outrage” concerning the Syrian government’s destruction of innocent lives. Although the United States has partially exonerated the perpetrators of the Kunduz air strike incident based upon their good intentions, the international community has not so readily accepted this conclusion. Currently, the United States’ moral credentials on the subject of civilian air strikes and warfighting are, at best, questionable.
It is clear that both of the aforementioned cases involve the targeting of civilian facilities. Consequently, from a legal standpoint, both cases constitute a direct violation of the fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, established in 1949. Article three of this convention states that “Persons taking no active part in the hostilities…shall in all circumstance be treated humanely. Furthermore, Article three explicitly “prohibit[s] at any time and in any place whatsoever…(a) violence to life and person…” of the previously mentioned noncombatants. To be clear, Syria ratified the Geneva Conventions in 1953, and the United States ratified the conventions in 1955. Therefore, both states have committed and are legally liable to hold themselves accountable for violations under the principles of international law. In spite of the apparent clarity of state commitments to humanitarian law, the enforcement of the Geneva Conventions has always been tenuous and rather inconsistent. Based upon the cases of Kunduz and Aleppo, perhaps the inconsistent enforcement of humanitarian law signifies the primacy of national interests in war and state policy, or perhaps the strength of humanitarian law lies in its unseen normative sway–a capacity to gradually dissuade violation by eroding the soft power of the actors that do not abide by international convention.
*Disclaimer: The content contained in the following material is the sole ownership of the author and does not reflect the views of the Towson University Journal of International Affairs nor Towson University in any respect whatsoever.
