Whom can you fight?
Whom can you fight?
The practical question is this: "Is it immoral to kill civilians in war?"
An issue of growing importance
This question has become more important during the last 100 years because a century ago most people killed in wars were professionals.
- At the beginning of the twentieth century only 10%-15% of those who died in war were civilians.
- In World War 2 more than 50% of those who died were civilians.
- By the end of the century over 75% of those killed in war were civilians.
The general rule
The general rule is that only those people fighting you are legitimate targets of attack. Those who are not fighting should not be attacked as this would violate their human rights.
The Geneva Convention lays down that civilians are not to be subject to attack. This includes direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks against areas in which civilians are present.
This can be developed into two principles:
- it is unjust to attack non-combatants
- it is unjust to attack indiscriminately, as non-combatants may be killed
Who is, and who is not a combatant?
While there is general agreement that only combatants are legitimate targets, the issue of who actually is a combatant is much less clear.
Definitely combatants
- members of military forces
- members of guerrilla forces (even though not in uniform)
- anyone who takes up arms in the conflict, other than in direct self-defence
Definitely non-combatants
- all citizens of neutral countries
- unless they do something incompatible with their neutral status - like fighting for one of the armies involved in the conflict as a mercenary soldier
- the old and the sick
- children
- but children were historically used as combatants, e.g. the "powder monkeys" in warships in the days of sail
- child soldiers are becoming more common in terrorist conflicts and third world armies
- International conventions specify that countries should not allow children under 15 to participate in hostilities or to be recruited into the armed forces.
Probably non-combatants
- soldiers who have been wounded or who have surrendered
- this hasn't always been so - armies used to make a point of butchering enemy wounded or those who surrendered
- although soldiers who surrender shouldn't be killed, it's quite legitimate to make them prisoners so that they can't attack you again
- military personnel clearly identified as having specifically non-combatant roles such as medical staff and chaplains
- such personnel are often injured or killed because their job takes them into the most dangerous parts of the battle
Probably non-combatants, but...
- Civilians whose work keeps the country alive - farmers, miners, transport workers, and so on should not be treated as combatants, even though their work also supports those who are involved in waging war.
May well be regarded as combatants
- civilians who are helping the war effort - these are people working to supply the troops and to provide them with weapons or helping in other ways. They aren't combatants in the sense of bearing arms, but they are an essential part of the war machine and constitute a threat to the other side.
Some philosophers say that there are no non-combatants in war, and that every citizen of an enemy state is a legitimate target.
