Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Indiscriminate attack

An indiscriminate attack constitutes a violation of (IHL), defined as any military operation that inherently fails to distinguish between combatants and or between military objectives and civilian objects. This prohibition stems from the core principle of distinction, which requires parties to an armed conflict to direct attacks solely against legitimate military targets while sparing protected persons and property. The legal framework is codified in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I to the of 1949, which specifies three categories: attacks not aimed at a specific military objective, those using methods or means unable to be so directed, and those whose effects cannot be controlled to avoid excessive civilian harm. Indiscriminate attacks encompass tactics such as unguided or employment of inherently imprecise weapons like certain munitions in populated zones, where incidental harm is unavoidable rather than merely foreseeable. Such actions are distinct from deliberate targeting of s, yet they equally undermine IHL by treating military and elements as a unified target, often resulting in disproportionate casualties. Historical precedents include strategic bombings, such as the Allied of in , which leveled the city center and killed approximately 25,000 s through indiscriminate incendiary raids justified as disrupting war industry but executed without precise discrimination. In contemporary conflicts, allegations of indiscriminate attacks frequently arise in environments, where dense civilian populations complicate adherence to distinction, prompting debates over the feasibility of precision in practice versus legal ideals. Violations can constitute war crimes under the of the , particularly when they systematically disregard civilian protections, though enforcement remains challenged by attribution difficulties and varying state interpretations of . This tension highlights causal realities: while IHL aims to mitigate war's brutality through rules grounded in empirical observation of past atrocities, its application demands rigorous evidentiary standards amid biases in reporting from institutions prone to selective outrage.

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Core Elements

An indiscriminate attack refers to a in armed conflict that violates the principle of distinction by failing to differentiate between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, thereby inherently endangering and property. This prohibition is codified in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I (1977) to the , which defines indiscriminate attacks as those not directed at a specific military objective; those using methods or means of combat that cannot be directed at such an objective; or those employing methods or means whose effects cannot be limited as required by (IHL), resulting in strikes on both military and civilian targets without distinction. The rule operationalizes the broader obligation under Article 48 of the same Protocol to conduct operations solely against military objectives while distinguishing civilian populations from combatants. The core elements encompass three interrelated criteria rooted in foreseeability and control over effects. First, lack of directionality toward a defined objective, such as area bombing without targeting , renders an attack indiscriminate by design or execution. Second, inherent weapon or method limitations, like munitions over populated areas where is impossible, preclude distinction regardless of intent. Third, uncontrollable or excessive effects that cannot be confined to military aims, evaluated against the attacker's of circumstances at launch, confirm indiscriminarity even if some targeting effort exists. These elements are assessed objectively, focusing on whether a reasonable could anticipate harm without differentiation, distinguishing indiscriminate attacks from deliberate targeting (which constitutes a war crime per se) or proportionate strikes with incidental effects. This framework prioritizes causal mechanisms in —such as accuracy, , and —to ensure attacks align with while minimizing superfluous harm, reflecting IHL's empirical basis in historical patterns of civilian devastation from unchecked violence. Violations occur not merely through but when methods preclude compliance with distinction, as evidenced in customary IHL applicable to all conflicts regardless of status.

Distinction from Related Concepts

An indiscriminate attack, as defined under international humanitarian law (IHL), constitutes a prohibited method of warfare that fails to distinguish between military objectives and civilians or civilian objects, effectively treating them as a unitary target. This includes attacks by bombardment or any means that encompass a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives or that employ weapons incapable of such discrimination. In contrast, a deliberate or direct attack on civilians intentionally selects non-combatants or civilian infrastructure as the primary target, violating the principle of distinction irrespective of any military presence. While both result in civilian harm, the former stems from a methodological failure to differentiate targets, whereas the latter involves purposeful selection of protected persons, rendering it a grave breach under the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I. Indiscriminate attacks must also be differentiated from disproportionate attacks, which presuppose an initial distinction between and elements but fail the test by anticipating excessive incidental casualties relative to the concrete and direct advantage gained. assessments apply exclusively to attacks directed at lawful objectives where harm is merely , not inherent to the attack's design; indiscriminate methods, by definition, bypass this calculus entirely due to their inherent inability or unwillingness to spare civilians. For instance, the use of inherently inaccurate weapons in densely populated areas without feasible precautions exemplifies indiscriminateness, of outcome-based harm ratios that characterize disproportionality evaluations. Further distinctions arise in relation to , particularly within armed conflicts, where indiscriminate attacks by parties fall under IHL's regulatory framework governing warfare methods, whereas typically denotes acts by non-state actors or outside formal hostilities aimed at instilling widespread fear among civilians for political ends. IHL proscribes both, but does not equate them; terrorist acts may qualify as indiscriminate if they occur in conflict zones, yet IHL emphasizes operational obligations on organized armed groups, treating such violations as war crimes rather than solely counter-terrorism offenses. This separation underscores that indiscriminate attacks prioritize the absence of targeting precision over intent to terrorize, though empirical overlaps exist in conflicts involving non-state actors employing unguided munitions.

Legal Framework

International Humanitarian Law Provisions

International humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks as a fundamental aspect of of distinction, which requires parties to conflicts to differentiate between objectives and civilians or civilian objects. This prohibition is codified primarily in Additional Protocol I of 1977 to the of 1949, applicable in international armed conflicts. Article 48 of the Protocol establishes the basic rule that "the Parties to the conflict shall direct their operations only against objectives," thereby laying the groundwork for targeted operations over area-wide or undifferentiated assaults. Article 51(4) explicitly bans indiscriminate attacks, defining them as those (a) not directed at a specific objective; (b) employing a method or means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific objective; or (c) using a method or means whose effects cannot be limited as required by the Protocol, resulting in strikes on objectives and or objects without distinction. This definition targets inherently imprecise tactics, such as blind over populated areas without regard for verifiable targets, distinguishing them from deliberate attacks on (prohibited under Article 51(2)) or disproportionate attacks (assessed under Article 51(5)(b)). Violations constituting grave breaches, including launching indiscriminate attacks causing excessive casualties, are criminalized under Article 85(3), obligating states parties to prosecute or extradite perpetrators. In non-international armed conflicts, Additional of 1977 provides that civilians enjoy general protection against dangers from military operations (Article 13(1)), implicitly incorporating safeguards against indiscriminate methods by prohibiting acts causing superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering (Article 4(2)(b)(i)). However, unlike , it lacks an explicit definition of indiscriminate attacks, relying instead on broader customary interpretations for enforcement. Common Article 3 to the reinforces civilian protections but does not detail attack modalities. These provisions, effective since 's on December 7, 1978, bind 174 states parties as of 2023, though non-parties like the acknowledge the underlying distinction principle while rejecting certain Protocol interpretations as overly restrictive on .

Customary and National Law Applications

The prohibition on indiscriminate attacks constitutes a fundamental norm of customary (IHL), applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts. This rule, codified as Rule 11 in the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) study on customary IHL, deems indiscriminate attacks—those not directed at a specific objective, employing methods or means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific objective, or resulting in excessive harm relative to anticipated advantage—as unlawful. State practice, including manuals from over 100 countries such as the , , , and , alongside national legislation and operational doctrines, demonstrates widespread acceptance of this prohibition as reflective of opinio juris. The norm derives from the cardinal of distinction under IHL, requiring parties to conflicts to differentiate between combatants and s, a affirmed by international tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former (ICTY) in cases such as Prosecutor v. Galić, where shelling areas without specific targeting evidenced intent to attack s. National implementations of this customary rule vary but consistently integrate the prohibition into domestic legal frameworks, often through penal codes, systems, and instructions for armed forces. For instance, the U.S. Department of Defense Manual explicitly prohibits attacks that fail to distinguish between military objectives and civilians, aligning with customary IHL despite non-ratification of Additional Protocol I, emphasizing that such attacks violate the rule against targeting civilians indiscriminately. In the , the Act 2001 criminalizes indiscriminate attacks as war crimes under domestic law, enabling prosecution in national courts for violations committed by British forces or on UK territory. Similarly, Germany's Code of Crimes against incorporates the ban, as seen in prosecutions related to foreign conflicts, such as the 2022 conviction of a Syrian officer for aiding indiscriminate attacks via barrel bombs, reflecting state commitment to enforce customary norms extraterritorially when jurisdiction applies. Enforcement through national mechanisms underscores the rule's operational reality, though challenges persist due to interpretive differences and attribution issues. Military manuals from states like and mandate precautions to avoid indiscriminate effects, such as area bombing without verified targets, with violations subject to courts-martial under codes like the U.S. . In practice, states have invoked the prohibition in investigations, such as Australia's 2018 inquiries into alleged indiscriminate airstrikes in and , where failure to adhere to targeting protocols led to disciplinary actions. These applications reveal a convergence in state behavior toward minimizing civilian exposure, supported by empirical data from post-conflict analyses showing reduced indiscriminate tactics in professionalized forces adhering to IHL training.

Enforcement Mechanisms and Challenges

The primary enforcement mechanisms for prohibitions on indiscriminate attacks derive from individual criminal responsibility under (IHL), prosecuted through tribunals, the (ICC), and domestic courts exercising universal or complementary jurisdiction. The of the ICC, effective from July 1, 2002, criminalizes as a war crime the launching of an indiscriminate attack in the knowledge that it will cause excessive incidental civilian harm, building on customary IHL Rule 11, which bans such attacks in both international and non-international armed conflicts. tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal for the former (ICTY) have set precedents; for instance, in the 2003 Galić case, ICTY convicted Bosnian Serb General of and violations of the laws or customs of war for overseeing sniping and shelling campaigns in from 1992 to 1994, where the indiscriminate nature of the attacks—treating civilians and military targets without distinction—was deemed to constitute direct attacks on civilians. Domestic enforcement occurs via national military or civilian courts, often under obligations from the ' grave breaches regime, though prosecutions remain rare outside complementarity with international bodies. The plays a supportive role by referring situations to the under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, as in (Resolution 1970, February 26, 2011) and (Resolution 1593, March 31, 2005), enabling investigations into alleged indiscriminate attacks despite non-ratification by implicated states. However, the (ICJ) addresses state responsibility rather than individuals, issuing s or contentious judgments on IHL compliance, such as in the 2004 Nuclear Weapons affirming the customary prohibition on indiscriminate weapons. Fact-finding mechanisms, including UN commissions of inquiry, document violations for potential prosecution, as in reports on Syrian shelling campaigns deemed indiscriminate by the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on since 2011. Challenges to enforcement are multifaceted, rooted in jurisdictional limitations and practical obstacles. The ICC's territorial and temporal excludes non-party states like the , , and , shielding major powers from accountability for alleged indiscriminate bombings, such as 's in since February 2022, where access for evidence collection has been hampered by ongoing hostilities and non-cooperation. Political selectivity undermines credibility, with only 31 situations under investigation as of 2023 despite widespread violations, often prioritizing cases over those involving allies, reflecting power imbalances rather than . Evidentiary hurdles persist, as proving or in indiscriminate attacks requires demonstrating attackers' awareness of presence without distinction, complicated by destroyed records, intimidation, and the ; in the ICTY's Galić , over 150 witnesses were needed to establish patterns of indiscriminate fire. State cooperation remains inconsistent, with arrest warrant enforcement failing in high-profile cases—e.g., ICC warrants for Sudanese officials over attacks issued since 2009 have gone unexecuted due to Sudan's non-party status and Security Council inaction. doctrines, requiring proof of knowledge and failure to prevent or punish subordinates, falter against non-state actors or fragmented chains in asymmetric conflicts, where attribution is obscured by proxies or denial. Resource constraints further impede efforts, with the ICC's 2023 budget of approximately €169 million insufficient for global investigations, leading to deferred cases amid backlogs exceeding 50 defendants. These factors result in low rates, with fewer than 20 successful war crimes prosecutions involving indiscriminate elements across major tribunals since 1993, despite thousands of documented incidents.

Historical Development

Pre-Modern and Early Modern Warfare

In pre-modern warfare, spanning ancient civilizations through the medieval period, indiscriminate attacks manifested primarily through tactics that targeted entire urban populations to compel or punish , often disregarding distinctions between combatants and non-combatants. campaigns in the 9th-7th centuries BCE routinely involved the razing of cities like and the mass deportation or execution of inhabitants to instill fear, with relief carvings depicting pyramids of severed heads as psychological tools. Similarly, the Roman in 70 CE under resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple and the slaughter or enslavement of much of the city's population after breaching the walls, with ancient accounts estimating over 1 million deaths from combat, starvation, and disease, though modern analyses suggest lower figures around 100,000-600,000 due to exaggerated contemporary reports. These practices stemmed from the logistical imperatives of prolonged s, where starvation and assault weapons like catapults inflicted widespread civilian harm without precise targeting capabilities. The of the 13th century epitomized deliberate indiscriminate destruction as a strategic doctrine, where resisting cities faced total annihilation to deter future opposition, contrasting with leniency toward prompt submitters. Under and his successors, tactics included catapulting plague-ridden corpses over walls for , diverting rivers to flood urban areas, and systematic post-breach massacres; for instance, the 1240 sack of Kiev saw up to 48,000 inhabitants killed after the city's fall, reducing it to ruins. The 1258 by Hulagu Khan's forces culminated in a week-long orgy of killing, with estimates of civilian deaths ranging from 200,000 to over 1 million, as Mongol troops looted, burned libraries, and slaughtered indiscriminately, effectively ending the Abbasid Caliphate's cultural dominance. Such operations, executed by highly mobile horse archer armies augmented by captured Chinese siege engineers, prioritized terror over preservation, contributing to demographic collapses in regions like and . Transitioning to early modern warfare from the 15th to 18th centuries, the advent of intensified indiscriminate elements in urban assaults, as cannons enabled bombardment of densely packed cities, often causing collateral deaths despite aims at fortifications. The trace italienne bastion system emerged in response, but breaches still led to sacks; the 1631 during the exemplifies this, where Imperial Catholic forces under Count Tilly, after a prolonged barrage, stormed the Protestant city, killing 20,000-25,000 of its 30,000 residents—mostly —in a of , , and that razed 90% of the structures. 's inaccuracy and the era's emphasis on rapid dominance over humanitarian restraint amplified such outcomes, with sieges like those in the Ottoman-Habsburg wars similarly blending targeted wall-battering with post-assault targeting. These events underscored causal realities: technological shifts favored attackers willing to accept high non-combatant tolls for decisive gains, absent modern legal constraints.

World Wars and Strategic Bombing

During World War I, German forces conducted aerial raids on British cities using Zeppelins and Gotha bombers, marking early instances of attacks that failed to distinguish between military and civilian targets. Between 1915 and 1918, 52 Zeppelin raids over England resulted in 556 civilian deaths and 1,357 injuries, with bombs dropped indiscriminately over urban areas to instill fear and disrupt morale. These operations, limited by technology, targeted population centers rather than precise military objectives, exemplifying primitive strategic bombing tactics. In , indiscriminate bombing escalated dramatically, beginning with ' assaults on civilian areas. The German Luftwaffe's campaign against from September 1940 to May 1941 involved sustained night raids on and other cities, killing approximately 43,500 civilians and injuring over 139,000, while destroying two million homes. These attacks prioritized terrorizing populations and crippling infrastructure over selective targeting, as evidenced by the indiscriminate release of high-explosive and incendiary bombs over densely populated zones. In response, Allied forces adopted area bombing policies; on February 14, 1942, received directives to conduct night-time area attacks on German cities, justified by the inaccuracy of pre-radar and bombing sights, which rendered precision strikes infeasible. The RAF and USAAF campaigns against culminated in operations like the February 13-15, 1945, , where over 1,000 heavy bombers dropped incendiaries and explosives, creating that gutted the city's historic center and killed an estimated 25,000 civilians. This raid, aimed at disrupting transport and communications but executed via blanket saturation, highlighted the inherent indiscriminateness of area bombing, where civilian casualties arose from the fusion of urban industry and residential density with technological limitations in target discrimination. Similarly, in the Pacific theater, the USAAF's March 9-10, 1945, Operation Meetinghouse firebombing of deployed 279 B-29s to drop 1,665 tons of incendiaries, igniting a that destroyed 16 square miles and caused 80,000 to 100,000 deaths, primarily civilians, in Japan's most populous area. The atomic bombings of on August 6, 1945, and on August 9, 1945, represented the apex of indiscriminate strategic attacks, with the single Hiroshima bomb killing about 66,000 people immediately and injuring 69,000, while Nagasaki saw 39,000 immediate deaths and 25,000 injuries, per U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey estimates. These weapons, detonated over urban centers with mixed military-civilian compositions, caused instantaneous and radiation-induced civilian fatalities on a massive scale, bypassing conventional distinctions due to their blast radius and lack of selective targeting capability. Across both world wars, strategic bombing's reliance on area saturation—driven by navigational errors, wind drift, and doctrinal emphasis on morale-breaking—resulted in civilian tolls that often exceeded military gains, underscoring causal links between , , and disproportionate harm. Empirical analyses confirmed that such campaigns inflicted on non-combatants, with Allied Bomber Command absorbing up to 12% of Britain's by 1943-1945 yet yielding contested strategic returns amid high .

Post-World War II Codification

The of 1949, adopted in the aftermath of World War II's widespread civilian casualties from and other operations, significantly expanded protections for non-combatants under . The Fourth Convention, relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, entered into force on October 21, 1950, and required parties to respect civilians by prohibiting violence to life and person, including murder, mutilation, and cruel treatment, particularly in occupied territories. While not explicitly addressing "indiscriminate attacks," these provisions implicitly reinforced the customary principle of distinction—obliging belligerents to differentiate between military objectives and civilians—building on earlier Regulations of that had condemned bombardment of undefended towns. The conventions' drafters, influenced by wartime atrocities documented in trials like , aimed to mitigate indiscriminate effects through rules against collective penalties and reprisals against civilians, though enforcement remained limited by state sovereignty and lack of universal ratification at the time. The and International Military Tribunals (1945–1948), convened by Allied powers, prosecuted leaders for war crimes but notably declined to classify aerial bombings—such as the Allied of or —as violations, viewing as a legitimate wartime practice absent explicit treaty prohibitions. This judicial restraint highlighted gaps in pre-1949 law, prompting further codification efforts amid proxy conflicts and wars that exposed ongoing civilian targeting. By the 1970s, diplomatic conferences convened by the International Committee of the Red Cross addressed these deficiencies, resulting in the 1977 Additional Protocols to the . Protocol I, applicable to international armed conflicts and adopted on June 8, 1977, explicitly codified the ban on indiscriminate attacks in Article 51(4), defining them as: (a) attacks not directed at a specific objective; (b) those using methods or means unable to be directed at such objectives; or (c) those whose effects cannot be limited as required, inevitably striking civilians or civilian objects without distinction. This provision, entering into force on December 7, 1978, upon sufficient ratifications, integrated the principle into treaty law, mandating precautions to spare civilians and prohibiting attacks expected to cause excessive incidental civilian harm relative to concrete military advantage (Article 51(5)(b)). Over 174 states have ratified as of 2023, though major powers like the have not, citing concerns over its application to non-state actors and potential constraints on . The codification reflected empirical lessons from conflicts like the , where unrestricted bombing campaigns underscored causal links between imprecise targeting and disproportionate civilian deaths, yet debates persist on its realism in where distinguishing targets proves technologically or operationally challenging.

Post-Cold War Conflicts

In the post-Cold War period, conflicts such as the , , , and have featured allegations of indiscriminate attacks, often involving unguided munitions, cluster bombs, or that failed to distinguish between combatants and . These incidents violated Additional to the , which prohibits attacks not directed at specific military objectives or employing methods incapable of such discrimination. Empirical data from monitoring groups indicate civilian casualties numbering in the tens of thousands across these theaters, with weapons like barrel bombs and barrages inherently prone to widespread due to their inaccuracy and explosive yield. During the 1999 bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of , lasting from March 24 to June 10, munitions and strikes on dual-use infrastructure resulted in at least 489-528 civilian deaths, including incidents like the bombing of the Grdelica train bridge on April 12, where 10-17 civilians died despite warnings. classified some attacks as indiscriminate for failing to minimize civilian harm, though the International Criminal Tribunal for the former 's 2000 review found insufficient evidence for prosecutions, citing operational necessities in a high-altitude campaign to avoid pilot losses. Yugoslav forces, meanwhile, employed artillery and tank fire against Kosovar Albanian villages, contributing to over 1,800 pre-bombing civilian deaths in patterns deemed indiscriminate by observers. The , erupting in 2011, exemplified systematic indiscriminate aerial attacks via barrel bombs—unguided cylinders filled with explosives and shrapnel dropped from helicopters—deployed by regime forces against opposition-held areas. By April 2021, the Syrian Network for Human Rights documented nearly 82,000 such bombs, killing over 23,000 civilians, with concentrations in and where urban density amplified effects. These weapons' design precludes precision targeting, rendering attacks inherently unlawful under , as affirmed by UN Commission of Inquiry reports. air support from 2015 intensified this, including prohibited cluster munitions in strikes on markets and hospitals. In Yemen's civil war since 2015, the Saudi-led coalition's airstrikes, involving over 25,000 sorties by 2022, frequently struck civilian gatherings, with verifying 91 unlawful attacks causing 457 deaths, such as the October 2016 Sana'a funeral hall bombing killing 140. UN experts labeled many as apparent war crimes due to reliance on unguided munitions and flawed intelligence, exacerbating through infrastructure hits. Houthi forces reciprocated with indiscriminate fire into cities, though on a smaller scale. Russia's 2022 invasion of involved widespread artillery and missile barrages on populated areas, with documenting indiscriminate strikes in and that violated distinction principles, killing over 10,000 civilians by mid-2023 per UN tallies. Patterns included area saturation with unguided munitions, as in the March 2022 strikes, where imprecise targeting hit apartment blocks. Ukrainian counterstrikes occasionally mirrored this in , but Russian operations dominated civilian harm due to scale. Enforcement remains limited, with ongoing but few prosecutions, highlighting gaps in accountability for state actors.

Practical and Operational Realities

Technological Factors in Targeting

Prior to the widespread adoption of precision-guided munitions (PGMs), targeting in aerial and artillery warfare relied on unguided projectiles, which inherently limited the ability to distinguish between military and civilian objectives, often resulting in area-wide effects classified as indiscriminate under (IHL). During , strategic bombing campaigns employed "dumb bombs" dropped over broad urban areas, as seen in the firebombing of on March 9-10, 1945, which killed an estimated 100,000 civilians due to the inaccuracy and of incendiary devices. Similarly, the Allied in February 1945 devastated the city center with high-explosive and incendiary bombs, causing over 25,000 deaths primarily among non-combatants, as the technology of the era—optical bomb sights and rudimentary —could not reliably isolate specific targets amid dense populations. These methods prioritized volume over precision, leading to disproportionate civilian harm that violated emerging principles of distinction codified later in IHL. The development of PGMs marked a significant shift toward discriminate targeting, beginning with experimental guided bombs in the using radio guidance, but achieving operational maturity during the with laser-guided systems like the series introduced in 1968. By the 1991 (Operation Desert Storm), the U.S. deployed approximately 9,800 PGMs, which accounted for about 8% of munitions but destroyed over 2,500 armored vehicles and pieces with minimal compared to unguided alternatives, demonstrating how inertial navigation, GPS, and electro-optical guidance enabled strikes within meters of intended targets. This technological evolution reduced the reliance on , aligning more closely with IHL's requirement for feasible precautions to verify targets and assess incidental harm, as PGMs allow real-time adjustments and post-strike verification through integrated sensors. Studies indicate that PGMs can decrease civilian casualties by enabling attacks on pinpoint military assets embedded in civilian areas, though their effectiveness depends on accurate intelligence inputs. Despite these advances, technological limitations persist in preventing indiscriminate outcomes, particularly in complex environments like where fog-of-war factors, sensor degradation, or algorithmic errors in AI-assisted targeting can misidentify civilians as combatants. For instance, even GPS-guided systems are susceptible to or multipath errors in cluttered settings, potentially causing deviations that amplify unintended effects, as evidenced by occasional over-the-horizon misses in post-1991 conflicts. such as autonomous drones and AI-driven promise enhanced discrimination through rapid threat detection and collateral estimation, yet they introduce risks of over-reliance on unverified data, blurring lines between deliberate and accidental indiscriminate attacks under IHL scrutiny. IHL demands that weapons remain capable of controlled effects regardless of operator intent, underscoring that while technology mitigates but does not eliminate the potential for indiscriminate attacks, human oversight and robust verification protocols are essential to uphold the principle of distinction.

Asymmetric Warfare Dynamics

In , non-state actors or weaker belligerents frequently employ indiscriminate attacks due to their limited access to precision-guided munitions and conventional forces, opting instead for tactics that inherently fail to distinguish between military and civilian targets. These methods, such as unguided rockets and suicide bombings, exploit the asymmetry by imposing psychological and logistical burdens on superior adversaries while evading direct confrontation. (IHL) prohibits such attacks under the principle of distinction, yet their prevalence persists because perpetrators often operate outside state accountability structures and prioritize strategic disruption over compliance. A prominent example involves Palestinian militant groups in , which have launched thousands of unguided Qassam rockets toward population centers since , resulting in civilian deaths and injuries despite rudimentary aiming capabilities that render the attacks inherently indiscriminate. documented that during the May 2021 escalation, these rockets killed at least two civilians and injured dozens, while also causing unintended fatalities in due to misfires, classifying the tactic as a war crime for failing to target only military objectives. Between September 2005 and May 2007 alone, nearly 2,700 such projectiles were fired, killing four civilians and injuring 75, underscoring the low precision and high collateral risk inherent to these weapons in densely populated areas. Similarly, the in has relied on suicide bombings as a core asymmetric tactic, with these operations causing disproportionate casualties by detonating in public spaces without reliable control over bystander harm. In 2019, attacks, including a suicide bombing on a government facility, killed and injured hundreds of s, as reported by , reflecting a pattern where the group's improvised explosive devices prioritize volume over discrimination to undermine state authority. Global data from 2021 indicates suicide bombings averaged higher casualties per incident compared to prior years, with -linked events in contributing to this trend amid urban insurgencies. This dynamic forces responding forces into protracted engagements where minimizing incidental harm becomes operationally challenging, though IHL demands precautions regardless of the opponent's disregard for the rules.

Human Shields and Defensive Tactics

The use of human shields in armed conflict involves the intentional placement of civilians or other in proximity to military objectives to deter attacks or shield them from military operations, a practice explicitly prohibited under (IHL). Article 51(7) of Additional Protocol I to the (1977) states that "the presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield military objectives from reprisals, or to shield, favour or impede military operations." This prohibition applies regardless of whether civilians are coerced or act voluntarily, as the act undermines the principle of distinction between combatants and civilians. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) interprets this as an absolute ban on intentional co-location of military objectives with civilians for protective purposes, emphasizing that such tactics expose non-combatants to unnecessary risk without altering the lawfulness of targeting legitimate military aims. Defensive tactics employing human shields often manifest as active shielding, where parties forcibly position civilians near weapons, command centers, or launch sites, or passive shielding, involving the mere presence of civilians in militarized areas without evacuation. For instance, under customary IHL, directing civilian movements to impede attacks constitutes a war crime, as affirmed in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii)), which criminalizes utilizing the presence of civilians to render military objectives immune. Empirical analyses of modern conflicts, such as reports from non-governmental organizations, document cases where armed groups embed rocket launchers or storage facilities in densely populated urban zones, complicating attackers' compliance with proportionality rules under Article 51(5)(b) of Additional Protocol I, which forbids attacks expected to cause excessive civilian incidental harm relative to anticipated military advantage. These tactics intersect with prohibitions on indiscriminate attacks by blurring targeting distinctions, yet IHL maintains that the presence of shields does not immunize objectives or absolve from precautions like verifying targets and assessing collateral risks (Article 57, Additional Protocol I). In practice, defenders' failure to separate forces from civilians—such as establishing bases in residential areas—heightens civilian vulnerability, as evidenced in Amnesty International's 2022 investigation into Ukrainian operations in populated regions during the Russia-Ukraine conflict, where weapons systems near homes increased exposure to without evidence of shielding intent but illustrating operational risks. Courts, including the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, have upheld that shielding does not shift responsibility for excessive force to , requiring independent evaluation of each strike's foreseeability of harm. Enforcement challenges arise from verification difficulties, as intent to must be proven, often relying on post-conflict investigations rather than . While peer-reviewed studies highlight asymmetric actors' frequent resort to embedding for tactical denial—evident in over 90% of non-state armed group operations in recent battles per conflict databases—these do not negate defenders' obligations under Article 58 to avoid locating military objectives near civilians. assessments must exclude direct shield casualties but include incidental ones, preserving IHL's causal framework against opportunistic misuse that could incentivize further civilian endangerment.

Debates and Controversies

Feasibility and Realism Critiques

Critiques of the feasibility and realism of indiscriminate attacks emphasize their limited success in achieving decisive military or political outcomes despite high civilian and material costs. In , the Allied area bombing campaign against Germany, which targeted urban centers to disrupt industry and morale, failed to precipitate surrender or significantly shorten the conflict. German armaments production peaked in late 1944, even as bombing intensified, demonstrating resilience through dispersal, underground factories, and forced labor. The (USSBS) acknowledged that contributed to victory but was not independently decisive, requiring ground operations for final defeat. Empirical assessments of effects further undermine claims of coercive efficacy. Surveys conducted post-war in revealed that bombing induced fear and but did not erode the population's will to resist; instead, it fostered greater against perceived bombing. British area bombing under similarly yielded no collapse in civilian support for the Nazi regime, with destruction in cities like —where over 25,000 died in a raid—failing to alter strategic dynamics as the ended via conventional advance. Operational realism critiques highlight prohibitive resource demands and vulnerability. The campaign consumed vast aircrews and aircraft—over 50,000 RAF and USAAF personnel lost—without proportional gains, as defenses improved and targets adapted. In non-total war contexts, such as , massive aerial campaigns like (1965–1968) dropped more tonnage than in WWII yet failed to coerce , instead bolstering resolve and international opposition. Contemporary analyses extend these doubts to asymmetric conflicts, where indiscriminate tactics alienate populations and sustain insurgencies rather than suppress them. Precision-guided munitions have rendered broad-area attacks obsolete for legitimate objectives, rendering indiscriminate methods not only ethically fraught but strategically inefficient, as they provoke backlash without yielding sustainable control. Historical patterns indicate that while tactically disruptive, such attacks rarely compel capitulation absent complementary ground forces or existential threats like .

Applications in Recent Conflicts

In the (2011–present), Syrian government forces frequently deployed barrel bombs—crude, unguided explosives dropped from helicopters—against opposition-held urban areas, constituting indiscriminate attacks due to their inability to distinguish combatants from civilians. By December 2017, over 66,000 barrel bombs had been documented, with the total reaching nearly 82,000 by April 2021, resulting in thousands of civilian deaths, including 1,177 in alone where approximately 11,000 such bombs were used, 40% of victims being women and children. These munitions, often containing fuel-air explosives or shrapnel, devastated residential zones, markets, and medical facilities in cities like and , with UN investigations confirming their role in widespread civilian harm without feasible precautions to minimize incidental losses. The Russo-Ukrainian War (2022–present) has seen extensive use of indiscriminate tactics by Russian forces, including unguided artillery barrages, drones, and cluster munitions targeting civilian infrastructure in cities such as Kharkiv and Mariupol. In April–May 2022, Amnesty International documented 41 Russian strikes in Kharkiv killing at least 62 civilians and injuring over 200, with strikes hitting residential buildings, schools, and a trolleybus without evident military objectives, violating principles of distinction under international humanitarian law. Cluster munitions, prohibited by the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (neither party a signatory), were employed by Russia from early 2022, contributing to over 1,200 civilian casualties in Ukraine by September 2025—the highest annual global toll—with duds posing long-term hazards; Ukraine began using U.S.-supplied cluster rounds in July 2023 amid artillery shortages, recording fewer but still notable civilian impacts. Human Rights Watch reported systematic Russian attacks on energy infrastructure in winter 2022–2023, displacing millions and causing indirect deaths from hypothermia, though Russian sources claim targeting of dual-use facilities. In the Israel-Hamas conflict escalating after Hamas's October 7, 2023, attack (killing 1,200 ), airstrikes in have drawn allegations of indiscriminateness due to heavy munitions (e.g., 2,000-pound bombs) in a densely populated enclave of 2.3 million. A 2024 UN Office analysis of six emblematic strikes (October 2023–April 2024) found repeated use of wide-area explosives near civilian sites like schools and hospitals, yielding disproportionate casualties—e.g., over 100 killed in on October 31, 2023—without sufficient evidence of military advantage justifying the harm, though maintains targets were Hamas command nodes embedded in civilian areas. Hamas and allied groups, conversely, fired thousands of unguided rockets into population centers, inherently indiscriminate and causing civilian terror, with patterns persisting from prior rounds like May 2021's 4,400+ projectiles. In Yemen's Houthi-Saudi conflict (2015–2022 ceasefire), the Saudi-led coalition used U.S.- and U.K.-supplied cluster munitions in at least 19 strikes by 2016, scattering submunitions over civilian zones and yielding failure rates up to 30%, exacerbating famine and displacement for 24 million affected. These cases highlight operational reliance on area-effect weapons in asymmetric or , where precision limitations and enemy tactics (e.g., human shields) complicate distinction, yet empirical casualty data underscores failures to verify targets or use alternatives, per probes.

Strategic and Moral Perspectives

From a strategic standpoint, indiscriminate attacks aim to erode enemy morale, disrupt economic production, and compel surrender by targeting civilian populations and infrastructure alongside military objectives, as theorized in early 20th-century air power doctrines like those of , who argued that bombing cities would induce panic and societal collapse. However, empirical assessments, such as the (USSBS) of Allied campaigns against and in , found that such attacks depressed civilian morale—evidenced by increased and fear—but failed to produce the anticipated breakdown in will to resist, often fostering resilience and hatred instead. The USSBS concluded that strategic bombing's overall impact on German war production was significant only after 1944, when combined with targeted industrial strikes and ground advances, rather than through morale effects alone, which required unsustainable resource commitments from the attackers. Critics of indiscriminate strategies highlight their operational inefficiencies, including high bomber attrition rates without fighter escorts and poor accuracy in night or adverse conditions, rendering area bombing a suboptimal alternative to precision strikes when feasible. In asymmetric contexts, such attacks can unify civilian support for the defender, as seen in historical analyses where civilian bombing in strengthened national cohesion rather than fracturing it, diverting resources from decisive military fronts. Proponents counter that in total wars involving mobilized societies, civilians function as extensions of the —producing armaments and sustaining logistics—making their targeting a rational extension of , though data from the USSBS indicates this yielded diminishing returns against dispersed or hardened economies. Morally, just war theory's jus in bello principles, including and , categorically prohibit indiscriminate attacks by requiring distinction between combatants and non-combatants, viewing intentional civilian harm as a violation of human dignity irrespective of outcomes. Deontological arguments emphasize that such acts erode the moral constraints essential to civilized conflict, potentially normalizing atrocities and undermining post-war legitimacy, as philosopher contends in frameworks distinguishing permissible from deliberate terror. Consequentialist defenses, rooted in utilitarian calculations, posit that if indiscriminate bombing shortens a and averts greater total —as claimed for the Allied of , which destroyed over 100 cities and contributed to surrender amid conventional stalemate—it may be ethically defensible, though USSBS evidence tempers this by attributing Japan's capitulation more to Soviet and strikes than morale collapse. Skeptics note that academic and media analyses often underplay these trade-offs due to institutional biases favoring absolutist humanitarian norms, which ignore causal realities of existential threats where restraint prolongs suffering.

References

  1. [1]
    Indiscriminate Attack - Oxford Public International Law
    5 The term 'indiscriminate attack' is defined in Art. 51 (4)Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I (1977). This provision lists three types of indiscriminate ...
  2. [2]
    Indiscriminate Attacks, Proportionality and the Meaning of “Incidental ...
    Aug 11, 2025 · Methods or means of combat that cannot be directed at a specific military objective are indiscriminate too (AP I, art. 51(4)(b)). This rule ...
  3. [3]
    Cluster Munitions and International Humanitarian Law
    Article 51(4) and Article 51(5) define the concept of indiscriminate attacks in several ways. ... Cluster munitions raise concerns under most of the definitions.
  4. [4]
    [PDF] Indiscriminate Attacks and the Past, Present, and Future of the Rules ...
    This article analyzes the historical development of IHL, focusing on the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks, and the rules/standards and objective/ ...
  5. [5]
    Indiscriminate attacks » ICTR/ICTY/IRMCT Case Law Database
    Indiscriminate attacks strike military and civilian targets without distinction. The character of the weapon can indicate such attacks, and may be directed ...
  6. [6]
    [PDF] V PROTOCOL ADDITIONAL TO THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF ...
    Meetings. The depositary of ... Article 51 — Protection of the civilian population. 1. The civilian ...
  7. [7]
    III. International Humanitarian Law - Human Rights Watch
    International humanitarian law prohibits indiscriminate attacks. These are attacks “of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects ...
  8. [8]
    Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks
    In this regard, a direct attack against civilians can be inferred from the indiscriminate character of the weapon used. ... indiscriminate attack and thus ...
  9. [9]
    Indiscriminate attacks - How does law protect in war? - ICRC
    Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited and include: an attack by bombardment, by any means or method which treats as a single military objective a number of ...
  10. [10]
    Attacks on Civilians and other Unlawful Killings, and Attacks on ...
    Unlawful attacks can result from a direct attack against civilians, an indiscriminate attack and a disproportionate attack. In International Humanitarian Law ( ...
  11. [11]
    Disproportionate attacks - The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law
    International humanitarian law (IHL) defines attacks as acts of violence against an adversary, whether carried out in attack or in defence in any territory.
  12. [12]
    What does IHL say about terrorism? - ICRC
    ... and operations aimed at preventing and combating terrorist attacks. These ... All persons detained outside of an armed conflict in the fight against terrorism ...
  13. [13]
    Indiscriminate attacks and the proportionality rule: what is incidental ...
    Jun 12, 2025 · An approach based on outcomes identifies indiscriminate attacks as any attack that causes harm to civilians or civilian objects as a matter of ...
  14. [14]
    Customary IHL - Rule 11. Indiscriminate Attacks - ICRC
    The prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is set forth in Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I.[1] At the Diplomatic Conference leading to the adoption of ...
  15. [15]
    The Prohibition on Indiscriminate Attacks: The US Position vs. the ...
    May 3, 2022 · Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I, applicable in international armed conflict, provides that: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.<|separator|>
  16. [16]
    Indiscriminate Attacks (Rules 11–13) (Chapter 3)
    Jun 5, 2012 · Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited under Rule 11, a norm of customary international law applicable in both international and non- ...
  17. [17]
    [PDF] UNITED NATIONS
    Dec 5, 2003 · ... CONVICTIONS ... Attacks in Sarajevo and Establishment of a Bosnian-Serb Army........... 68. Page 3. (c) June/September 1992: Intensification ...
  18. [18]
    Insight: ICC faces "myriad challenges" to prosecute war crimes in ...
    Mar 4, 2022 · ICC Prosecutor starts investigation, evidence collection · Rights groups cite violations of laws of war · Russia denies targeting civilians, ...
  19. [19]
    7 Brutal Sieges - History.com
    Jul 2, 2013 · 1. Siege of Megiddo One of the first recorded military engagements in history, the Battle of Megiddo also resulted in a grueling, months-long siege.
  20. [20]
    The Fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE: A Story of Roman Revenge
    During the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, Roman general Titus stormed the great city in a bloody battle that destroyed much of region.
  21. [21]
    Laws of Yesterday's Wars Symposium – Mongol Laws of War
    Aug 7, 2024 · Brutal tactics were ultimately used against mo balya, bad cities which resisted. One credible eyewitness to these tactics was Roger of Torre ...
  22. [22]
    The Sack Of Baghdad In 1258 – One Of The Bloodiest Days In ...
    Feb 15, 2019 · The very lowest estimates state that 90,000 people were massacred when the Mongols entered the city – higher estimates range from the hundreds ...
  23. [23]
    Sack of Magdeburg (1630–31) | Description & Significance | Britannica
    Sep 23, 2025 · The Sack of Magdeburg, which culminated on May 20, 1631, with the massacre of civilians by the imperial army led by Count Tilly, ...
  24. [24]
    [PDF] The Sack of Magdeburg
    As the wind fanned the flames, much of the city was laid in ashes, and perhaps two-thirds of Magdeburg's 30,000 inhabitants were either killed or subsequently ...
  25. [25]
    First World War: The First Blitz | Historic England
    During the war, 52 Zeppelin raids on England killed 556 people and injured 1,357. Throughout 1915 and 1916, Zeppelin raids became a regular feature of life.
  26. [26]
    The Air Raids That Shook Britain In The First World War
    During the First World War, Britain came under attack from air raids, putting British civilians in the firing line for the first time.
  27. [27]
    The Blitz Around Britain - World War 2 | Imperial War Museums
    Over a period of nine months, over 43,500 civilians were killed in the raids, which focused on major cities and industrial centres.
  28. [28]
    The Blitz of 1940 | The National WWII Museum | New Orleans
    Aug 27, 2025 · While many found little to worry about, the raids still had deadly consequences: most sources claim over 23,000 people killed during the Blitz, ...
  29. [29]
    [PDF] American Bombardment Policy against Germany, 1942–1945
    The U.S. Strategic Air Forces have not at any time had a policy of making area bombing attacks upon German cities. Even our attacks against the Berlin area were.
  30. [30]
    1945 - Bombings of Dresden - Air Force Historical Support Division
    Between 13-15 February 1945, over a thousand heavy bombers of the Royal Air Force and the U.S. 8th Air Force struck the city of Dresden in eastern Germany.,
  31. [31]
    Apocalypse in Dresden, February 1945 | The National WWII Museum
    Feb 13, 2020 · “Florence on the Elbe,” as Dresden was popularly known, was a strikingly beautiful place. Before World War II people had flocked there to see ...
  32. [32]
    Hellfire on Earth: Operation MEETINGHOUSE | New Orleans
    Mar 8, 2020 · The first B-29s over Tokyo were pathfinders. Coming in over the target from opposite directions, the pathfinders dropped their payload, ...
  33. [33]
    Total Casualties | The Atomic Bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki
    Total Casualties ; Pre-raid population, 255,000, 195,000 ; Dead, 66,000, 39,000 ; Injured, 69,000, 25,000.
  34. [34]
    Manhattan Project: The Atomic Bombing of Nagasaki, August 9, 1945
    The best estimate is 40,000 people died initially, with 60,000 more injured. By January 1946, the number of deaths probably approached 70,000, with perhaps ...<|separator|>
  35. [35]
    Strategic Bombing: Always a Myth | Proceedings - U.S. Naval Institute
    England, badly wounded in World War I, developed a bomber command to deter a resurgent Germany without the need to place another vulnerable expeditionary force ...
  36. [36]
    Bomber Command, World War II (1939-45) - WW2Aircraft.net
    Feb 14, 2024 · The British Bombing Survey Unit calculated Bomber Command absorbed 7% of British War Effort, less early, rising to 12% in the final 2.5 years.
  37. [37]
    Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in ...
    This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishment, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical ...
  38. [38]
    The dark legacy of Nuremberg: Inhumane air warfare, judicial ...
    Oct 2, 2023 · On its seventy-fifth anniversary last year, the Nuremberg war crime trials moved again into the spotlight of public attention.
  39. [39]
    Article 51 - Protection of the civilian population - IHL Databases - ICRC
    - Article 51. ... 4. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited. Indiscriminate attacks are: (a) those which are not directed at a specific military objective ...
  40. [40]
    Russia/Syria: Flurry of Prohibited Weapons Attacks
    Jun 3, 2019 · The Russian-Syrian joint military operation has used internationally banned and other indiscriminate weapons in unlawful attacks on ...
  41. [41]
    [PDF] NATO/FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA - Amnesty International
    Jun 5, 2021 · Indiscriminate attacks occur when armed forces disregard the principle of distinction and attack a military target without regard to the likely ...
  42. [42]
    Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to ...
    The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) conducted a bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) from 24 March 1999 to 9 June 1999.Missing: indiscriminate | Show results with:indiscriminate
  43. [43]
    War Crimes in Kosovo - 16. The NATO Air Campaign
    With the initiation of the NATO bombing on March 24, 1999, the conflict in Kosovo and all of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, to the extent that it ...
  44. [44]
    In Nine Years, the Syrian Regime Has Dropped Nearly ... - ReliefWeb
    Apr 15, 2021 · ... indiscriminate bombardment, destruction and forced ... The report details the record of the Syrian regime's use of barrel bombs ...
  45. [45]
    [PDF] The use of barrel bombs and indiscriminate bombardment in Syria
    Mar 12, 2015 · ... Syrian civil war, with no exception, have used heavy weaponry in their possession to target populated areas leading to civilian casualties.
  46. [46]
    Yemen: Latest Round of Saudi-UAE-Led Attacks Targets Civilians
    Apr 18, 2022 · A Yemeni journalist who visited the attack site showed Human Rights Watch a photograph of a remnant from one of the munitions used in the attack ...
  47. [47]
    U.N. Experts: Some Saudi-Led Airstrikes In Yemen Could Be War ...
    Aug 28, 2018 · The U.S. has backed the Saudi-led coalition fighting to restore the ousted government. The report points to indiscriminate bombing that has ...
  48. [48]
    Yemen: Huthi missile attack on Saudi Arabian cities is a possible ...
    Mar 26, 2018 · “These unlawful attacks must not be used as an excuse by the Saudi Arabia-led coalition to indiscriminately attack civilians or further ...Missing: bombing | Show results with:bombing
  49. [49]
    Russia commits indiscriminate attacks during the invasion of Ukraine
    Feb 25, 2022 · Indiscriminate attacks violate international humanitarian law (the laws of war) and can constitute war crimes.
  50. [50]
    Russia-Ukraine War | Human Rights Watch
    Since Russia's full-scale invasion in 2022, its war against Ukraine has had a disastrous impact on civilian life, killing thousands of civilians, injuring many ...
  51. [51]
    Ukraine - Global Centre for the Responsibility to Protect
    Russian forces have perpetrated possible war crimes and crimes against humanity since their invasion of Ukraine. Ukrainian forces have also committed ...
  52. [52]
    [PDF] War, Technology, and the Law of Armed Conflict
    distinguishing between civilian and military targets. In other words, weapons must be both capable of discrimination and used discriminately. The second ...
  53. [53]
    [PDF] Precision-Guided Munitions: Background and Issues for Congress
    Feb 28, 2020 · Guided munitions were first developed in the 1940s, when the U.S. Army Air Corps tested radio guidance to glide bombs onto a target. 4 Prior to ...
  54. [54]
    [PDF] Precision attack and international humanitarian law
    During Desert Storm, the US dropped 9,800 precision-guided munitions, destroying 2,500 tanks, heavy artillery pieces, and armoured personnel carriers – a ratio ...
  55. [55]
    Precision Guided Munitions and the New Era of Warfare
    The revolution in warfare that has been brought about by the precision guided munition is one that has been a long time coming, back to the Second World War, ...
  56. [56]
    Emerging Technologies and Civilian Harm Mitigation | CNA
    Feb 9, 2023 · Militaries around the world are rapidly adapting to leverage emerging technologies—such as artificial intelligence, autonomy, and blockchain—for ...Missing: factors | Show results with:factors
  57. [57]
    The shifting battlefield: technology, tactics, and the risk of blurring ...
    May 22, 2025 · Modern militaries and non-state actors rely on a vast array of inputs such as thermal imaging and night vision devices, Light Detection and ...
  58. [58]
    Addressing Asymmetric Warfare: IHL's Rule of Distinction Under ...
    Dec 24, 2023 · Asymmetric warfare represents one of the most significant challenges to International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in the modern era.
  59. [59]
    [PDF] ASYMMETRIC WARFARE AND THE CHALLENGES TO ...
    Asymmetric warfare, involving non-state groups, strains IHL principles like distinction and proportionality, creating legal tensions due to unequal military ...
  60. [60]
    [PDF] Asymmetric warfare and challenges for international humanitarian law
    Sep 1, 2012 · This type of attack is highly indiscriminate since the suicide bomber cannot control who will get killed in the attack other than himself ...
  61. [61]
    Palestinian Rockets in May Killed Civilians in Israel, Gaza
    Aug 12, 2021 · Palestinian armed groups' rocket and mortar attacks during the May 2021 fighting in the Gaza Strip, which killed and injured civilians in ...
  62. [62]
    Hamas rocket fire a war crime, Human Rights Watch says - BBC
    Aug 12, 2021 · Israeli man in Sderot inspects damage caused by rocket fired from Gaza (20/05/21) Reuters Rocket and mortar fire killed 13 people and injured hundreds in ...
  63. [63]
    Palestinian Rocket Attacks on Israel and Israeli Artillery Shelling in ...
    From September 2005 through May 2007, Palestinian armed groups fired almost 2,700 rockets into Israel, killing 4 Israeli civilians, and injuring 75 ...
  64. [64]
    Israel-Hamas 2024 Symposium – Qassam Rockets, Weapon ...
    Jan 17, 2024 · The use of Qassam rockets is highly controversial, as they are used in an indiscriminate manner against civilians.
  65. [65]
    World Report 2020: Afghanistan | Human Rights Watch
    The Taliban killed and injured hundreds of civilians in attacks on Afghan government and foreign military facilities. A Taliban suicide attack on September ...
  66. [66]
    Average civilian casualties per suicide bombing globally rose 56 ...
    Jan 26, 2022 · ... civilian casualties were recorded across 82 incidents of suicide bombings. ... Taliban took control of the country. The suicide bombing claimed ...
  67. [67]
    [PDF] human shields in international humanitarian law
    The ban on use of human shields. The term 'human shield' as used in international humanitarian law means a civi- lian placed in front of a military objective ...
  68. [68]
    Human Shields - Oxford Public International Law
    1 The term 'human shields' is used in international humanitarian law ('IHL') with respect to civilians or other protected persons, whose presence or movement is ...
  69. [69]
    Human Shields - The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law
    International humanitarian law (IHL) strictly prohibit the use of civilians and other protected persons as human shields to make military sites immune from ...
  70. [70]
    Ukraine: Ukrainian fighting tactics endanger civilians
    Aug 4, 2022 · Ukrainian forces have put civilians in harm's way by establishing bases and operating weapons systems in populated residential areas, ...
  71. [71]
    use of human shields in the jurisprudence of the International ...
    Mar 25, 2025 · The most explicit prohibition of shielding is contained within Article 51(7) of Protocol One Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions: The ...Introduction · Human shielding under... · Murder · The use of human shields as...
  72. [72]
    [PDF] HUMAN SHIELDS IN MODERN ARMED CONFLICTS
    The use of civilians as human shields during hostilities has become one of the major problems facing democracies in contemporary armed conflicts.
  73. [73]
    Human shields under IHL: a path towards excessive legalization
    Nov 16, 2021 · Human shielding, which, under customary law, designates the 'intentional co-location of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat.
  74. [74]
    [PDF] The strategic bombing campaign against Germany during World War II
    The British policy of area bombing came about more from necessity than from prewar theory and doctrine. Hugh Trenchard served as the first RAF commander from ...
  75. [75]
    [PDF] The Effectiveness of the Combined Bomber Offensive - DTIC
    The CBO aimed to reduce Germany's resistance, and while not a decisive victory, it was a decisive factor in Germany's defeat, achieving air superiority and ...
  76. [76]
    The Effects of Strategic Bombing in WWII on German Morale - AOAV
    Jul 8, 2020 · Bombing appeared to depress every measure of morale examined. The main psychological effects found included “defeatism, depression, despair, fear, helplessness ...
  77. [77]
    The Allied Rift on Strategic Bombing | Air & Space Forces Magazine
    Dec 1, 2020 · Whatever its effectiveness on industrial infrastructure, area bombing did not eviscerate German morale as predicted. ... Critics, mostly in the ...
  78. [78]
    [PDF] EVIDENCE FROM DISCONTINUITIES IN MILITARY STRATEGIES
    We focus on bombing because we do not find evidence that the score directly affected other military allocations. However, even if it did the interpretation ...
  79. [79]
    https://oxfordre.com/politics/display/10.1093/acrefore/9780190228637.001.0001/acrefore-9780190228637-e-605
  80. [80]
    The Syrian Regime Dropped About 11000 Barrel Bombs on Daraa ...
    Sep 12, 2024 · To that end, the report focuses on the use of these crude, indiscriminate weapons in Daraa governorate, which was among the first governorates ...
  81. [81]
    The Syrian Regime Has Dropped Nearly 70000 Barrel Bombs on Syria
    Dec 25, 2017 · The report documents the toll of barrel bomb use by Syrian regime forces from the first time it was used in July 2012 until December 2017 and ...<|separator|>
  82. [82]
    Anyone can die at any time: Indiscriminate attacks by Russian forces ...
    Jun 13, 2022 · Amnesty International researchers spent 14 days in April and May investigating 41 strikes in Kharkiv, which killed at least 62 civilians and ...
  83. [83]
    Cluster munitions cause more than 1,200 civilian casualties in ...
    Sep 15, 2025 · The United States transferred cluster munitions to Ukraine in at least seven separate shipments between July 2023 and October 2024, including ...
  84. [84]
    Cluster Munition Monitor 2024
    Cluster munitions were used in Ukraine by Russian and Ukrainian forces in 2023 and through July 2024, while new use was also recorded in Myanmar and Syria.
  85. [85]
    World Report 2024: Ukraine | Human Rights Watch
    Millions more had to flee abroad or were internally displaced. Throughout the year, Russian forces committed war crimes and other atrocities in Ukraine. They ...Indiscriminate Attacks · Abuses under Russian... · Torture and Ill-Treatment of...
  86. [86]
    UN report: Israeli use of heavy bombs in Gaza raises serious ... - ohchr
    Jun 19, 2024 · GENEVA (19 June 2024) – The UN Human Rights Office published an assessment today on six emblematic attacks by the Israeli Defense Forces ...
  87. [87]
    Understanding the Recent Conflict in Gaza - AIPAC
    Over 11 days last month, Hamas launched more than 4400 rockets at Israel with the goal of terrorizing and killing innocent Israeli civilians.
  88. [88]
    Cluster Munitions at a Glance | Arms Control Association
    At least 23 governments have used cluster munitions during armed conflict in 41 countries and five territories since the end of World War II. Almost every part ...
  89. [89]
    Israeli Forces' Conduct in Gaza | Human Rights Watch
    Mar 19, 2024 · The Israeli authorities have carried out indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks in violation of international humanitarian law following the Hamas-led ...
  90. [90]
    [PDF] The United States Strategic Bombing Surveys - Air University
    While the European War was going on, it was necessary, in many cases, to follow closely behind the front; otherwise, vital records might have been irretrievably ...<|control11|><|separator|>
  91. [91]
    War - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
    May 3, 2016 · The task of just war theory is to seek a middle path between them: to justify at least some wars, but also to limit them.