What are human shields? International laws originally defined human shields as “using the presence (or movements) of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points or areas (or military forces) immune from military operations”. Over time that definition has grown to also include civilians in non-international armed conflicts.
At its core, the term refers to armed forces using civilians to protect themselves while attempting to carry out an objective. This could be as blatant as strapping a civilian to the front of a military vehicle to prevent attacks. It could also be as complex as ensuring that soldiers are mixed in with civilians on trains heading to or back from conflict zones. What is wrong with that? Modern nations operate under the presumption that, in the case of armed conflict, the state must do everything to ensure civilians are not hurt. Human shields, on the other hand, force civilians to face danger, with the aim of reducing the threat to the armed forces. They are almost never voluntary and while they might occasionally work tactically, coercion of civilians into endangering themselves can turn a population against the state. Is it legal? The Fourth Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol 1 and the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court all prohibit human shields in armed conflicts, and consider their use a war crime. The definition and protections given to civilians against being used as human shields have over time been extended to non-international armed conflicts as well. According to the International Committe of the Red Cross, any such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that civilians ought to be protected against the dangers arising from military operations. The Red Cross goes on to say that human shields in non-international conflicts, if they are non-voluntary, would amount to hostage-taking – which is expressly prohibited – and also flouts the principle of distinction, which obliges states to take feasible precautions separating civilians from the military. As a result, almost all general legal approaches consider human shields illegal both in domestic circumstances and international conflicts. The only space that is somewhat unclear is when civilians volunteer to be human shields, but even there questions have often been raised about how to test whether a civilian was simply coerced into volunteering for a dangerous operation. (Excerpted from: 'Kashmir ‘human shield’ video: The facts remain unclear – but the practice is banned even in Israel' by Rohan Venkataramakrishnan on Apr 14, 2017 at <https://scroll.in/article/834640/kashmir-controversy-using-human-shields-is-considered-a-war-crime-and-is-even-banned-in-israel>.) Sukla On 23/05/2017, Sukla Sen <[email protected]> wrote: > [It's a blatant trampling of all civilised norms and also of the > Geneva Convention. > > Holding a "non-combatant" - an uninvolved civilian, as a captive and > using him as a "shield" in a military operation, putting his life and > limbs at mortal risk, goes against the very basics of the Geneva > Covention. > It's a criminal offence. > > In fact, the case is under investigation (separately) by both the army > and the police. (Ref.: > <http://www.ptinews.com/news/8727976_Army-officer-who-tied-man-to-jeep-in-Kashmir-awarded.html> > and > <http://indianexpress.com/article/india/officer-who-tied-kashmiri-man-to-jeep-gets-award-bjp-mp-paresh-rawal-says-do-this-to-arundhati-roy-4669043/>.) > > Yet the man responsible is awarded! > A frightening disregard for the rule of law, by an arm of the state > itself!] > > http://www.theweek.in/news/india/human-shield-farooq-appalled-at-award-to-major-gogoi.html > > 'Human shield' Farooq shocked at award to Major Gogoi > > By Tariq Bhat | May 23, 2017 > > [File photo] The incident had sparked outrage within and outside > Kashmir and had brought in major embarrassment to the PDP-BJP > government > > The major, who tied Farooq to use as a human shield, has been honoured > by the army > > Farooq Ahmed Dar, who was used as a human shield by Major Nitin Leetul > Gogoi on April 9 in Kashmir's Budgam, said award to the army major > reflected army's mentality towards Kashmiris. Major Gogoi was on > Monday honoured with the army chief's 'commendation card' for his > 'sustained efforts' in counter- insurgency operations. > > Army source said the officer has been awarded for his excellent track > record in counter-insurgency operations. > > “I want to ask the army chief how would he feel if someone ties his > son to the jeep and parades him for 27 kms for no fault of his?” Dar > told THE WEEK. “It is highly shameful that the man who put me through > such a horror has been felicitated.” > > The 26-year old shawl artisan said he was yet to recover from the > trauma and resume work. “What they did to me is still playing in my > head,” he said. “They fractured my hand and it sill hurts. I am yet to > resume work because of what they did to me.” > > The incident had sparked outrage within and outside Kashmir and had > brought in major embarrassment to the PDP-BJP government. Many former > army officers, journalists and citizens had described the act as > highly damaging to the image of the army internationally. > > Curiously, the award coincided with the birthday of Chief Minister > Mehbooba Mufti, once a champion of rights, who had promised > investigation into the matter for action against the accused. > > However, awarding the accused officer is seen as a setback to the > government and army's efforts to restore order in Kashmir which has > witnessed renewed agitation by the youth and students April. > > Recalling how he was seized and strapped to the front bumper of the > jeep, Farooq, a resident of Chil Bras in Budgam and one of the few > people who had voted in the morning of the Lok Sahba polls for > Srinagar on April 9 that recorded a dismal 7.13 per cent turnout, said > he was going to attend a condolence meeting of a relative at Gampora > in Pulwama on his bike when the Army stopped him at Utligam and > thrashed him. > > Some women had tried to intervene but the Army took him with them and > made him to sit on a tyre on the front bumper. “After that, a soldier > was daring the stone pelters to throw stones at the jeep,” he said. > Dar was later released upon the village sarpanch's request. > > He said he didn't register a complaint against the army for fear > reprisal. “I have an old mother to look after, I left it at that,” he > said. > > > -- > Peace Is Doable > -- Peace Is Doable -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Green Youth Movement" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send an email to [email protected]. Visit this group at https://groups.google.com/group/greenyouth. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
