I am an unbashed fan of human security researcher and University of Massachusetts-Amherst Associate Professor Charli Carpenter. In early August, she once again demonstrated why I hold her in such high regard. In an op-ed on the Wikileaks war data, Professor Carpenter makes probably the most reasoned and intelligent argument for the need for new rules of war:
The humanitarian consequences of such attacks showcase the absence of clear-cut rules on what it means in practice to minimize civilian casualties. An updated set of rules may be needed to fit the nature of today’s wars if a better rate of civilian protection is to be achieved.
Such rules would need to be worked out by states, but nongovernmental organizations and legal experts have plenty of ideas about what they could look like. For example, governments and human rights organization should re-evaluate what exactly constitutes “excessive” civilian casualties or “all feasible precautions” and determine whether some limits might shrink the gray area between “unfortunate” and “unlawful.” Landmine Action, for example, has called on states to curtail the use of explosive weapons in urban areas.
…
Today, war crimes by governments are declining in part because the original rules were improved upon and are working to influence military doctrine — even among those governments who never formally signed onto them. But as the Afghan war logs suggest, collateral damage by governments may be increasing in international wars in part because of the absence of such clear-cut rules. It’s time for this to change.
Christopher R. Albon is a political science Ph.D. specializing in armed conflict, public health, human security, and health diplomacy.
Want more? Subscribe to Conflict Health through RSS or email.
Comments on this entry are closed.