vasilikimmmmm
New member
- Jan 7, 2009
- 1
- 0
- 1
Under international humanitarian law, warring parties are obliged to distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensure that attacks on legitimate military targets are proportional, and guarantee that the military advantage of such attacks outweigh the possible harm done to civilians. Violations of these laws are considered war crimes.
The United Nations Human Rights Council, released a statement by Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories" in his official capacity as Special Rapporteur. The statement described the Israeli airstrikes as "severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war." [188] In a Houston Chronicle article Falk wrote that he had "called on the International Criminal Court" to investigate Israeli leaders responsible for possible violations of international criminal law.
The UNHRC statement argues that Israel has violated the principle of distinction by targeting "civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East." It contends that Israel's violation of the principle of proportionality is reflected in that its attacks have "destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government," and "killed and injured hundreds of civilians."But Justus Weiner and Avi Bell counter that targeting of military installations is not a violation of the principle of distinction, even if attacks cause collateral damage to civilians.They also defend the proportionality of the Israeli attacks on the grounds that they were not intended to cause excessive civilian damage, even if Israel erred in its estimates.
Please stay exactly in the topic and answer exactly in what It has been asked
The United Nations Human Rights Council, released a statement by Richard Falk, professor emeritus of international law at Princeton University and United Nations Special Rapporteur on "the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories" in his official capacity as Special Rapporteur. The statement described the Israeli airstrikes as "severe and massive violations of international humanitarian law as defined in the Geneva Conventions, both in regard to the obligations of an Occupying Power and in the requirements of the laws of war." [188] In a Houston Chronicle article Falk wrote that he had "called on the International Criminal Court" to investigate Israeli leaders responsible for possible violations of international criminal law.
The UNHRC statement argues that Israel has violated the principle of distinction by targeting "civilian areas in one of the most crowded stretches of land in the world, certainly the most densely populated area of the Middle East." It contends that Israel's violation of the principle of proportionality is reflected in that its attacks have "destroyed every police and security office of Gaza's elected government," and "killed and injured hundreds of civilians."But Justus Weiner and Avi Bell counter that targeting of military installations is not a violation of the principle of distinction, even if attacks cause collateral damage to civilians.They also defend the proportionality of the Israeli attacks on the grounds that they were not intended to cause excessive civilian damage, even if Israel erred in its estimates.
Please stay exactly in the topic and answer exactly in what It has been asked