UN Releases Report on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Libya (December 23, 2014) See more at: http://www.asil.org/blogs/un-releases-report-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-libya-december-23-2014#sthash.VkwNkVsZ.dpufBy: Amy Morello | January 16, 2015 - 4:28pmAmy Morello, UN Releases Report on Human Rights and Humanitarian Law in Libya (December 23, 2014), available from http://www.asil.org/blogs/un-releases-report-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-libya-december-23-2014#sthash.VkwNkVsZ.dpuf; Internet; accessed 30 March 2015On December 23, 2014, the UN Human Rights Office and the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) released a jointreportentitled, Update on Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law During the Ongoing Violence in Libya (the Report). Based on evidence gathered between September and mid-December 2014, the Report found that widespread international human rights abuses persist, causing hundreds of deaths, mass displacement and a humanitarian crisis in many areas [of Libya]. According to anews article, the Report documents indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas, the abduction of civilians, torture, and reports of executions, as well as deliberate destruction of property, among other serious . . . violations of international law. In apress releaseaccompanying the Reports publication, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad Al Hussein warned all parties involved in the violence that they remain criminally liable under international law if [they] commit or order the commission of grave human rights abuses or fail to take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish their commission. High Commissioner Zeid also stated in the press release that the International Criminal Court is currently investigating the continuing conflict in Libya. - See more at: http://www.asil.org/blogs/un-releases-report-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-libya-december-23-2014#sthash.VkwNkVsZ.dpufUpdate on violations of international human Rights and humanitarian law during the ongoing Violence in Libya, http://reliefweb.int/report/libya/update-violations-international-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-during-ongoingRelief International, Update on violations of international human Rights and humanitarian law during the ongoing Violence in Libya; available from http://reliefweb.int/report/libya/update-violations-international-human-rights-and-humanitarian-law-during-ongoing; Internet; accessed 30 March 2015

(revised version incorporating clarification issued on 26 December 2014)GENEVA / TRIPOLI (23 December 2014) Fighting in recent months between armed groups in western and eastern Libya, as well as in the south, has resulted in hundreds of civilian deaths, mass displacement and acute humanitarian conditions for those trapped in conflict zones, a new UN human rights report released Tuesday warns.The report published jointly by the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the UN Human Rights Office, documents indiscriminate shelling of civilian areas, the abduction of civilians, torture and reports of executions, as well as deliberate destruction of property, among other serious abuses and violations of international law in various parts of the country.In western Libya, in the area of Warshafana, fighting between rival armed groups has killed an estimated 100 people and injured 500 between late August and early October. The fighting has caused a humanitarian crisis, with at least 120,000 people forced to flee their homes and severe shortages of food and medical supplies. Hundreds of houses, farms and other businesses have also been destroyed. Fighting in the Nafusa mountains, bordering Warshafana, has also reportedly resulted in 170 deaths.In Benghazi, since the fighting escalated in mid-October, 450 people have reportedly been killed. Residents are facing serious shortcomings in medical care, as hospitals have been hit or occupied by armed groups. Tit-for-tat attacks on property have also led to the destruction of many houses. More than 15,000 families some 90,000 people have been displaced from Benghazi. Of these, more than 5,600 Tawerghans have been displaced for the second time three years after their first forcible displacement by armed groups from Misrata.Dozens of civilians have been abducted by all sides, solely for their actual or suspected tribal, family or religious affiliation, often as hostages in order to exchange them for others held by the opposing side, the report states. UNSMIL has also received allegations of torture and other abuses which are consistent with earlier patterns of ill-treatment of detainees, but are a cause of even greater concern because of the heightened political tensions and the ongoing active hostilities.Political and human rights activists, media professionals and other public figures have been targeted by armed groups, with many having been abducted, threatened or had their homes looted or burned.UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Raad Al Hussein warned all the parties involved in the fighting that grave abuses of international human rights and international humanitarian law are criminally liable, including before the International Criminal Court which is investigating the situation in Libya.As a commander of an armed group, you are criminally liable under international law if you commit or order the commission of grave human rights abuses or fail to take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish their commission, High Commissioner Zeid warned.I urge all those in positions of authority to declare publicly that acts amounting to violations and abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law will not be tolerated.The Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Libya, Bernardino Leon, urged all sides of the conflict to immediately cease armed hostilities.All those suffering in this violence deserve to live in safety with their rights fully protected, Leon said. "I appeal to all Libyan political and military leaders to engage, as a matter of urgency, in a genuine political dialogue to take Libya out of the current crisis.

Libya violence: Islamic State attack 'kills 40' in al-QubbahFebruary 20, 2015Islamist militants in eastern Libya recently pledged allegiance to the IS group

A bombing by suspected Islamic State (IS) militants in Libya has killed at least 40 people and wounded dozens in the eastern town of al-Qubbah.Three bombs exploded, targeting a petrol station, a police station and the home of parliamentary speaker Agila Salah, a security source told BBC News.According to an online statement, IS fighters said they struck in retaliation for Egyptian air strikes.Egypt launched strikes after IS killed 21 Egyptian Christians it had abducted.The al-Qubbah attack is one of the deadliest in Libya since the toppling of Col Muammar Gaddafi four years ago.The country remains in a state of chaos with two governments vying for legitimacy and territory.'Revenge'Medics at the scene of the bombings said the majority of casualties were at the petrol station, where there was a long queue of motorists.Agila Salah was not at home at the time of the attack, they added. Speaking to Saudi-owned TV channel Al-Arabiya, he announced seven days of mourning for the bomb victims."I think this operation was revenge for what happened in Derna," Mr Salah said.On Monday, Egypt bombed targets in Derna, killing between 40 and 50 people, according to a Libyan air force commander.The Derna link was confirmed by a statement released by the IS-affiliated group in Libya, which said the attacks targeted an "operations room" used by Libyan military chief General Khalifa Haftar."This is a message to anyone who is tempted to attack the soldiers of the caliphate [IS] or any Muslim," the statement said.Al-Qubbah lies on the road between Bayda, seat of the official Libyan government, and Derna, which is largely controlled by the Libyan affiliate of IS

Civilians killed in airstrike as violence in Libya escalateshttp://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/03/23/civilians-killed-in-airstrike-as-violence-in-libya-escalates/Published March 23, 2015Libyan government war planes targeting an Islamist militia killed eight civilians in an airstrike near Tripoli, the U.S. ambassador said Monday.Air Force Commander Saqer al-Joroushi said the attack occurred in the town of Tarhouna -- which has been held by an armed rebel group, Reuters reported.U.S. Ambassador Deborah K. Jones reacted to the reports via Twitter. Terrible news today from Tarhouna, where 8 innocent displaced Tawergha killed in airstrikes," Jones tweeted, referring to a minority group in Libya."This violence serves no one's interests," said Jones, who is based outside Libya.Also Monday, soldiers shot down a war plane flown by the rival, Tripoli-based government that's allied with Islamist militias, an official with Libya's internationally recognized government, Mohammed al-Masri said.The plane was downed after it bombed Zintan, a mountainous western town supportive of the elected government. There was no immediate report of casualties.Libya is split between rival governments and warring militias after its 2011 civil war and the death of dictator Muammar Qaddafi. It also faces the rise of an affiliate of the Islamic State group.The Associated Press contributed to

Libya violence: Foreign oil workers 'kidnapped'http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-31802393 9 March 2015Al-Ghani oil field is one of 11 rendered non-operational following attacks in recent weeksIslamic State (IS) militants are said to have kidnapped nine foreign oil workers in a raid in Libya, when they reportedly beheaded eight guards.Four Filipinos, an Austrian, a Bangladeshi, a Czech and a Ghanaian were taken with an unidentified ninth foreigner, Austrian officials say.The foreign ministry in Vienna said IS had attacked the al-Ghani oil field.A Libyan army spokesman told the BBC the field 700km (440 miles) south-east of Tripoli had been attacked on Friday.One oil worker died of a heart attack after seeing the beheadings, he added.The foreigners were working for oilfield management company Value Added Oilfield Services (VAOS) at the field.VAOS said it did not know which militants had carried out the attack or where the oil workers had been taken.It insisted that none of its employees had "died or were physically harmed in the attack".

Analysis: Rana Jawad, BBC News, TripoliLibya is getting more dangerous by the day. As with the attack on the Mabruk oil field last month, the guards at al-Ghani were brutally killed, the foreigners were taken, and the local staff allowed to leave.The only information available is from shell-shocked witnesses lucky enough to have been allowed to live. We are told that the assailants did not linger around.These latest attacks do not bear the hallmarks of militias driven by local grievances or political rivalry, as seen in the past.Instead, their wider aim appears to be to instil fear, mark territory and demonstrate the capacity to wreak havoc.

Confirming that four of the missing workers were their nationals, the Philippines said it brought to seven the number of Filipinos now missing in Libya.'Burn, destroy and steal'A spokesman for Libya's National Oil Corporation, Mohamed Al-Harari, told the BBC he could not confirm the abduction of foreign oil workers.However, he added that local oil workers at the field had been held for two hours before being released."These oil workers have said that the gunmen kidnapped a number of foreigners," he said.

Libyan army spokesman Ahmed al-Mesmari told the BBC he had "no information or verified reports" about the missing foreigners.Speaking after a string of attacks on fields in recent weeks, he said militants aimed to do maximum damage."The attackers don't want to control the oil fields, that's not their aim - it seems their aim is to burn, destroy and steal whatever they can," he told the BBC.After burning the biggest oil storage tank in the al-Ghani field, they headed for another oil field, al-Zoueitina, but were repelled, he added.Last week, Islamist militants were reported to be behind an attack on two oil fields in Bahi and Mabruk.Rival militias have been fighting for control in Libya since Muammar Gaddafi was ousted in 2011.

Libya: UN urges end to 'senseless cycle of violence' as country reels from latest attackUnited Nations, Libya: UN urges end to 'senseless cycle of violence' as country reels from latest attack; available from: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49694#.VRi0IvyUda; Internet; accessed 30 March 2015

The streets of Sirte were the most heavily damaged after a nine-month war in 2011. Photo: IRIN/Heba Aly27 December 2014 The United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) today strongly condemned the latest spate of violence to afflict the country as unidentified gunmen renewed attacks against Libyan oil installations leaving numerous storage tanks ablaze and further destabilizing the security situation in the war-torn nation.These attacks are in clear violation of UN Security Council resolutions on Libya, UNSMIL said in a statement issued earlier this morning as the Mission called for an immediate halt to these attacks.Libyan oil belongs to all the Libyan people and is the country's economic lifeline, the statement continued. The Mission reiterates its call on all sides to safeguard Libya's oil installations and to desist from any action that endangers this strategic national asset.According to reports, unknown assailants attacked Libyan oil installations at the Sidra oil terminal on 25 December, igniting three storage tanks and killing more than 20 soldiers in the process.The Sidra oil terminal lies in the country's critical Oil Crescent area.In addition, UNSMIL noted, another attack by unidentified gunmen on the same day claimed the lives of an undisclosed number of guards on duty at a power station near the city of Sirte, along the Mediterranean coast.The attacks are the latest spell of violence to rattle the beleaguered nation following the beginning of its civil war in 2011 which resulted in the ouster of late Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi.In western Libya, in the area of Warshafana, fighting between rival armed groups has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 100 people and injured 500 more in a spell of hostilities that lasted from late August to early October.At the same time, recent fighting in the neighbouring Nafusa mountains has left 170 people dead. In addition to the casualties, the fighting has also caused a humanitarian crisis with at least 120,000 people forced to flee their homes, resulting in consequent shortages in both food and medical supplies.Meanwhile, in the eastern city of Benghazi, an uptick in violence has seen 450 people killed since October as residents continue to face shortages in medical care. Moreover, upwards of 15,000 families some 90,000 people have been displaced.Following the events in Sidra, the UN Mission warned of the environmental and economic consequences as a result of the destruction of the oil facilities, and urged the forces on the ground to cooperate in order to allow the fire crews to extinguish the blaze.Moreover, it cautioned, the latest escalation of hostilities in the Oil Crescent area not only risks negatively impacting the country's economy but also further undermines the ongoing efforts to convene a political dialogue which, in turn, threatens to further widen the conflict.UNSMIL urges Libya's influential actors to make every effort to bring an end to this senseless cycle of violence, the statement added.The Mission stresses that there can be no winners in the current conflict, and that the continuing violence in the Oil Crescent area, Benghazi and elsewhere in Libya will only deepen the rift among the Libyans and further destroy their country's infrastructure and state institutions.

Libya: UN warns of human rights violations as factional fighting continueshttp://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49669#.VRirVPyUda7United Nations, Libya: UN warns of human rights violations as factional fighting continues, available from: http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.asp?NewsID=49669#.VRirVPyUda7; Internet; accessed 30 March 2015

A destroyed house in Ahy Badr in the town of Mizdah in the Nafusa mountains in Libya after tribal conflict in March 2013. Photo: IRIN/Jorge Vitoria Rubio23 December 2014 Libyan civilians have been subject to targeted killings, forced displacement and acute humanitarian conditions amid an escalation in fighting in the North African country, a new United Nations human rights report has warned.According to thereport, released today and jointly produced by the UN Human Rights Office and the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL), civilians caught in the fighting have been subjected to indiscriminate shelling, abduction, torture and execution as well as deliberate destruction of property as factional violence ripples across the country.In western Libya, in the area of Warshafana, fighting between rival armed groups has resulted in the deaths of an estimated 100 people and injured 500 more in a spell of hostilities that lasted from late August to early October.At the same time, the report notes, fighting in the neighbouring Nafusa mountains left 170 people dead. In addition to the casualties, the fighting has also caused a humanitarian crisis with at least 120,000 people forced to flee their homes, resulting in consequent shortages in both food and medical supplies.Meanwhile, in the eastern city of Benghazi, an uptick in violence has seen 450 people killed since October as residents continue to face shortages in medical care. Moreover, upwards of 15,000 families some 90,000 people have been displaced, according to reports received by UNSMIL.Dozens of civilians have been abducted by all sides, solely for their actual or suspected tribal, family or religious affiliation, often as hostages in order to exchange them for others held by the opposing side, continues the report. UNSMIL has also received allegations of torture and other abuses which are consistent with earlier patterns of ill-treatment of detainees, but are a cause of even greater concern because of the heightened political tensions and the ongoing active hostilities.In apress releaseaccompanying the reports publication, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, Zeid Raad Al Hussein, warned all parties involved in the violence that they remained responsible for any human rights violations committed during the fighting.As a commander of an armed group, you are criminally liable under international law if you commit or order the commission of grave human rights abuses or fail to take reasonable and necessary measures to prevent or punish their commission, he explained. I urge all those in positions of authority to declare publicly that acts amounting to violations and abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law will not be tolerated. All those suffering in this violence deserve to live in safety with their rights fully protected, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General for Libya and head of UNSMIL, Bernardino Lon, added in the press release. I appeal to all Libyan political and military leaders to engage, as a matter of urgency, in a genuine political dialogue to take Libya out of the current crisis.At the same time, as the situation in the country rapidly deteriorates with the displacement and re-displacement of populations in the western outskirts of Tripoli, Benghazi and the southern region of Ubari, the UN High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) warned that Libyan civilians are facing a deepening humanitarian crisis as well.Winterization items needed to shelter the displaced from the fast-advancing cold weather are increasingly in demand, the agency said in a press release, as displaced families continue to live in public facilities such as schools, parks and abandoned buildings. Nonetheless, despite the fighting, UNHCR is working to provide 2,000 sleeping mats, 1,460 mattresses, 1,590 plastic sheets, 1,485 kitchen sets, 1,620 school bags and 1,810 jerry cans to over 1,000 families in distress.Although the security situation in Libya continues to be volatile, UNHCR has managed to resume distribution of core relief items in the country from our warehouse, Saado Quol, the agencys Chief of Mission in Libya announced. We understand assistance is also needed in the east and south, where access is severely restricted. We are exploring how additional humanitarian items can be distributed to the eastern cities.Meanwhile, in New York, the Security Council expressed grave concern about the serious deterioration on the security situation and the continuing fighting in Libya, after hearing a briefing from Mr. Lon via videoconference.Speaking to reporters following the closed-door session, Ambassador Mahamat Zene Cherif of Chad, which holds the Councils rotating presidency for December, said the inflow of unregulated weaponry into the country was also of concern to the 15-member body, as it was contributing to the crisis despite the arms embargo.The Council reiterated its support for Mr. Lons mission and called on all Libyan stakeholders to accept an immediate ceasefire and engage in the dialogue process.

HCHR press release: Libyan human rights defenders under attack UN reporthttp://unsmil.unmissions.org/Default.aspx?tabid=3543&ctl=Details&mid=6187&ItemID=2013819&language=en-USGENEVA (25 March 2015) A UN human rights report released on Wednesday reveals a catalogue of violent attacks and threats against Libyan rights defenders, across Libya and in some cases even after they are forced to leave the country.

Attacks, including killings, abductions, torture and other ill-treatment, unlawful deprivation of liberty and death threats by phone and on social media since the escalation of fighting in May 2014 have been documented in the joint report by the UN Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the UN Human Rights Office. Armed groups across the country have targeted human rights defenders seeking to shed light on and address human rights violations and abuses.

Most recently, prominent civil society activist Entissar al-Hassaeri was shot dead last month in Tripoli. Her body and that of her aunt were found in the trunk of her car on 23 February. Two members of the National Commission for Human Rights-Libya, a human rights NGO, were abducted on 13 and 14 February in central Tripoli. Both have since been released, but other human rights defenders and members of civil society remain missing or have gone into hiding.

Given the increasing risks, the killings of prominent human rights defenders and repeated threats, many have fled the country, fallen silent, or have been forced to work in secret at great risk to themselves and their loved ones, the report notes.

Those who managed to flee abroad face a plethora of problems linked to their residency status, expiration of passports with no possibility of extension at some local Libyan consulates, loss of income, and other financial difficulties. Some human rights defenders who have fled have explained that they continued to receive death threats on their mobile phones and social media pages. In at least two cases human rights defenders were physically assaulted in Tunisia, apparently by Libyans.

In one such case, a media professional and womens rights defender from Benghazi, left the country in late 2014 after numerous threats, including a text message threatening abduction of her son. Her car was struck, apparently deliberately, by another vehicle and a factory she owned was set on fire. She has continued to be outspoken and has continued to be threatened after moving abroad.

On 19 October 2014, as she was walking to the train station, she was stopped by a car with Libyan license plates, the report says. The passenger threw a cup of coffee at her warning: youactivist and journalistnext time it will be acid.

Another journalist and human rights defender received threats, including of sexual violence, on her Facebook page. We will come to your house and break your honour, read one post. After fleeing Libya in August 2014, she continued to receive threats via Viber and text messages.

Another human rights defender left Tripoli in September 2014 after being repeatedly subjected to physical assaults, short-term detentions and abduction threats directed at his family.

Civilians in Libya, including human rights defenders, have few or no avenues to seek protection or access to remedy for the harm suffered, the report warns. The breakdown of law and order has led to the failure of the criminal justice system in some parts of Libya, especially Derna, Benghazi and Sirte, while severe disruptions have been reported elsewhere. Justice sector officialshave been violently targeted by armed groups.

The murders of several prominent individuals in Benghazi last year, including newspaper editor Muftah Abu Zeid, human rights defender Salwa Bughaigis, and two young civil society activists, Tawfik Bensaud and Sami al-Kawafi, remain unsolved.

Another human rights defender said she found a piece of paper on her car soon after the murder of Bughaigis in June 2014, stating your turn is next. Other defenders have had family members detained or abducted.

Staff members of Jurists without Chains, a human rights organization in Benghazi, shut its premises late last year following numerous threats, a raid, and the firing of a projectile into their office. The national human rights institution of Libya, the National Council for Civil Liberties and Human Rights, also closed its offices in Tripoli in late 2014 as a result of intimidation, threats and raids.

Armed groups across political, tribal, regional and ideological dividesare responsible for violations of international human rights and humanitarian law and abuses of human rights, including abductions, extra-judicial executions and other unlawful killings, torture and other ill-treatment. Human rights defenders seeking to document and denounce such violations and abuses have faced reprisals, the report says.

The report warns that those committing crimes under international law, including many detailed in the report, are criminally liable, including before the International Criminal Court. It stresses the crucial need to resume building State institutions, particularly law enforcement agencies and the overall justice system. The report also urges all sides to publicly condemn attacks against civil society members.

Neighbouring countries and the international community should also ensure the protection of Libyan human rights defenders, including by issuing emergency visas and providing temporary shelter, the report urges.

The report also calls on the Libyan authorities and on those with effective control on the ground to immediately refrain from, and take action to stop, attacks on human rights defenders, and work towards creating a safer and more enabling environment for them to conduct their indispensable work for the protection and promotion of human rights in Libya.Libya: UN report details serious human rights abuses in Tripoli, BenghaziUN Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR),Overview of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law during the ongoing Violence in Libya, 4 September 2014,available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/540d627e4.html; accessed 30 March 2015

GENEVA / TRIPOLI (4 September 2014) Serious violations of international human rights and humanitarian law are taking place in the Libyan cities of Tripoli and Benghazi with dire consequences for civilians and civilian infrastructure, a new UN report warns.The joint report by the United Nations Support Mission in Libya (UNSMIL) and the UN Human Rights Office gives an overview of abuses including indiscriminate shelling and attacks on civilian objects, the shelling of hospitals, the abduction of civilians, torture and unlawful killings. It details accounts of civilian casualties including women, children and foreign nationals.The report states that fighters appear to disregard the likely impact of their action on civilians and have inadequate training and discipline. In addition, the use of badly maintained and faulty weapons and ammunition increases inaccuracy. These factors suggest that many attacks carried out in Tripoli and Benghazi are indiscriminate.Between mid-May and the end of August, which is the period covered by the report, dozens of civilians were reportedly abducted in Tripoli and Benghazi solely for their actual or suspected tribal, family or religious affiliation, and have remained missing since the time of their abduction. Such abductions may amount to enforced disappearances if the parties to the conflict do not acknowledge their whereabouts, the report states. UNSMIL is raising cases of those detained with the relevant armed groups and welcomes further information from concerned parties,Protection of civilians must be a priority, the report states. All armed groups must comply with the principles of distinction, proportionality and precautions in attack.All armed groups must desist from violations of international human rights and humanitarian law, in particular all acts that may amount to war crimes, including indiscriminate shelling, enforced disappearances, murder, abductions, torture and other ill-treatment, and destruction of property.The report urges all armed groups to release or hand over to the justice system individuals who they have detained. It also stresses that the lack of compliance with international human rights and humanitarian law by one party does not absolve other parties from their obligations to comply with these standards.All armed groups must remove from active duty and hand over to the justice system those among their members suspected of having committed abuses, the report warns.Political or military leaders can be held criminally responsible not only if they order crimes, but also if they are in a position to stop them and do not do so.UNSMIL also estimates that at least 100,000 Libyans have been internally displaced by the fighting including Tawerghans who were already in their displacement camps since 2011, and that a further 150,000 people, including many migrant workers, have left the country.Migrants, refugees and asylum-seekers are particularly exposed in the current context and are facing difficulties in crossing borders.The report also notes the continued harassment of and attacks against journalists by all parties to the conflict, including restrictions of movement, confiscation of equipment, abductions and assassinations.The fighting has also severely affected the administration of justice. The courts in Tripoli and Benghazi effectively stopped functioning as a result.The deepening political polarization, the fighting and the risk of retaliation by armed groups have generated a climate of fear in which people are reluctant to talk about certain violations and abuses.It has also led many activists, including in particular women activists, to leave the country.UNSMIL and OHCHR have appealed to all sides of the conflict to cease all armed hostilities and engage in an inclusive political dialogue to build a state based on the respect of human rights, democracy and the rule of law. UNSMIL continues to engage with all sides to end the fighting and ensure that civilians are protected.

Intl justice resource centerhttp://www.ijrcenter.org/international-humanitarian-law/International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war and the law of armed conflict, is the legal framework applicable to situations of armed conflict and occupation.As a set of rules and principles it aims, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict.Fundamental to IHL are the following two principles:1. The protection of persons who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities; and2. The right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods and means of warfare is not unlimitedIHL is a part of public international law. Public international law is a broad set of treaties, customary law, principles and norms. The framework traditionally regulated relationships only between states. It has evolved, however, to cover a broad range of actors. IHL is notable in this regard, as it recognizes obligations for both states and non-state armed groups that are parties to an armed conflict.IHL regulates activity during armed conflict and situations of occupation. It is distinct from, and applies irrespective of, the body of law that regulates the recourse to armed force. This framework is known as thejus ad bellum, and is enshrined in the UN Charter. It regulates the conditions under which force may be used, namely in self-defense and pursuant to UN Security Council authorization. Once there is an armed conflict IHL applies to all the parties, whether or not a party was legally justified in using force underjus ad bellumprinciples.At its core IHL represents a balance between military necessity and humanitarian considerations in the context of conflict. Humanity, as a cornerstone of IHL, represents the imperative during conflict to alleviate suffering and save lives, and to treat humanely and respectfully each individual. Military necessity is the justification of measures necessary to achieve a military goal, provided these measures comply with international humanitarian law.The balancing of humanity and military necessity is seen in the foundational IHL norms of distinction and proportionality. Parties to an armed conflict are required to distinguish, at all times, between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. Additionally, an attack may not be launched if it is anticipated to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the direct military advantage anticipated. Additional IHL principles include the duty to take precautions to spare the civilian population before and during an attack, the prohibition against infliction of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury, and the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.Qualification of Armed ConflictIHL classifies armed conflicts as international armed conflict (IAC) or non-international armed conflict (NIAC).Qualifying an armed conflict is an important threshold question necessary to determine which set of rules apply to the conflict: those for IAC (found mainly in the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I) or those for NIAC (found mainly in Article Three common to the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol II). Situations of occupation are regulated by IHL, namely the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I.Whether or not an armed conflict is an IAC or NIAC has significant implications.For instance, POW status, as well as combatant status, is found only in the rules applicable to IAC. The rules regulating the conduct of hostilities, as well as humanitarian access and assistance, are more detailed in IAC. All together the treaty rules applicable to IAC total close to 600; those applicable to NIAC number less than 30. This dearth of guidance can pose a challenge because the majority of contemporary conflicts are NIAC. To address this one can look to customary international law, which includes a number of rules that have evolved to address both IAC and NIAC situations.Thedefinition of an IACis found in Article Two common to the four Geneva Conventions. It states that the rules of IAC apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties . . . . Thus, an IAC can only be between two or more states.In Article Three common to the four Geneva Conventionsa NIAC is definedin the negative, as an armed conflict not of an international character. Thus, if a non-state armed group is a party to the armed conflict, it will be categorized as a NIAC. This could be if a state is fighting an armed group, or if two armed groups are fighting each other. Common Article three and customary international law would regulate both scenarios. For Additional Protocol II to apply certain requirements must be satisfied. In the armed conflict a state must be on one side, fighting against an armed group. That state must have signed Additional Protocol II for it to apply. Additionally, the non-state armed group must be organized, under a responsible command, and exercise control over part of the territory in such a manner that the group is able to carry out military operations.The use of the phraseglobal war on terrorresulted in some misunderstanding regarding the application of IHL to certain situations. The global war on terror is a political phrase, not a legal term of art. Thus, the global war on terror is not an armed conflict. The appropriate analysis is to look at the conflict locations Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Yemen, etc. and assess each one in terms of whether or not it is an IAC or NIAC, regulated by the relevant framework.There is some academic debate regarding cross-border NIACs, as well as at what point a NIAC might become an IAC, or an IAC might become a NIAC. These analyses are context and fact-dependent. Despite the theoretical debate, practitioners can often work around them by relying on customary international law to argue for protections owed to civilians.KEY INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW INSTRUMENTSTreaties and customary international law are the two main sources of IHL rules and regulations. Treaties are agreements between states, and those states that sign on to a treaty are bound by its terms. Though a non-state armed group cannot sign a treaty, IHL treaty rules like Common Article Three and Additional Protocol II nonetheless apply to these actors.Many IHL rules are now considered to reflect customary international law, as well.Customary international law consists of rules derived from the consistent practice of states based on a belief that the law requires them to act in that way. Such rules are binding on both states and non-state armed groups. The International Committee of the Red Crosspublished a study and created a databaseon customary international humanitarian law.The key IHL treaties include the 1907 Hague Regulations, four Geneva Conventions, and their Additional Protocols. 1907 Hague Regulations(Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its annex: Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land. The Hague, 18 October 1907) Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949 Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949 Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), 8 June 1977 Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem (Protocol III), 8 December 2005

International humanitarian law in domestic lawhttps://www.icrc.org/en/document/international-humanitarian-law-domestic-lawINTL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSSFor the treaties of international humanitarian law (IHL) and other relevant instruments to be accepted worldwide, national governments must formally adopt them by the process of ratification or accession. States must then pass legislation and take regulatory and practical measures for the rules of IHL to be fully effective.IHL treaties and other relevant instruments cover a wide range of topics, from the protection of wounded and sick military personnel, prisoners of war and civilians; the prohibition or limitation of certain weapons such as anti-personnel landmines, chemical and biological weapons, and cluster munitions; to the restriction of certain combat tactics.The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 and 2005 constitute the core IHL instruments. All States have accepted the Conventions, thereby being bound by the obligations contained therein. Through the years, several treaties and other instruments regulating specific IHL issues have been adopted.In order for the rules of IHL to be truly effective, it is important that States ratify or accede to the many treaties and other relevant instruments that make up the body of IHL. However, adopting these treaties is only a first step.Most IHL instruments oblige States to undertake certain domestic actions of compliance, including taking up legislative, regulatory and practical measures. For example, under the Geneva Conventions, States are obliged to put an end to all violations contained therein and to prosecute and punish those violations that are considered the most serious, called "grave breaches" and regarded as war crimes.Practical measures that States are to take include the following: integrating IHL into training and military manuals, marking protected objects such as cultural heritage sites, and delivering identification cards to combatants and protected persons. In addition, States have to spread the knowledge of IHL.To facilitate all this work, many States have established national IHL committees and similar interministerial bodies.The ICRC plays a key role in supporting national implementation and enforcement of IHL. TheICRC's Advisory Serviceoffers legal advice and technical assistance to States authorities; it providesspecialized tools for IHLimplementation, including ratification kits, model laws, thematic factsheets, a comprehensive manual on domestic implementation of IHL, and supports the work of IHL Committees and similar bodies.

https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/terrorism-faq-050504.htmWhat does IHL say about terrorism?"It is a basic principle of IHL that persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants..."International humanitarian law (IHL) is the body of international law applicable when armed violence reaches the level of armed conflict, whether international or non-international. The best known IHL treaties are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their two Additional Protocols of 1977, but there are a range of other IHL treaties aimed at reducing human suffering in times of war, such as the 1997 Ottawa Convention on landmines. IHL - sometimes also called the Law of Armed Conflict or the Law of War - does not provide a definition of terrorism, but prohibits most acts committed in armed conflict that would commonly be considered " terrorist " if they were committed in peacetime.It is a basic principle of IHL that persons fighting in armed conflict must, at all times, distinguish between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives. The " principle of distinction " , as this rule is known, is the cornerstone of IHL. Derived from it are many specific IHL rules aimed at protecting civilians, such as the prohibition of deliberate or direct attacks against civilians and civilian objects, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks or the use of " human shields " . IHL also prohibits hostage taking.In situations of armed conflict, there is no legal significance in describing deliberate acts of violence against civilians or civilian objects as " terrorist " because such acts would already constitute war crimes. Under the principle of universal jurisdiction, war crimes suspects may be criminally prosecuted not only by the state in which the crime occurred, but by all states.See theTreaty database, containing about 100 IHL treaties, the four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols and an up-to-date list of signatures and ratifications Does IHL specifically mention terrorism?Yes, IHL specifically mentions and in fact prohibits " measures of terrori sm " and " acts of terrorism " . The Fourth Geneva Convention (Article 33Article 4) states that " Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited " , while Additional Protocol II ( ) prohibits " acts of terrorism " against persons not or no longer taking part in hostilities. The main aim is to emphasise that neither individuals, nor the civilian population may be subject to collective punishments, which, among other things, obviously induce a state of terror.Both Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions also prohibit acts aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population. " The civilian population as such, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Acts or threats of violence the primary purpose of which is to spread terror among the civilian population are prohibited " (AP I,Article 51Article 13(2) and AP II, (2)).These provisions are a key element of IHL rules governing the conduct of hostilities i.e. the way military operations are carried out. They prohibit acts of violence during armed conflict that do not provide a definite military advantage. It is important to bear in mind that even a lawful attack on military targets can spread fear among civilians. However, these provisions outlaw attacks that specifically aim to terrorise civilians, for example campaigns of shelling or sniping of civilians in urban areas. Do some aspects of the fight against terrorism amount to a "transnational" armed conflict? As already mentioned IHL is only applicable in armed conflict. A central element of the notion of armed conflict is the existence of " parties " to the conflict. The parties to an international armed conflict are two or more states (or states and national liberation movements), whereas in non-international armed conflict the parties may be either states and armed groups for example, rebel forces- or just armed groups. In either case, a party to an armed conflict has a military-like formation with a certain level of organization and command structure and, therefore, the ability to respect and ensure respect for IHL.The rules of IHL apply equally to all parties to an armed conflict. It does not matter whether the party concerned is the aggressor or is acting in self-defence. Also, it does not matter if the party in question is a state or a rebel group. Accordingly, each party to an armed conflict may attack military objectives but is prohibited from direct attacks against civilians.The equality of rights and obligations under IHL enables all parties to a conflict to know the rules within which they are allowed to operate and to rely on similar conduct by the other side. It is the existence of at least two parties to an armed conflict and the basic equality among them under IHL, as well as the intensity of violence involved and the means used, which distinguishes warfare from law enforcement.Specific aspects of the fight against terrorism launched after the attacks agai nst the United States on 11 September 2001 amount to an armed conflict as defined under IHL. The war waged by the US-led coalition in Afghanistan that started in October 2001 is an example. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the rules of customary international law were fully applicable to that international armed conflict, which involved the US-led coalition, on the one side, and Afghanistan, on the other side.However, much of the ongoing violence taking place in other parts of the world that is usually described as " terrorist " is perpetrated by loosely organized groups (networks), or individuals that, at best, share a common ideology. On the basis of currently available factual evidence it is doubtful whether these groups and networks can be characterised as party to any type of armed conflict, including "transnational"."...terrorist acts committed outside of armed conflict should be addressed by means of domestic or international law enforcement..."Even if IHL does not apply to such acts they are still subject to law. Irrespective of the motives of their perpetrators, terrorist acts committed outside of armed conflict should be addressed by means of domestic or international law enforcement, but not by application of the laws of war.Most of the measures taken by states to prevent or suppress terrorist acts do not amount to armed conflict. Measures such as intelligence gathering, police and judicial cooperation, extradition, criminal sanctions, financial investigations, the freezing of assets or diplomatic and economic pressure on states accused of aiding suspected terrorists are not commonly considered acts of war." Terrorism " is a phenomenon. Both practically and legally, war cannot be waged against a phenomenon, but only against an identifiable party to an armed conflict. For thes e reasons, it would be more appropriate to speak of a multifaceted " fight against terrorism " rather than a " war on terrorism " .What law applies to persons detained in the fight against terrorism?States have the obligation and right to defend their citizens against terrorist attacks. This may include the arrest and detention of persons suspected of terrorist crimes. However, this must always be done according to a clearly defined national and/or international legal framework.Persons detained in relation to an international armed conflict involving two or more states as part of the fight against terrorism the case with Afghanistan until the establishment of the new government in June 2002 - are protected by IHL applicable to international armed conflicts."if the POW status of a prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent tribunal should be established to rule on the issue..."Captured combatants must be granted prisoner of war status (POW) and may be held until the end of active hostilities in that international armed conflict. POWs cannot be tried for mere participation in hostilities, but may be tried for any war crimes they may have committed. In this case they may be held until any sentence imposed has been served. If the POW status of a prisoner is in doubt the Third Geneva Convention stipulates that a competent tribunal should be established to rule on the issue.Civilians detained for security reasons must be accorded the protections provided for in the Fourth Geneva Convention. Combatants who do not fulfil the requisite criteria for POW stat us (who, for example, do not carry arms openly) or civilians who have taken a direct part in hostilities in an international armed conflict (so-called " unprivileged " or " unlawful " belligerents) are protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention provided they are enemy nationals.Contrary to POWs such persons may, however, be tried under the domestic law of the detaining state for taking up arms, as well as for any criminal acts they may have committed. They may be imprisoned until any sentence imposed has been served. Read the full text of theFourth Geneva ConventionPersons detained in relation to a non-international armed conflict waged as part of the fight against terrorism as is the case with Afghanistan since June 2002 - are protected byArticle 3common to the Geneva Conventions and the relevant rules of customary international humanitarian law. The rules of international human rights and domestic law also apply to them. If tried for any crimes they may have committed they are entitled to the fair trial guarantees of international humanitarian and human rights law. Read more about theprotection of victims of non-international armed conflictsAll persons detained outside of an armed conflict in the fight against terrorism are protected by the domestic law of the detaining state and by international human rights law. If tried for any crimes they may have committed they are protected by the fair tria l guarantees of these bodies of law.What is important to know is that no person captured in the fight against terrorism can be considered outside the law. There is no such thing as a " black hole " in terms of legal protection.What is the ICRC's role with respect to persons detained in the fight against terrorism?Under the Geneva Conventions, the ICRC must be granted access to persons detained in an international armed conflict, whether they are POWs or persons protected by the Fourth Geneva Convention.The ICRC has repeatedly called for a determination of the precise legal status of each individual held at Guantanamo Bay [and a] legal framework applicable to all persons held in the fight against terrorism...It is in this context that the ICRC has been visiting a number of persons detained, for example, as a result of the international armed conflict in Afghanistan, both in Afghanistan and at the US naval base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. The ICRC has repeatedly called for a determination of the precise legal status of each individual held at Guantanamo Bay, as well as for a determination of the legal framework applicable to all persons held in the fight against terrorism by the US authorities.If the fight against terrorism takes the form of a non-international armed conflict, the ICRC can offer its humanitarian services to the parties to the conflict and gain access to persons detained with the agreement of the authorities involved.Outside of armed conflict situations, the ICRC has a right of humanitarian initiative under the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Thus, many persons regularly visited by the ICRC have been detained for security reasons in peacetime.Some of the existing international conventions on terrorism include specific provisions providing that states may allow ICRC access to persons detained on suspicion of terrorist activities.The scope and application of the principle of universal jurisdiction: ICRC statement to the United Nations, 2014https://www.icrc.org/en/document/scope-and-application-principle-universal-jurisdiction-icrc-statement-united-nations-2014 Statement15 OCTOBER 2014United Nations, General Assembly, 69th session, Sixth Committee, item 83 of the agenda, statement by the ICRC, New York, 15 October 2014.The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is grateful for the opportunity to address the Sixth Committee on this important item.Universal Jurisdiction plays a vital role in the effective enforcement of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). States bear the primary responsibility for preventing impunity and bringing to justice alleged perpetrators of serious violations of IHL. States are under an obligation to investigate and prosecute such crimes, whether committed by their own nationals, in their own territory, or otherwise under their jurisdiction. Where States are unable or unwilling to prosecute alleged perpetrators in their territory or under their jurisdiction, and when international courts cannot exercise jurisdiction, the exercise of universal jurisdiction by other States, offers a subsidiary basis for ensuring accountability and addressing the impunity gap.The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Additional Protocol I of 1977 establish mandatory universal jurisdiction over those violations defined as grave breaches. Other international instruments, such as The Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property (1954) and its Second Protocol (1999), the Convention against Torture (1984), and the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (2006), similarly recognize that States must assert universal jurisdiction to prosecute serious violations of the Conventions including in an armed conflict. Under customary IHL, States can exercise universal jurisdiction over war crimes committed during international and non-international armed conflicts.The ICRC is pleased to note that many States have established some form of universal jurisdiction over serious violations of IHL in their national legal systems. Most of these States have adopted legislation granting such jurisdiction over any or a combination of grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I, as well as violations of other instruments and the war crimes listed in the International Criminal Court Statute. Recent national court decisions and legal initiatives by States have also demonstrated how the principle of universal jurisdiction can be applied in practice.The ICRC notes that most States, when establishing universal jurisdiction over war crimes, have attached certain conditions to its exercise. Most common is the requirement of a link between the accused and the forum State, like the presence of the accused in the prosecuting State, or the consent of a governmental authority. This trend is highlighted in the ICRCs submission to the Secretary-Generals report pursuant to General Assembly resolution 68/117(2014).While recognizing the will of States to better frame the application of universal jurisdiction, the ICRC is convinced that the conditions for opening criminal proceedings, or for justifying a refusal to do so, should be clearly defined at the national level. Such conditions should strengthen the effectiveness and predictability of the principle of universal jurisdiction, rather than limit its application.The ICRC is aware of the major challenges associated with the implementation of universal jurisdiction whether technical, legal, practical or in terms of resources. Given these challenges, we deem it essential that States keep investing in nationalcapacitybuilding and the enactment of appropriate national legislation to prosecute war crimes on the basis of both national and extraterritorial jurisdiction, including universal jurisdiction.This will deter such crimes from being committed and allow perpetrators to be prosecuted when violations occur. States should also improve international judicial cooperation and assistance by affording one another the greatest possible assistance in criminal proceedings brought in respect of international crimes.Promoting the prevention and repression of war crimes is among the primary activities of the ICRCs Advisory Service on IHL. Universal jurisdiction is an important aspect of this process. The ICRC has thus developed expert legal and technical resources on relevant State practice through its databases on customary IHL and national implementation, as well as its manual on domestic implementation of IHL.The ICRC reaffirms its willingness to support States in their efforts to build an effective system against impunity.

By what authority was the no-fly zone against Libya created?The United Nations Security Council (SC) on March 17, 2011, by a vote of 10 to 0 with 5 abstentions, enacted SC Resolution 1973, which creates a "no-fly zone" in Libya under Chapter VII of the UN Charter.[1] Resolution 1973 also calls for an immediate ceasefire and an end to all violence and abuses against civilians. It demands that the Libyan authorities comply with their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and that they ensure the rapid and unimpeded passage of humanitarian assistance.[2]What does the no-fly zone in Libya provide?SC Resolution 1973 places a ban on all aircraft flights in Libyan airspace in order to help protect civilians (para. 6). It provides UN member states that have notified the UN secretary-general and the secretary-general of the League of Arab States with wide powers to use military force to enforce the no-fly zone (para. 8).The resolution authorizes enforcing states to "take all necessary measures" to protect civilians and populated areas under threat of attack in Libya, including the city of Benghazi (para. 4). It specifically prohibits "a foreign occupation force of any form on any part of Libyan territory" (para. 4). Enforcing states could therefore use military force against a wide range of military targets, including anti-aircraft batteries, military aviation control centers, grounded aircraft, military supply depots, and other military objectives.SC Resolution 1973 states that the no-fly zone does not apply to flights "whose sole purpose is humanitarian, such as delivering or facilitating the delivery of assistance, including medical supplies, food, humanitarian workers and related assistance, or evacuating foreign nationals" from Libya. It also permits states to authorize flights that are deemed necessary "for the benefit of the Libyan people" (para. 7).What international humanitarian law is applicable in Libya?Fighting between armed forces acting under SC Resolution 1973 and Libyan armed forces is governed by the laws of war for an international armed conflict, that is, hostilities between states. Applicable international law includes the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and customary laws of war. Libya and most states that might be involved in hostilities, including France and the United Kingdom, are also parties to the First Additional Protocol of 1977 (Protocol I) to the Geneva Conventions. Although the United States is not a party to Protocol I, it accepts most of its provisions as reflective of customary international law. Protocol I provides the fullest articulation of the laws of war as they pertain to the methods and means of warfare.Fighting between Libyan armed forces and Libyan opposition armed groups amounts to a non-international (internal) armed conflict. It is regulated by Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions and the Second Additional Protocol of 1977 to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol II), as well as customary laws of war.What are the basic principles of the laws of war?The laws of war - whether in international or internal armed conflicts - seek to minimize unnecessary pain and suffering during wartime, particularly by protecting civilians and other noncombatants from the hazards of armed conflict. It addresses the conduct of hostilities - the means and methods of warfare - by all sides to a conflict. A fundamental principle is that parties must distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians. Civilians and civilian objects may never be the object of attacks. Warring parties are required to take all feasible precautions to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects and to refrain from attacks that would disproportionately harm the civilian population or fail to discriminate between combatants and civilians. International humanitarian law also provides a number of fundamental protections for noncombatants, (such as civilians, captured combatants, and those who are unable to fight because of wounds or illness). It prohibits violence against such persons - particularly murder, cruel treatment and torture - as well as outrages against their personal dignity and degrading or humiliating treatment.Do the laws of war apply to air warfare?The general principles of the laws of war apply to air warfare. However, the specific application of these rules, such as with respect to precautions necessary to spare civilian objects from attack, may entail different practical measures from ground warfare. For example, taking all feasible precautions to determine that an aircraft is a military target may include such factors as visual identification, responses to radio warnings, infrared radar and electronic signatures, identification modes, aircraft number and formation, and altitude, speed and other flight characteristics.[3]What laws of war apply to no-fly zones generally?Enforcement of a no-fly zone must be in accordance with the laws of war concerning the methods and means of armed conflict. Specifically, the laws of war only permit attacks on military objectives, such as military airplanes, helicopters and targets on the ground. Attacks on civilians and civilian objects, such as commercial airlines and other civilian aircraft, are prohibited. Civilian objects become subject to legitimate attack when they become military objectives - that is, when they are making an effective contribution to military action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. This would include the deployment of military forces in what are normally civilian objects, such as civilian aircraft. Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian.Civilian aircraft may be intercepted or diverted to prevent them from entering a no-fly zone. However, by entering a no-fly zone, they do not lose their civilian status and their protection from attack. According to the UK Military Manual, "attacks on ostensibly civil aircraft ought only to be carried out as a last resort when there is reason to believe that it is itself deployed on an attack."[4]Civilians may be targeted for attack only when they are "directly participating in hostilities." In the context of the no-fly zone, directly participating in hostilities would include flying military aircraft or civilian aircraft as part of a military operation; engaging in electronic warfare; loading aircraft with ordnance, such as missiles and bombs; planning military air operations; and repairing or servicing military aircraft directly prior to participating in military operations.What targets are subject to military attack?The laws of war limit permissible means and methods of warfare by parties to an armed conflict and require that they respect and protect civilians and captured combatants. The fundamental tenets of this law are "civilian immunity" and the principle of "distinction." While humanitarian law recognizes that some civilian casualties are inevitable during armed conflict, it imposes a duty on warring parties at all times to distinguish between combatants and civilians, and to target only combatants and other military objectives. Civilians lose their immunity from attack during the time they are "directly participating in the hostilities."The laws of war also protect civilian objects, which are defined as anything not considered a military objective. Prohibited are direct attacks against civilian objects, such as homes and apartments, places of worship, hospitals, schools, and cultural monuments - unless they are being used for military purposes. Civilian objects become subject to legitimate attack when they become military objectives - that is, when they are making an effective contribution to military action and their destruction, capture, or neutralization offers a definite military advantage. This would include the deployment of military forces in what are normally civilian objects. Where there is doubt about the nature of an object, it must be presumed to be civilian.The laws of war prohibit indiscriminate attacks. Indiscriminate attacks are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. Examples of indiscriminate attacks are those that are not directed at a specific military objective or that use weapons that cannot be directed at a specific military objective. Prohibited indiscriminate attacks include area bombardment, which are attacks by artillery or other means that treat as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in an area containing a concentration of civilians and civilian objects.Also prohibited are attacks that violate the principle of proportionality. Disproportionate attacks are those that may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack.What kinds of targets may be attacked under SC Resolution 1973?Enforcement of the no-fly zone in Libya permits denial of Libyan airspace to all aircraft, including airplanes and helicopters. The laws of war only permit attacks on aircraft that are Libyan military or are non-military aircraft taking part in military operations (for example, civilian aircraft transporting Libyan soldiers).However, SC Resolution 1973 not only authorizes a no-fly zone, but it provides broad powers to enforcing states to "take all necessary measures" to protect civilians. Thus, they could use military force against a wide array of military targets to enforce the no-fly zone, such as anti-aircraft defenses, military depots and other military objectives.It would be unlawful for countries taking part in enforcement of the no-fly zone to declare all or any part of the zone as subject to unrestricted air attacks in which any aircraft in the zone could be attacked, regardless of its military or civilian status.What are the obligations of the warring parties regarding fighting in populated areas?International humanitarian law does not prohibit fighting in urban areas, although the presence of many civilians places greater obligations on warring parties to take steps to minimize harm to civilians.The laws of war require that the parties to a conflict take constant care during military operations to spare the civilian population and to "take all feasible precautions" to avoid or minimize the incidental loss of civilian life and damage to civilian objects. These precautions include doing everything feasible to verify that the objects of attack are military objectives and not civilians or civilian objects, and giving "effective advance warning" of attacks when circumstances permit.Forces deployed in populated areas must avoid locating military objectives near densely populated areas, and endeavor to remove civilians from the vicinity of military objectives. Belligerents are prohibited from using civilians to shield military objectives or operations from attack. "Shielding" refers to purposefully using the presence of civilians to render military forces or areas immune from attack.At the same time, the attacking party is not relieved from its obligation to take into account the risk to civilians simply because it considers the defending party responsible for having located legitimate military targets within or near populated areas.What precautions must be taken in carrying out military attacks?All parties to a conflict have a legal duty to protect the life, health and safety of civilians and other noncombatants. The targeting of military installations and other military objectives is permitted, but parties must take all feasible precautions to avoid civilian harm and are prohibited from targeting civilians, launching indiscriminate attacks, or attacking military objects if the anticipated harm to civilians will be disproportionate to the expected military advantage. Military commanders must choose the means of attack that can be directed at military targets and will minimize incidental harm to civilians. If the weapons used are so inaccurate that they cannot be directed at military targets without imposing a substantial risk of civilian harm, then they should not be deployed. Deliberately attacking civilians is in all circumstances prohibited. Individuals who attack civilians with criminal intent are responsible for war crimes.

Are warring parties permitted to target infrastructure such as airports, roads, bridges and power stations?Airports, roads and bridges are civilian objects that become military objectives subject to attack if they are actually used for military purposes. Even then, the rule of proportionality applies, requiring the parties to the conflict to weigh the short and long-term harm on civilians against the military advantage served; they must consider all ways of minimizing the impact on civilians; and they should not undertake attacks if the expected civilian harm outweighs the definite military advantage. Among the factors to be considered are whether the destruction of particular roads or bridges serve in fact to impede military transport in light of readily alternative routes - that is, whether the infrastructure attacked is making an "effective" contribution to the party's military action and its destruction offers a "definite military advantage" - or whether its destruction seems aimed more at inconveniencing the civilian population and even preventing it from fleeing the fighting and seeking safety. While electrical facilities that supply the army as well as the civilian population might be a military objective, the harm to civilians when electricity supplies fail is often enormous, affecting refrigeration, sanitation, hospitals and other necessities of modern life; in urban society, electricity is arguably "indispensable to the survival of the civilian population," meaning that it can be attacked only in extremely narrow circumstances or in a manner that limits the impact to the short term. Meanwhile, the military effect of targeting electrical facilities serving the civilian population often can be achieved in more focused ways, such as by attacking military facilities themselves or the portion of an electrical grid directly serving a military facility. May coalition forces attack Libyan radio and television stations?Military attacks on broadcast facilities used for military communications are legitimate under the laws of war. Such attacks on civilian television or radio stations are prohibited if they are designed primarily to undermine civilian morale or to psychologically harass the civilian population. Civilian television and radio stations are legitimate targets only if they meet the criteria for a legitimate military objective; that is, if they are used in a way that makes an "effective contribution to military action" and their destruction in the circumstances ruling at the time offers "a definite military advantage." Specifically, Libyan government broadcast facilities could become military targets if, for example, they are used to send military orders or otherwise concretely to advance Libyan military operations. However, civilian broadcasting facilities are not rendered legitimate military targets simply because they broadcast pro-Gaddafi propaganda. Just as it is unlawful to attack the civilian population to lower its morale, it is unlawful to attack facilities that solely shape civilian opinion; neither directly contributes to military operations.Should stations become legitimate military objectives because of their use to transmit military communications, the principle of proportionality in attack must still be respected. This means that coalition forces should verify at all times that the risks to the civilian population in undertaking any such attack do not outweigh the anticipated military benefit. They should take special precautions in relation to buildings located in urban areas, including giving advance warning of an attack whenever possible.What is meant by using human shields?The war crime of "shielding" has been defined as intentionally using the presence of civilians to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military attack. While it may be unlawful, as noted above, to place forces, weapons and ammunition within or near densely populated areas, it is only shielding when there is a specific intent to use the civilians to deter an attack.Opposing forces may attack a military target that is making use of human shields, but it is still obligated to determine whether the attack is proportionate - that is, that the expected loss of civilian life and property is not greater than the anticipated military advantage of the attack. The presence of so-called "voluntary" human shields - civilians claiming or are claimed to be intentionally surrounding a military target to deter an enemy attack - remain part of a proportionality determination.What obligations do warring parties have to humanitarian agencies?Under international humanitarian law, parties to a conflict must allow and facilitate the rapid and unimpeded passage of impartially distributed humanitarian aid to the population in need. The belligerent parties must consent to allowing relief operations to take place and may not refuse such consent on arbitrary grounds. They can take steps to control the content and delivery of humanitarian aid, such as to ensure that consignments do not include weapons. However, deliberately impeding relief supplies is prohibited.In addition, international humanitarian law requires that belligerent parties ensure the freedom of movement of humanitarian relief personnel essential to the exercise of their functions. This movement can be restricted only temporarily for reasons of imperative military necessity.

Does international human rights law still apply in Libya?Human rights law is still applicable during armed conflict situations in which the laws of war apply. Libya is a party to several international human rights treaties, including the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, and the African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights. These treaties outline guarantees for fundamental rights, many of which correspond to the rights to which civilians are entitled under international humanitarian law (e.g. the prohibition on torture, inhuman and degrading treatment, nondiscrimination, right to a fair trial).While the ICCPR permits some restrictions on certain rights during an officially proclaimed public emergency that "threatens the life of the nation," any derogation of rights during a public emergency must be of an exceptional and temporary nature, and must be "limited to the extent strictly required by the exigencies of the situation." Certain fundamental rights - such as the right to life and the right to be secure from torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment - must always be respected, even during a public emergency.Who can be held responsible for violations of international humanitarian law?On February 26, 2011, the UN Security Council adopted Resolution 1970, which referred the situation in Libya to the ICC, giving the court jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes and crimes against humanity since February 15, 2011. The resolution provides that nationals from a state outside Libya that is not a party to the ICC Statute shall not be subject to ICC jurisdiction for all alleged acts arising out of operations in Libya established or authorized by the Security Council. Of the 12 countries that have provided notice to the secretary-general about their participation in military operations under Resolution 1973 as of March 24, all are parties to the ICC Statute except the US, the UAE,Qatar and the Ukraine. All states, including these four countries not party to the ICC Statute, remain obligated under international law to investigate and prosecute members of their armed forces implicated in war crimes.Serious violations of international humanitarian law that are committed with criminal intent are war crimes. War crimes, listed in the "grave breaches" provisions of the Geneva Conventions and as customary law in the International Criminal Court (ICC) statute and other sources, include a wide array of offenses, including deliberate, indiscriminate, and disproportionate attacks harming civilians, hostage taking, using human shields, and imposing collective punishments, among others. Individuals also may be held criminally liable for attempting to commit a war crime, as well as assisting in, facilitating, aiding or abetting a war crime.Responsibility also may fall on persons planning or instigating the commission of a war crime. Commanders and civilian leaders may be prosecuted for war crimes as a matter of command responsibility when they knew or should have known about the commission of war crimes and took insufficient measures to prevent them or punish those responsible.

http://www.asil.org/sites/default/files/ERG_International%20Humanitarian%20Law%20(test).pdfInternational Justice Resource Center, http://www.ijrcenter.org/international-humanitarian-law/

Conflict News, Libyas Second Civil War: How did it come to this?, available at: http://www.conflict-news.com/libyas-second-civil-war-how-did-it-come-to-this/; Internet; accessed 30 March 2015Human Rights Watch, Libya: Spiraling Militia Attacks May Be War Crimes, September 8, 2014, available at: http://www.hrw.org/news/2014/09/08/libya-spiraling-militia-attacks-may-be-war-crimes; Internet; accessed 30 March 2015

Manila Bulletin, Filipino killed, five wounded in Libya attack: security source, March 31, 2015, available at: http://www.mb.com.ph/filipino-killed-five-wounded-in-libya-attack-security-source/#DbG5GlJEjGpmmPgO.99l; Internet; accessed 1 April 2015

Human Rights Watch, Libya: Spiraling Militia Attacks May Be War Crimes, September 8, 201

International Committee of the Red Cross, ADVISORY SERVICE ON INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW, July 20004