Rule 92
The protection to which civilian civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelters and materiel are entitled does not cease unless they commit or are used to commit, outside their proper tasks, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.
[Commentary]
- Rule 92 restates almost verbatim Art. 65 (1) of AP/I.[530] It applies only to “civilian” civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelters and materiel in situations where there is valid reason for discontinuing the protection because they commit, or are used to commit, outside their proper tasks, acts harmful to the enemy. It ought to be noted that an act may be “harmful” without necessarily being “hostile”, i.e. acts without hostile intent may also lead to a loss of specific protection.[531]
- Art. 65 (2) of AP/I[532] provides for acts which are not considered as harmful to the enemy. These include the possibility that civil defence and military personnel cooperate in the performance of civil defence tasks or that civil defence tasks are carried out under the direction or control of military authorities. If the performance of civil defence tasks incidentally benefits military victims (particularly, those who are hors de combat), it cannot be considered as harmful to the enemy.
- According to Art. 65 (3) of AP/I,[533] civilian civil defence personnel are permitted to bear weapons without thereby losing their specific protection. However, this permission is subject to strict conditions. First, civil defence personnel are only entitled to bear light individual weapons (on the definition of this ex-pression, see paragraph 3 of the Commentary on Rule 74 (c) (i)). In the combat zone, the weapons must be limited to handguns − an even narrower concept than light individual weapons (see Rule 74 (c) (i) and Rule 82). Second, these weapons must only be used for the purpose of maintaining law and order in a stricken area or for self-defense against marauders or armed assailants, but not against the enemy. These provisions are modelled on those applicable to medical and religious personnel.
- Rule 92 needs to be read against the background of Rule 38. The requirement to issue a warning as per Rule 92 is an absolute one. This is to be differentiated from warnings mentioned, e.g., in Rule 37, which must be issued “unless circumstances do not permit”.
- Before protection ceases, a warning setting a reasonable time-limit must have been issued and ignored. The time-limit, however, need only be set “whenever appropriate”. There are situations in which it is impracticable to set a time-limit (see Commentary on Rule 74 (b)).
- The period must furthermore be “reasonable”, i.e. either (i) long enough to allow the acts harmful to the enemy to be stopped; or (ii) long enough for the wounded and sick who are within the medical units or medical transports to be removed to a place of safety. In some cases, it may be reasonable to require imme-diate compliance with a warning to desist from the acts harmful to the enemy or to remove the wounded and sick to a place of safety.
- The termination of specific protection to which civilian civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelter and matériel are entitled, does not necessarily mean that they can be attacked as such. It must be borne in mind that they may then benefit from the generic protection of civilians and civilian objects. An attack is contingent on the person or object qualifying as a lawful target (see Sections D; E; F and G).
- Art. 65 (1) of AP/I: “The protection to which civilian civil defence organizations, their personnel, buildings, shelters and ‘matériel’ are entitled shall not cease unless they commit or are used to commit, outside their proper tasks, acts harmful to the enemy. Protection may, however, cease only after a warning has been given setting, whenever appropriate, a reasonable time-limit, and after such warning has remained unheeded.”
- Para. 2588 of the ICRC Commentary on AP/I, pertaining to Art. 65 (1) of AP/I: “This expression [acts harmful to the enemy] was contested by some who would have preferred the term “hostile”, because of its “more specific” character. It is true that a harmful act can be committed unintentionally and the word “hostile” would have had the advantage of indicating intent to harm. … ”
- Art. 65 (2) of AP/I: “The following shall not be considered as acts harmful to the enemy: (a) that civil defence tasks are carried out under the direction or control of military authorities; (b) that civilian civil defence personnel co-operate with military personnel in the performance of civil defence tasks, or that some military personnel are attached to civilian civil defence organizations; (c) that the performance of civil defence tasks may incidentally benefit military victims, particularly those who are hors de combat.”
- Art. 65 (3) of AP/I: “It shall also not be considered as an act harmful to the enemy that civilian civil defence personnel bear light individual weapons for the purpose of maintaining order of for self-defence. However, in areas where land fighting is taking place or is likely to take place, the Parties to the conflict shall undertake the appropriate measures to limit these weapons to handguns, such as pistols or revolvers, in order to assist in distinguishing between civil defence personnel and combatants. Although civil defence personnel bear other light individual weapons in such areas, they shall nevertheless be respected and protected as soon as they have been recognized as such.”
Categories: N: Civil Defence
