Targeting neutral states |
I ONCE carried into my lecture room The Law of Targeting by William H. Boothby. A student asked if the title was not a contradiction in terms. That’s the kind of question people ask whenever I give talks on the ‘laws of war’ — how can there be any law intact during war? Isn’t conflict defined as the complete breakdown of all laws and rules? In reality, though, there have been extensive efforts behind creating a body of law that regulates war — including the selection of targets. From the Lieber Code to the Oxford Manual, 1880, and onwards to the Hague and Geneva Conventions and the San Remo Air and Missile Warfare Manuals, a lot exists against which the conduct of states is measured during wars.
Another aspect of the law of war is the law of ‘neutrality’. The International Court of Justice, in its Advisory Opinion of 1996 on the threat and use of nuclear weapons and in its judgement on the ‘Nicaragua case’ (1986) recognised the validity of the law of neutrality as part of customary international law — meaning it is backed by almost all civilisations. According to Hague Convention V ‘Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land’, 1907, the territory of neutral power is inviolable and cannot be attacked unless it allows a belligerent to move munitions and troops or communication equipment installation (radar systems) across it. Allowing the use of territory for rescuing the sick and wounded is permitted and does not compromise neutrality. The first and foremost obligation of a neutral state is not to involve itself militarily in an armed conflict between states. Secondly, the neutral state is prohibited from providing military........