A tension exists between treaty protections afforded to civilians in non-international armed conflicts from becoming objects of attacks and the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction to punish commanders who recklessly cause such casualties. Yet, media and human rights organizations’ criticism that the non-combatant casualty cut-off value (NCV) constitutes a war crime cannot survive rational examination of the mens rea requirement in the Rome Statute. Coalition commanders and targeteers must ensure the NCV is neither presumptively nor conclusively applied in target engagement, whilst taking constant care to focus proportionality assessments to spare civilians.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 2993 | 450 | 71 |
Full Text Views | 310 | 24 | 8 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 258 | 60 | 15 |
A tension exists between treaty protections afforded to civilians in non-international armed conflicts from becoming objects of attacks and the International Criminal Court’s jurisdiction to punish commanders who recklessly cause such casualties. Yet, media and human rights organizations’ criticism that the non-combatant casualty cut-off value (NCV) constitutes a war crime cannot survive rational examination of the mens rea requirement in the Rome Statute. Coalition commanders and targeteers must ensure the NCV is neither presumptively nor conclusively applied in target engagement, whilst taking constant care to focus proportionality assessments to spare civilians.
All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
---|---|---|---|
Abstract Views | 2993 | 450 | 71 |
Full Text Views | 310 | 24 | 8 |
PDF Views & Downloads | 258 | 60 | 15 |