SBE-UKRI: Cumulative Civilian Harm in War: Addressing the Hidden Human Toll of the Law's Blind Spot

SBE-UKRI：战争中平民的累积伤害：解决法律盲点中隐藏的人员伤亡问题

• 批准号: ES/X01097X/1
• 负责人: Noam Lubell
• 金额: $ 108.29万
• 依托单位: University of Essex
• 依托单位国家: 英国
• 项目类别: Research Grant
• 财政年份: 2023
• 资助国家: 英国
• 起止时间: 2023 至 无数据
• 项目状态: 未结题
• 来源: https://gtr.ukri.org/projects?ref=ES%2FX01097X%2F1
• 关键词: SBE; UKRI; Cumulative; Civilian; Harm

Hundreds of thousands of civilians have died in wars in the Middle East in the first two decades of this century. Many were killed by states that rely on international law in their military operations, such as Israel, the United Kingdom (UK), and the United States. Excessive civilian harm can result from non-compliance with the laws of war. However, it can also stem from a blind spot in international law: law fails to account for cumulative civilian harm. This has two dimensions. First, international law prohibits disproportionate casualties for each individual attack, but fails to adequately account for the accumulation of civilian deaths across many attacks, over time. Second, international law does not sufficiently govern the aggregate and emergent effects of prolonged exposure to conflict on the civilian population. For instance, as attacks accumulate, repeated mental harm aggregates into personal and societal trauma. Repeated property damage erodes the socio-economic fabric of a society. Existing international law fails to adequately account for infrastructure collapse, trauma, or socio-economic decline. This is the first project 1) to demonstrate that this dual blind spot in law exists, 2) to show how it hampers military and political decision-making, 3) to explain how it devastates civilian populations, and 4) to fix the problem by proposing a legal and policy framework for assessing and restricting cumulative civilian harm. How does international law fail? The branch of international law known as jus ad bellum governs the initial resort to force between states. It is contested whether the law continues to apply once a war has begun, and the parameters for its application remain vague. Meanwhile, the branch of international law that regulates how wars are conducted, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), demands that the expected civilian harm that each attack causes is proportionate to its military advantage. Even if each attack complies with this rule, over time, the cumulative number of civilian deaths can reach intolerable levels. In addition to deaths caused, IHL focuses on how discrete attacks affect civilians in relation to injury and damage to property. The law does not adequately account for the effects of many different attacks taken together. Attacks that cause individually proportionate damage to civilian objects can together cause the collapse of vital infrastructure. Attacks that cause individually proportionate mental harm or physical injury together cause trauma and socio-economic decline. In this research project, we lay out a path for the progressive development of international law to overcome this dual blind spot and better protect civilians in war. To accomplish this ambitious aim, we approach our task from several disciplinary angles: Based on a systematic review of sources, we develop a new legal approach to limiting cumulative civilian harm. Based on just war theory, we mount an ethical defence of why international law should restrict cumulative civilian harm. We work with military and political decision-makers in Israel, the UK, and the United States to ensure that our proposal is effective in guiding decisions. We conduct on-the-ground empirical research about the attitudes of civilians in Iraq and Gaza to ensure that our framework is responsive to the needs of the populations it is meant to protect. Finally, we survey public opinion in Israel, the UK, the United States to ensure that the proposed law resonates with the populations on whose behalf these militaries fight. Corresponding to these wide-ranging tasks, our research team includes distinguished legal scholars, prominent moral philosophers, former government and military lawyers and policymakers, and political scientists experienced in fieldwork in conflict zones.

在本世纪的头二十年里，数十万平民死于中东的战争。许多人被以色列、英国和美国等在军事行动中依赖国际法的国家杀害。不遵守战争法可能造成过度的平民伤害。然而，它也可能源于国际法的一个盲点：法律未能考虑到累积的平民伤害。这有两个维度。首先，国际法禁止每次袭击造成不成比例的伤亡，但未能充分说明长期以来多次袭击造成的平民死亡的累积情况。第二，国际法没有充分规范长期处于冲突中对平民人口的总体和紧急影响。例如，随着攻击的累积，反复的精神伤害会累积成个人和社会创伤。一再发生的财产损失侵蚀了一个社会的社会经济结构。现有国际法未能充分考虑基础设施崩溃、创伤或社会经济衰退。这是第一个项目：1）证明法律中存在这一双重盲点，2）说明它如何阻碍军事和政治决策，3）解释它如何损害平民人口，4）通过提出一个评估和限制累积平民伤害的法律的和政策框架来解决问题。国际法是如何失效的？国际法的分支称为诉诸战争权，管辖国家间最初诉诸武力的问题。一旦战争开始，该法律是否继续适用存在争议，其适用范围仍然模糊。与此同时，国际人道法（International Humanitarian Law，简称IHL）是规范战争如何进行的国际法的分支，它要求每次攻击造成的预期平民伤害与其军事优势相称。即使每次袭击都遵守这一规则，随着时间的推移，平民死亡的累积人数也可能达到无法容忍的程度。除了造成的死亡之外，国际人道法还关注离散袭击如何在伤害和财产损失方面影响平民。法律没有充分考虑到许多不同攻击加在一起的影响。对民用物体造成个别相称损害的攻击，合在一起可造成重要基础设施的崩溃。造成个别相称的精神伤害或身体伤害的袭击，共同造成创伤和社会经济衰退。在这个研究项目中，我们为国际法的逐步发展铺平了道路，以克服这一双重盲点，更好地保护战争中的平民。为了实现这一雄心勃勃的目标，我们从几个学科的角度来处理我们的任务：基于系统的审查来源，我们开发了一个新的法律的方法来限制累积的平民伤害。基于正义战争理论，我们提出了一个道德辩护，为什么国际法应该限制累积的平民伤害。我们与以色列、英国和美国的军事和政治决策者合作，以确保我们的建议能有效地指导决策。我们对伊拉克和加沙平民的态度进行实地实证研究，以确保我们的框架能够满足其保护的人口的需求。最后，我们调查了以色列、英国和美国的公众舆论，以确保拟议中的法律与这些军队所代表的人民产生共鸣。与这些广泛的任务相对应，我们的研究团队包括杰出的法律的学者，著名的道德哲学家，前政府和军事律师和政策制定者，以及在冲突地区实地工作经验丰富的政治科学家。