Doctoral Dissertation Research: Distinguishing Between Legitimate and Illegitimate Targets

当前冲突最悲惨的后果之一是蓄意以平民为目标。这种做法不仅违反了作为国际人道主义法支柱之一的平民豁免准则，而且也违背了关于武装冲突期间适当行为的普遍看法。尽管对这种行为作出了反应，但这种做法仍在继续。学者和政策制定者对武装冲突中蓄意以平民为目标的原因进行了调查。许多人认为，这种违反行为的发生是出于功利的原因或对国际法律义务的无知。然而，这些研究中有许多都有一个共同的缺陷：它们假设在合法和非法目标的组成上存在共识。本研究以这一假设为出发点：是否存在对平民豁免规范所包含的区别原则的共识？本研究利用各种定性方法（包括对前交战方和人道主义从业人员进行访谈和案例研究），将既定的理论框架（如规范不遵守和规范扩散）与新兴的理论框架（规范争论）进行比较，以确定哪种理论框架对蓄意针对平民的解释效果最强。

One of the most tragic results of current conflicts is the deliberate targeting of civilians. Not only is this practice violative of the civilian immunity norm, one of the pillars of international humanitarian law, it also contradicts popular opinion about appropriate behavior during armed conflict. Despite the reaction to such acts, this practice continues. Scholars and policymakers have made inquiries into the reasons for the deliberate targeting of civilians during armed conflict. Many suggest such violations occur for utilitarian reasons or ignorance of international legal obligations. However, many of these studies suffer from a common flaw: they assume a consensus exists on the composition of legitimate and illegitimate targets. This study takes this assumption as its starting point: does a consensus on the distinction principle contained within the civilian immunity norm exist? Utilizing a variety of qualitative methods (including conducting interviews with former belligerents and humanitarian practitioners and case studies), this study compares established theoretical frameworks, such as norm noncompliance and norm diffusion, against an emerging theoretical framework, norm contestation, to determine which has the strongest explanatory effect regarding deliberate civilian targeting.