Implications of the 'Achievement of Compliance' for the Protection of Civilians

随着乌克兰战争的继续，我们再次看到房屋被毁、基础设施被毁、滥杀滥伤的可怕画面，我们强烈地意识到，武装冲突期间对平民的伤害仍然是21世纪世纪最大的人道主义问题之一。今天，战争的持续城市化意味着目前有5000万人的生活受到地球仪各地村庄、城镇和城市冲突的影响（联合国安全理事会，2021年）。鉴于这种向城市中心的转移，有关平民伤亡的统计数字描绘了一幅严峻的画面。过去十年，武装暴力行动组织的《爆炸性暴力监测》（2022）发现，与去年同期相比，平民占使用爆炸性武器造成的总伤亡人数的73%，这一数字上升到惊人的90%在城市地区。我的研究与第36条合作-一个专业的人道主义倡导组织和2017年诺贝尔和平奖的共同获得者-直接谈到这个问题。在其核心，我的工作部署当代方法论的做法，以调查军事人员的做法，在实际情况下，目标和使用武力。这样做表明，目前保护平民的法律的和政治机制在多大程度上不能充分保护平民。鉴于此，我的研究在学术探究和人道主义倡导之间的交叉点上占据着至关重要的地位，并将在未来几年为国际政策和倡导制定新的证据基础方面发挥关键作用。法律的推理、目标确定和使用武力“，对一群美国人员在事件发生前后，为造成至少15名平民死亡的灾难性袭击寻找法律的理由。我的研究侧重于军事人员在战场上创造性地解释国际法以使他们能够不受阻碍地实现其军事目标的方法，得出了三个一般性结论：1）遵守战争法是军事人员可以精通的事情，有能力的人员具有很强的能力“在规则中[找到]做任何需要做的事情的手段”（Bittner 1965：251）。换句话说，那些对规则及其关系有深刻了解的人可以找到法律的理由，从事从表面上看正是规则所禁止的活动。2）尽管军事化国家提出相反的抗议，但遵守战争法不能被视为保护平民的同义词。事实上，军事人员对法律条文的过分关注--而不是其“精神”--在武装冲突期间会危及平民。3）最后，鉴于上述情况，在战场上适用战争法非但没有限制使用武力，反而增加了合法使用武力的机会。我的研究既从经验上证实了琼斯的主张，也超越了琼斯的主张，即当代战争法的操作方向成功地扩大了合法暴力的范围和程度。虽然这些结论在我的博士论文中得到了很好的证实，但拟议的奖学金将通过与第36条在联合国和其他高知名度论坛共同组织的一系列活动促进我的研究结果的传播;通过期刊文章，这将使我能够产生重大影响的机会;并通过会议演讲和网络活动，这将使我巩固我作为一个强大的早期职业研究人员和未来的研究领导者在我的领域的地位。

As the war in Ukraine continues and we are once again presented with horrifying images of destroyed homes, shattered infrastructure, indiscriminate injury and death, we are powerfully reminded that harm to civilian populations during periods of armed conflict remains one of the great humanitarian problems of the 21st century. Today, the ongoing urbanisation of warfare means that there are presently 50 million people whose lives are affected by conflicts playing out in villages, towns and cities around the globe (United Nations Security Council, 2021). In light of this shift to urban centres, statistics relating to civilian harm paint a grave picture. In the last decade, Action on Armed Violence's 'Explosive Violence Monitor' (2022) has found that, year on year, civilians have accounted for 73% of the total casualties caused by the use of explosive weapons, a figure which rises to an astonishing 90% in urban areas. My research in collaboration with Article 36 - a specialist humanitarian advocacy organisation and co-recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize - speaks directly to this issue. At its core, my work deploys contemporary methodological approaches to investigate the practices of military personnel engaged in actual instances of targeting and the use of force. By doing so, it demonstrates the extent to which current legal and political mechanisms for the protection of civilians fall short of sufficiently protecting civilian populations. Given that, my research occupies a vital position at the intersection between academic inquiry and humanitarian advocacy and will be pivotal in developing a new evidentiary basis for international policy and advocacy in coming years.My PhD, entitled 'Law in War: Legal Reasoning, Targeting, and the Use of Force', provides an unprecedentedly detailed analysis of the means by which a group of US personnel, both before and after the fact, worked up the legal justifications for a disastrous strike which led to the deaths of at least 15 civilians. With a focus on the methods used in theatre by military personnel to creatively interpret international law so as to enable them to carry out their military objectives unimpeded, my research has generated three general conclusions:1) Compliance with the laws of war is something that military personnel can be proficient in, with competent personnel possessing a strong capacity to "[find] in the rules the means for doing whatever need be done" (Bittner 1965: 251). In other words, those with a strong knowledge of the rules and their relation to them can find legal justifications for engaging in activities which appear, on the face of things, to be precisely what the rules are meant to proscribe.2) Despite militarised states protestations to the contrary, compliance with the laws of war cannot be treated as synonymous with the protection of civilians. In fact, military personnel's overwhelming preoccupation with the letter of the law - as opposed to its 'spirit' - serves to endanger civilians during periods of armed conflict.3) Finally, given the above, rather than constraining the use of force, applications of the laws of war on the battlefield amplify opportunities for legally engaging in it.In light of these conclusions, my research both empirically corroborates but also advances beyond Jones' claim (2020) that contemporary operational orientations to the laws of war have succeeded in expanding the scope and extent of legitimate violence. Though these conclusions are well established in my PhD thesis, the proposed fellowship will facilitate the dissemination of my findings through a series of events co-organised with Article 36 at the UN and other high-profile fora; through journal articles that will allow me to generate significant impact opportunities; and through conference presentations and networking activity which will allow me to cement my status as a strong Early Career Researcher and indeed future research leader within my field.