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

本世纪头二十年，中东地区有数十万平民死于战争。许多人是被以色列、英国和美国等在军事行动中依赖国际法的国家杀害的。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盲点：法律无法解释累积的平民伤害。它有两个维度。首先，国际法禁止每次袭击造成不成比例的伤亡，但未能充分说明多次袭击造成的平民死亡人数随着时间的推移而累积。第二，国际法没有充分规定长期暴露于冲突对平民人口的总体和紧急影响。例如，随着攻击的积累，重复的精神伤害会累积成个人和社会创伤。反复的财产损失侵蚀着社会的社会经济结构。现有的国际法未能充分解释基础设施崩溃、创伤或社会经济衰退。这是第一个项目：1)证明这种法律上的双重盲点存在；2)展示它如何阻碍军事和政治决策；3)解释它如何摧毁平民人口；4)通过提出评估和限制累积平民伤害的法律和政策框架来解决问题。国际法是如何失败的？被称为“战时法”的国际法分支管辖着国家间最初诉诸武力的行为。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，规范战争行为的国际法分支——国际人道主义法（IHL）要求，每次攻击造成的预期平民伤害必须与其军事优势成比例。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可能达到无法容忍的水平。除了造成的死亡之外，国际人道法还关注零星袭击对平民造成的伤害和财产损失。该法律没有充分考虑到许多不同袭击一起造成的影响。单独对民用物体造成相应损害的攻击，加在一起可能导致重要基础设施的崩溃。单独造成相应的精神伤害或身体伤害的攻击会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开辟了一条道路，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完成我们的任务：基于对来源的系统审查，我们开发了一种新的法律方法来限制累积的平民伤害。基于正义战争理论，我们对为什么国际法应该限制累积的平民伤害进行道德辩护。我们与以色列、英国和美国的军事和政治决策者合作，确保我们的建议在指导决策方面是有效的。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旨在保护的人口的需求。最后，我们调查了以色列、英国和美国的公众意见，以确保拟议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学者、杰出的道德哲学家、前政府和军事律师和政策制定者，以及在冲突地区有实地工作经验的政治科学家。

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.