📷Source: Reuters
The spiral of violence that has engulfed the Middle East today is at one of the most vicious and aggressive phases. Wherever you look there are, states falling apart, a nation being divided, an economy collapsing and most of all chaos and terrorism. Social texture is fragmenting and unlike infrastructure and governments, it will leave a mark on the people which will take decades to heal. Thus it is essential to review the rights of citizens in armed conflicts. While this is a very tough task it is not impossible. There are some measures which can be taken to mitigate the situation. A three-pronged approach has to be adopted. Firstly laws need to be updated and defined in more clear and strong terms. Then the next step of action should be to bring the parties involved to recognize the fact that they are bound by laws that apply in the conflict. Finally it is equally important to ensure that the sanctity of laws is maintained, they are not misinterpreted as per the convenience of the state. Article 50 of The Geneva Convention states that, ‘Civilians are persons who are not members of the armed forces. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.’ Thus people who are not directly involved in the conflict should be treated as civilians and they shouldn’t be harmed. However since the term ‘directly’ is so vague, the countries use this to their advantage and then say that they followed the ‘Principle of Distinction’ and ‘Principle of Proportionality’ as they treat civilians as combatants. The definition of conflicts in the UN charter focuses more upon traditional wars i.e. where two countries battle each other. However we have to keep in mind that most of the Middle Eastern problems are internal conflicts and have not yet become an international problem. Thus we need to stop the big bad bullies from interfering and amend the definition of armed conflicts so that it is in context with the concerned issue. While the countries themselves have made the law it seems like they have forgotten that it applies to them. They do whatever they want, whenever they want and expect no consequences. Some think their totally irrational justifications like ‘We did this in the name of religion’ or use of policies when they don’t apply will stand up. And then there are some who don’t give an explanation and behave like they have not done anything wrong. All of the Islamic groups always try to justify themselves by saying they are ‘cleansing their race’ or doing it ‘for Allah.’ However ironically enough Islamic Law and International Humanitarian Law have a strong common heritage and contain very similar rules. But still, in the Middle we witness gross humanitarian violations. This is because the law is misinterpreted by people who are not experts in Islamic law, but rather extremists who present their own interpretations of Islam as the truth.” It is very important that we do not give leeway to any country and analyze each statement they make. This is because often countries think they can twist and turn policies to get out of a tight situation. For example many countries use laws like Responsibility to Protect to justify bombings and violent acts on far off countries. However, Responsibility to Protect does not allow a country to bomb another; rather it states that you can take citizens as refugees in your own country if they have an imminent threat to their life. Furthermore the bombings violate the Principle of distinction and proportionality. Many might say that this is a too hopeful approach. But to them I say without hope life is ceased.
Comments