Israel attacks Hezbollah’s financial structure. A military target under international humanitarian law?
Gaza, Syria, Iran, Lebanon: Israel must wage a multi-front war to defend itself against attacks on its territory and its people. In September, Israel’s army attacked Hezbollah targets in Lebanon as part of Operation Northern Arrows. In recent days, a targeted offensive has been launched against Hezbollah’s financial infrastructure, including against the Al-Qard al-Hasan organization. These attacks are part of a strategy to weaken the military and financial capacity of the Shiite militia.
The attack on Hezbollah in Lebanon appears to be a non-international armed conflict. However, there are indicators that there is an international armed conflict between Israel and Lebanon, as Lebanese soldiers and civilians have died and civilian infrastructure has been destroyed. Prime Minister Najib Mikati has already called on the members of the UN Security Council to act and officially protested against military activities on Lebanese territory.
Customary international law
The Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949 and their additional protocols of June 8, 1977 are considered an essential component of international humanitarian law. Israel has not signed either the First or Second Additional Protocols. Furthermore, the country is not a party to the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel or the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. Nevertheless, customary international law applies in many areas of warfare, which applies independently of treaty law.
The principle of distinction, recognized as customary international law in international and non-international armed conflicts, stipulates that the parties to the conflict must always distinguish between military and civilian objects. The attacks must not cause excessive damage to the civilian population; acts of war must only be directed against military targets. This refers to objects that, due to their nature, location, purpose or use, contribute effectively to military actions and whose destruction, seizure or neutralization represents a clear military advantage under the given circumstances. The term “dual use object” is also used in this context, e.g. B. an airport used for civil and military purposes.
The US and Israel also consider “war-sustaining” objects to be military targets. This includes Hezbollah’s financial structure. This broad interpretation is rejected by many international law experts. The USA and Israel regularly express that they do not recognize these rules of customary international law and refer to the “persistent objector doctrine”. The “stubborn objector” rule provides a mechanism by which states can preemptively free themselves from emerging norms of customary international law.
Weakening the enemy’s economy or financial system cannot be considered a legitimate military objective. Regardless of the aggression to which Israel is exposed, the provisions of international humanitarian law should be observed within the framework of military warfare. But who will take care of that?
Markus Bernhart (*1974) teaches international humanitarian law at the University of Applied Military Sciences in Wr. Neustadt.
E-Mails an:
