Analyzing the Israeli Pager Attack on Hezbollah Using Law of Armed Conflict Principles Commentary
IDF Spokesperson's Unit, CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons
Analyzing the Israeli Pager Attack on Hezbollah Using Law of Armed Conflict Principles
Edited by: JURIST Staff
The author, founding chief prosecutor for the UN Special Court for Sierra Leone, examines whether Israel's exploding pager attack on Hezbollah complied with the law of armed conflict and finds that it met most requirements of legality...

When analyzing an Israeli attack on Hezbollah using the principles of the law of armed conflict (LOAC)—specifically military necessity, proportionality, discrimination, and unnecessary suffering—it is critical to break down each principle and apply it to the given scenario. This analysis assumes that the attack involved the use of pagers and electronic detonation, targeting Hezbollah as a legitimate military objective. Importantly, this discussion is not related to any conflicts in Gaza, focusing solely on Hezbollah.

1. Military Necessity

Military necessity is a principle that permits the use of force only to the extent necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective, provided that it is not prohibited by LOAC. Hezbollah, a militant organization that poses a direct threat to Israel, is widely recognized as a legitimate military target. If the attack was designed to neutralize Hezbollah combatants, leadership, or military infrastructure, then the use of pagers and electronic detonation to execute a targeted strike would be justified under military necessity.

The fact that Hezbollah is a designated terrorist organization with a military capacity, which routinely engages in hostilities against Israel, strengthens the justification for military necessity. The attack aimed to degrade Hezbollah’s operational capacity, thereby serving a clear military purpose.

2. Proportionality

The proportionality principle under LOAC dictates that the harm caused to civilians or civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage gained from the attack. In this case, while some civilian casualties occurred, the proportionality assessment would depend on whether the military advantage of striking Hezbollah outweighed the unintended harm to civilians.

Given that Hezbollah operates in civilian-populated areas, it is foreseeable that civilian casualties might occur, despite precautions taken to minimize them. If the civilian casualties were indeed incidental and not disproportionate to the military gain of neutralizing a Hezbollah target, the attack would comply with the principle of proportionality.

3. Discrimination (or Distinction)

The principle of discrimination (or distinction) requires parties to an armed conflict to distinguish between combatants and civilians as well as military objectives and civilian objects. A violation of this principle could occur if civilians were intentionally targeted or if insufficient precautions were taken to avoid civilian harm.

In the scenario involving the use of pagers and electronic detonation, the key question is whether the attack was sufficiently precise to target Hezbollah militants or infrastructure while sparing civilians. If the electronic detonation method was capable of isolating the specific Hezbollah targets and the civilian casualties were a result of Hezbollah’s proximity to civilians (and not deliberate targeting), then the attack may still be consistent with LOAC. However, if the method used was incapable of distinguishing between civilians and combatants, a violation of the principle of discrimination could be argued.

It is crucial to note that Hezbollah’s known tactics of embedding themselves in civilian areas can complicate discrimination, but the principle still requires that all feasible measures be taken to minimize civilian harm.

4. Unnecessary Suffering

Unnecessary suffering is a principle that prohibits the use of means and methods of warfare that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to combatants. This principle typically applies to the types of weapons used. In this case, the use of pagers and electronic detonation devices does not, in itself, appear to cause unnecessary suffering. These are relatively precise means of attack, and as long as they were used to target legitimate military objectives and did not cause suffering beyond what was necessary to achieve the military objective, this principle would not be violated.

5. Collateral Damage

Collateral damage refers to unintended harm to civilians or civilian objects that occurs as a result of military operations. In the context of this attack, civilian casualties are presumed to have been incidental and not deliberately targeted. If the attack was directed at Hezbollah with the intent to limit civilian harm, then these casualties would be classified as collateral damage.

LOAC allows for collateral damage, provided it is not excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated. Here, the proportionality principle is key—if the military gain from eliminating a Hezbollah target is deemed significant, and the civilian harm was minimized to the greatest extent possible, the collateral damage would likely be considered permissible under LOAC.

Conclusion: The Principle of Discrimination

The only potential LOAC violation in this scenario could arguably be related to the principle of discrimination.  If the means and methods employed were not precise enough to target Hezbollah while avoiding civilians, or if inadequate precautions were taken, then a case could be made that Israel violated this principle. However, if precautions were taken, and the civilian casualties were unintended, the attack would likely be considered lawful under LOAC.

An attack on Hezbollah using pagers and electronic detonation methods would generally comply with the principles of military necessity, proportionality, and unnecessary suffering, while the question of discrimination depends on the specifics of the targeting process and efforts to minimize civilian harm. Collateral damage, although regrettable, would be lawful if the civilian casualties were incidental and not excessive compared to the military advantage gained.

Opinions expressed in JURIST Commentary are the sole responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of JURIST's editors, staff, donors or the University of Pittsburgh.
THIS DAY @ LAW

Nixon nominated Harrold Carswell to the US Supreme Court

On January 19, 1970, President Richard Nixon nominated Judge G. Harrold Carswell of the US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals to the US Supreme Court. The nomination became intensely controversial after a reporter discovered the text of a 1948 political campaign speech by Carswell in which he said "segregation of the races is proper." The Senate eventually rejected the nomination 51-45. ------------------- Afterword In November 2004, a JURIST reader wrote with regard to this entry: You are factually correct. The speech is accurately quoted. But the most significant part of it wasn't that quote -- which, after all, reflected the law of the land through Brown v. Board of Education. The most significant part was Carswell's avowal of his "firm, vigorous belief in the principles of white supremacy." I recall this because I was the reporter who discovered the speech, in the basement of the Wilkinson County courthouse in Georgia, where it was preserved as lead story in The Irwinton Bulletin, a weekly Carswell edited, which was kept because it was the legal paper of record." Edward Roeder later added: "just to ensure the accuracy of my quote from the speech -- including capitalization and punctuation -- let me check it. At the moment, I'm at the Library of Congress, a couple of blocks from my home where I have a photograph I took of the speech as printed in 1948 in the weekly newspaper. Another great quote spawned by that confirmation battle was by Sen. Judiciary Committee Ranking Republican Roman Hruska, in response to the charge that Carswell was "mediocre." Hruska famously told the cameras staked outside the hearing room: "Even if he was mediocre, there are a lot of mediocre judges and people and lawyers . . . They are entitled to a little representation, aren't they, and a little chance? We can't have all Brandeises and Cardozos and Frankfurters and stuff like that there." One other aspect of that nomination might be worth noting. After Carswell's defeat, the seat went to Harry Blackmun. A year and a half later, he wrote Roe v. Wade," probably the most controversial and far-reaching SCOTUS decision since Brown."And finally:I found and reviewed my photo of Carswell's 1948 speech. First, it may be helpful to provide a bit of context for the part you quoted. The graf read, "I Am A Southerner By Ancestry, Birth, Training, Inclination, Belief And Practice. I Believe That Segregation Of The Races is Proper And The ONLY Practical And Correct Way Of Life In Our States." The first letter of each word is capitalized, the the word ONLY is in all caps. The "white supremacy" quote, two grafs later, is as strident: "I Yield To NO MAN, As A Fellow Candidate, Or As A Fellow Citizen, In The Firm Vigirous Belief In The Principles Of White Supremacy, And I Shall Always Be So Governed." Again, the first letter of each word is capitalized, and NO MAN is in all caps. "Vigorous" is misspelled in the newspaper. JURIST thanks Mr. Roeder for sharing his recollections - and his role in a fascinating snippet of Supreme Court history.

Tribunal established for Japan war criminals

On January 19, 1946, General Douglas MacArthur promulgated the Charter for the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, creating a court in Tokyo to try Japanese war criminals after World War II. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Charter, the Court's Rules of Procedure were set three months later. The judges and prosecutors represented the allied nations of the United States, the USSR, China, the Netherlands, Canada, France, New Zealand, Australia, the United Kingdom, the Philippines, and India. Article 6 of the Charter divided the accused War Criminals into three classes. Class A war criminals were those guilty of crimes against peace. Class B war criminals were those found guilty of actual war crimes. The highest-level war criminals fell into Class C for crimes against humanity. Court prosecutors indicted over 5,700 people in Japan for Class B and C War Crimes. When the tribunal's final judgment was issued two years later on November 1, 1948, 984 of the defendants were convicted and sentenced to death. 475 of them were convicted and sentenced to life in prison, while 2,944 received lesser prison terms. Finally, 1,297 Japanese defendants were either acquitted, not tried, or not sentenced. Many Japanese defendants were indicted for their actions during the occupation of China. Read the indictment of Class A war criminals involved in the Rape of Nanking.

American Civil Liberties Union founded

The American Civil Liberties Union was founded on January 19, 1920 by a group of civil rights activists and lawyers. The group's founders included Helen Keller, labor activist Elizabeth Gurley-Flynn and future Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. The organization would be involved in the Scopes Monkey Trial and the landmark Supreme Court decision Brown v. Board of Education. Learn more about the history of the American Civil Liberties Union.