In military law, a civilian is a person who is not a member of the armed forces.^[1][2][3] In a colloquial context, the term typically refers to anyone who is not only a non-military member, but also not a sworn employee of a law enforcement agency or fire department.^{[4][5][6][7][8][9]}

Under international humanitarian law, a civilian is "an individual who has no direct part in any military action or hostilities, nor belongs to armed forces" in time of war.^[10][11][12] It is slightly different from a non-combatant, as some non-combatants are not civilians (for example, military chaplains and combat medics attached to the belligerent party or military personnel serving with a neutral country). Civilians in the territories of a party to an armed conflict are entitled to certain privileges under the customary laws of war and international treaties such as the Fourth Geneva Convention. The privileges that they enjoy under international law depends on whether the conflict is an internal one (a civil war) or an international one.

Etymology

The word "civilian" goes back to the late 14th century and is from Old French civilien. Civilian is believed to have been used to refer to non-combatants as early as 1829. The term "non-combatant" now refers to people in general who are not taking part of hostilities in time of war, rather than just civilians.^[13]

Colloquial usage

In colloquial usage, the term is widely used to distinguish non-military law enforcement officers and firefighters from support staff or the general public.^[4][5][6][7] This distinction is made because they are paramilitary personnel with training, command and control structure, rank, tactics, subculture, and devotion to public security functioning similar to the military.^[14][15][16] Regardless, such members are not military personnel and are bound by municipal civil and criminal law to the same extent as members of the public.

In the United Kingdom, Australia and New Zealand the term "civilian staff" can refer to police employees who are not warranted constables.^{[citation needed]}

In the U.S., "Civilian oversight" or "Citizen oversight" is used to distinguish external committees (typically monitoring police conduct on behalf of civil administrations and taxpayers) from the internal management structure.

Legal usage in war

The International Committee of the Red Cross 1958 Commentary on 1949 Geneva Convention IV Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War states: "Every person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. There is no intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view."^[17] The ICRC has expressed the opinion that "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action."^[18]

Article 50 of the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions provides:^[12]

• 1. A civilian is any person who does not belong to one of the categories of persons referred to in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of this Protocol. In case of doubt whether a person is a civilian, that person shall be considered to be a civilian.
• 2. The civilian population comprises all persons who are civilians.
• 3. The presence within the civilian population of individuals who do not come within the definition of civilians does not deprive the population of its civilian character.

The definition is negative and defines civilians as persons who do not belong to definite categories. The categories of persons mentioned in Article 4A(1), (2), (3) and (6) of the Third Convention and in Article 43 of the Protocol I are combatants. Therefore, the Commentary to the Protocol pointed that anyone who is not a member of the armed forces and does not take part of hostilities in time of war is a civilian. Civilians cannot take part in armed conflict. Civilians are given protection under the Geneva Conventions and Protocols thereto. Article 51 describes the protection that must be given to the civilian population and individual civilians.

Chapter III of Protocol I regulates the targeting of civilian objects. Article 8(2)(b)(i) of the 1998 Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court also includes this in its list of war crimes: "Intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population as such or against individual civilians not taking part in hostilities". Not all states have ratified 1977 Protocol I or the 1998 Rome Statute, but it is an accepted principle of international humanitarian law that the direct targeting of civilians is a breach of the customary laws of war and is binding on all belligerents.

Civilians in modern conflicts

The actual position of the civilian in modern war remains problematic.^[19] It is complicated by a number of phenomena, including:

• the fact that many modern wars are essentially civil wars, in which the application of the laws of war is often difficult, and in which the distinction between combatants and civilians is particularly hard to maintain;
• guerrilla warfare and terrorism, both of which tend to involve combatants assuming the appearance of civilians;
• the growth of doctrines of "effects-based war", under which there is less focus on attacking enemy combatants than on undermining the enemy regime's sources of power, which may include apparently civilian objects such as electrical power stations;
• the use of "lawfare", a term that refers to attempts to discredit the enemy by making its forces appear to be in violation of the laws of war, for example by attacking civilians who had been deliberately used as human shields;
• the term becomes ambiguous in societies that use widespread conscription, or otherwise "militarized societies," in which most adults have military training. This has been discussed with reference to the Israeli–Palestinian conflict.^[20]

Starting in the 1980s, it was often claimed that 90 percent of the victims of modern wars were civilians.^{[21][22][23][24]} These claims, though widely believed, are not supported by detailed examination of the evidence, particularly that relating to wars (such as those in former Yugoslavia and in Afghanistan) that are central to the claims.^[25]

In the opening years of the 21st century, despite the many problems associated with it, the legal category of the civilian has been the subject of considerable attention in public discourse, in the media and at the United Nations, and in justification of certain uses of armed force to protect endangered populations. It has "lost none of its political, legal and moral salience."^[26]

Although it is often assumed that civilians are essentially passive onlookers of war, sometimes they have active roles in conflicts. These may be quasi-military, as when in November 1975 the Moroccan government organized the "green march" of civilians to cross the border into the former Spanish colony of Western Sahara to claim the territory for Morocco - all at the same time as Moroccan forces entered the territory clandestinely.^[27] In addition, and without necessarily calling into question their status as non-combatants, civilians sometimes take part in campaigns of nonviolent civil resistance as a means of opposing dictatorial rule or foreign occupation: sometimes such campaigns happen at the same time as armed conflicts or guerrilla insurrections, but they are usually distinct from them as regards both their organization and participation.^[28]

Officials directly involved in the maiming of civilians are conducting offensive combat operations and do not qualify as civilians.

Civilian protection under international humanitarian law (IHL)

International humanitarian law (IHL) codifies treaties and conventions, signed and enforced by participating states, which serve to protect civilians during intra and interstate conflict. Even for non-treaty participants, it is customary for international law to still apply.^[29] Additionally, IHL adheres to the principles of distinction, proportionality, and necessity; which apply to the protection of civilians in armed conflict.^[29] Although, despite the UN deploying military forces to protect civilians, it lacks formal policies or military manuals addressing exactly these efforts.^[30] The UN Security Council Report No 4: Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict provides further evidence of the need for protection of civilians. Recognizing that large-scale civilian insecurity threatens international peace and stability, the UN aims to establish the means of protecting civilians and thereby work to ensure regional stability.^[31] Through the UN Security Council Report No 4, first published in 2008, the UN offers ways to support civilian protections in both intra and interstate conflict with a goal of encouraging regional states to police their own conflicts (such as the African Union policing African conflicts).^[31] Similarly, the UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan reminded UN Member states that they have common interests in protecting African civilians through a shared “commitments to human security, and its rationale of indivisibility of peace and security.”^[32]

Through a series of resolutions (1265, 1296, 1502, 1674, & 1738) and presidential statements the UN Security Council “addresses:

• compliance with international humanitarian law and relevant human rights law, accountability for violations and humanitarian access;
• the role of UN peacekeeping operations or other UN-mandated missions;
• protection of specific groups;
• the impact of small arms; and
• regional cooperation.

The Security Council is now involved in the protection of civilians in five main areas of action.

• It reinforces general norms—in particular the rules of international humanitarian law.
• It uses its Chapter VII powers to mandate either UN peacekeeping missions or regional organizations or groups of member states to take measures including the use of force to protect civilians.
• It can develop middle ground using its Chapter V, VI and VIII powers to influence parties to conflict in country-specific situations to observe protection norms.
• It uses its Chapter VI powers to try to prevent or limit the outbreak of armed conflict through mediation and other initiatives.
• Finally, the Council can hold parties accountable for violations of international humanitarian law by imposing targeted measures, establishing commissions of inquiry, authorizing ad hoc tribunals or referring situations to the International Criminal Court (ICC).”^[33]

In response to Presidential statements and previous subcommittee work, the UN Security Council held a meeting in January 2009, specifically to address the protection of civilians within the context of the IHL.^[33] While no specific outcome followed this meeting, it did lead to the production of a 10-year assessment of Council actions since the passing of resolution 1265 in 1999.^[33]

In addition to the UN treaties, regional treaties have also been established, such as the African Union Constitutive Act Article 4(h) which also outlines the protection of civilians and “affords the Union a right to forcibly intervene in one of its member states in ‘grave circumstances’, namely war crimes, genocide and crimes against humanity.”^[34] This is proposed to indicate the African Union will no longer stand by to watch atrocities happen within the Union. As described by Said Djinnit (AU’s Commissioner for Peace and Security) in 2004, “Africans cannot [...] watch the tragedies developing in the continent and say it is the UN’s responsibility or somebody else’s responsibility. We have moved from the concept of non-interference to non-indifference. We cannot, as Africans, remain indifferent to the tragedy of our people”^[35] (IRIN News 2004). Although Article 4(h), while drafted, has not been activated, which raises the question of the AU's willingness to intervene in situations of “grave circumstance.”^[36]

Regardless of the lead organization (UN, AU, other) “there is clearly a risk involved for international organizations that in assuming a complicated security role such as civilian protection, they may raise expectations among local populations that cannot be met, usually not even by large-scale peace operations with a comprehensive political component, supported by high force levels, overall professionalism, and the political stamina to stay present long-term. The disappointing outcomes, in Africa and elsewhere, have led some to criticize the way in which the decentralization policies have been implemented (MacFarlane and Weiss 1992; Berman 1998; Boulden 2003).”^[37]

See also

• Privatus

References

Further reading

• Helen M. Kinsella. The Image Before the Weapon: A Critical History of the Distinction Between Combatant and Civilian (Cornell University Press; 2011) 264 pages; explores ambiguities and inconsistencies in the principle since its earliest formulation; discusses how the world wars and the Algerian war of independence shaped the issue.

External links

• US DoD definition of the term Civilian, refers to civilian law enforcement agencies
• [2]