HUMAN SHIELD: A BROKEN ARMOUR

One of the most interesting episodes in the Hindu mythology is the death of Bhishma. Gangaputra Bhishma had the gift of choosing the moment of his death. Bhishma could not be killed unless he lowered his bow in battle. He would lower his bow only before a woman but no woman was allowed to enter the battlefield. Thus the idea of using Shikhandi surfaced. Shikhandi was born a woman, raised as a man and later acquired male genitals from a Yaksha. He was taken into battle as Arjuna’s body armour. Bhisma refused to fight him/her. Arjuna took advantage of this and using Shikhandi as a shield, Arjuna shot arrows at Bhishma, piercing his entire body. Finally, Bhishma gave up the fight. May be it was impossible for the Gandibdhaari to kill Bhishma all by himself and thus he used Shikhandi as a HUMAN SHIELD to kill Bhishma.                                                                                                                                                                   This piece from the Mahabharata episode provides us with one of the first account of Human Shield. HUMAN SHIELD:- English dictionary defines it as ‘a person or group of people kept in a particular place in order to stop an enemy from attacking that place’. Human shield has not been defined in International Humanitarian Law, however, the provisions of International Humanitarian Law suggests the definition for the use of human shields as- : “an intentional collocation of military objectives and civilians or persons hors de combat with the specific intent of trying to prevent the targeting of those military objectives.” So we can say that if a group of people are used as a human shield in a battle or war, they are put in a particular place so that the enemy will be unwilling to attack that place and harm them. INTERNATIONAL LAW ON HUMAN SHIELD:- PROTOCOL I OF THE GENEVA CONVENTION: Protocol I  is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the protection of victims of international conflicts.                   The practice of placing civilians in areas to deter attacks on military targets during an international armed conflict is forbidden by Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. It is also a war crime as codified in the Rome Statute, which was adopted in 1998. The language of the Rome Statute prohibits "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas, or military forces immune from military operations." The Fourth Geneva Convention, Additional Protocol I and the Rome Statute that set up the International Criminal Court all prohibit human shields in armed conflicts, and consider their use a war crime.  There are 4 conventions in the GENEVA CONVENTION- The First Convention deals with the protection of wounded and sick soldiers on land during war.                                                                               The Second Convention deals with the protection of wounded, sick and shipwrecked military personnel at sea during war.                                     The Third applies to prisoner of war and the Fourth Geneva Convention is with respect to protected civilians and finally the Additional Protocol I is concerned with civilians in general. International Criminal Court: - “Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations” constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts. However, under the current terms of the Rome Statute the use of human shields is defined as a war crime only in the context of an international armed conflict. After the end of World War II, non-international armed conflicts have become more commonplace. International Committee Of The Red Cross:- The definition and protections given to civilians against being used as human shields have over time been extended to non-international armed conflicts as well. According to the International Committee of the Red Cross, any such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that civilians ought to be protected against the dangers arising from military operations. The Red Cross goes on to say that human shields in non-international conflicts, if they are non-voluntary, would amount to hostage-taking – which is expressly prohibited – and also flouts the principle of distinction, which obliges states to take feasible precautions separating civilians from the military.  It is significant, furthermore, that the use of human shields has often been equated with the taking of hostages, which is prohibited by Additional Protocol II, and by customary international law. PROTOCOL 2 Of The GENEVA CONVENTION:- It defines certain international laws that strive to provide better protection for victims of internal armed conflicts that take place within the borders of a single country. The scope of these laws is more limited than those of the rest of the Geneva Conventions out of respect for sovereign rights and duties of national governments. Historically, international law of armed conflict addressed traditional declarations of war between nations. When the Geneva Conventions were updated in 1949 after the Second World War, delegates sought to define certain minimum humanitarian standards to situations that had all the characteristics of war, without being an international war.               These negotiations resulted in Article 3, common to all four of the basic treaties of the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Common Article 3 applies to armed conflicts that are not of an international character, but that are contained within the boundaries of a single country. It provides limited protection to victims.                                                                     With respect to non-international armed conflicts, Additional Protocol II does not explicitly mention the use of human shields, but such practice would be prohibited by the requirement that “the civilian population and individual civilians shall enjoy general protection against the dangers arising from military operations”.                             As a result, almost all general legal approaches consider human shields illegal both in domestic circumstances and international conflicts. The only space that is somewhat unclear is when civilians volunteer to be human shields, but even there questions have often been raised about how to test whether a civilian was simply coerced into volunteering for a dangerous operation. Several military manuals which apply in non-international armed conflicts prohibit the use of human shields. The legislation of several States criminalizes the use of human shields in non-international armed conflicts. The use of human shields in non-international armed conflicts has been condemned by States and by the United Nations, for example, with respect to the conflicts in Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Somalia, Tajikistan and the former Yugoslavia. HISTORY:- There are several instances when civilians have been used as Human shields with the intention to discourage enemy fire or as a battle strategy. These instances can be traced as far back as the conquests of Genghis khan in the early 13^th century.     Geneva conventions and protocols laid down rules on the treatment of soldiers, civilians, prisoners of war etc. in times of war and armed conflict. Human shields have, however, continued to be used by both state and non-state actors even into the 21^st century. Some of the instances: LTTE and Sri Lankan Army- According to Human Rights Watch, the Tamil Tigers used fleeing civilians as human shields. The Sri Lankan army has also been accused of killing civilians and prisoners. The Lal Masjid- The brothers Abdul Aziz and Abdul Rashid, who had taken over the Lal Masjid in Islamabad used women and children as human shields. The Pakistan Army’s Operation Sunrise lasted a week in July 2007 and ended in killing and capturing of dozen of militants. The Syrian Civil War- The Bashar-al-Assad government and Islamic State have been accused of violating the human rights of civilians and captured combatants in the Syrian Civil War ongoing since 2011. Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have accused the Syrian Army of putting children and the elderly in front, as soldiers marched into towns. Israel- In 2004 Israeli Human Rights activists accused police of tying a 13-year-old Palestinian boy to a vehicle, apparently to stop protestors from throwing stones at it. In February 2007, AP TV released footage of a 24-year-old being used as a human shield by Israeli soldiers. In 1990 and 1991, there was extensive condemnation by States of the use of prisoners of war and civilians by Iraq as human shields, and the United States declared that such use of prisoners and civilians amounted to a war crime. The use of prisoners of war as human shields during the Second World War was the subject of war crimes trials by the UK Military Court at Lüneberg in the Student case in 1946 and by the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in the Von Leeb (The High Command Trial) case in 1948. In the Karadži? and Mladi? case in 1995 before the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the accused were charged with war crimes for using UN peacekeepers as human shields. In its review of the indictments the Tribunal upheld this charge. INDIA- :- Human shields also have some history in India. The government has noted the use of human shields, even children, by Maoist extremists. This has also been backed up by organisations like the United Nations, which noted last year that it continues to receive reports of children being used as shields. Kashmiri militants have also been accused of using human shields and the recent tactic of stone peters preventing militant encounters has been seen as an extension of this. In 2016, Jammu and Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti admitted to seeing human shields being used by the state in the 1990s, a claim that has been levelled in the past but never admitted by senior politicians. Recently a man in the Kashmir valley was tied to the front bumper of a military jeep as it patrolled villages, apparently serving as a human shield against stone-throwing crowds by an Army Major. The incident stirred a huge controversy. A majority of the intellectuals condemned the act of the Indian Army and Army Major Leetul Gogoi in particular. However, the major was appreciated for his presence of mind and his extraordinary ‘out of box’ solution for saving the lives of thousands by the people in general and the media. Later the major was awarded for his presence of mind by the Army chief and it aggravated the controversy. CONCLUSION:- Modern nations operate under the presumption that, in the case of armed conflict, the state must do everything to ensure civilians are not hurt. Human shields, on the other hand, force civilians to face danger, with the aim of reducing the threat to the armed forces. They are almost never voluntary and while they might occasionally work tactically, coercion of civilians into endangering themselves can turn a population against the state.