targets of these attacks. An example of this happening occurred in 1972 when three taxi drivers in a republican area were shot by a soldier, who was later charged (and eventually acquitted) for the killings. 88 This highlights a problem with the principle of distinction; although states have taken precautions to enforce the principle of distinction during combat, such as in the UK Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, states have been known not to follow the principle and deploy troops in such a way that they cannot be distinguished from non-combatants. As shown from the various examples, the intentional harm of civilians can be permitted. Often, in these examples, the decision to target civilians fits the just war doctrine, as the harm or deaths of civilians can be seen as the lesser of two evils or the deaths of civilians are an unfortunate, but necessary side effect of a military operation and that all other options have been explored and all necessary precautions have been taken to avoid civilian casualties. However, this doctrine has been criticised by those who believe the intentional harm of civilians is impermissible due to the existence of the principle of distinction. Despite its existence in multiple documents, both in the international legal community and amongst state laws, civilian casualties are still prevalent. This can be attributed to how wars have been fought in recent history: groups use tactics that render failure in distinguishing themselves from civilians and tactics that place civilians in direct harm for unjust reasons and cannot be justified under the doctrine of double effect or just war theory. To this extent the deliberate harming of civilians can be permitted during war, as long as the decision to target and potentially harm civilians is morally
88 Rolston, 2005.
47
Made with FlippingBook HTML5