Law of War Handbook 2005

a.  One exception: occupation. The desire of sovereigns to minimize

disruption to the economic interests with occupied territories mandated

a body of law directly on point. This is why an "occupation prong" to the

law of war emerges as early as 1907.

2. Post World War 11: Recognition that war is now "total." Nations treat enemy
   populations as legitimate targets because they support the war effort.

a.  Commenting on the degeneration of conflict which culminated with

World War 11, one scholar noted:

"After 1914, however, a new retrogressive movement set in which

reached its present climax in the terrible conduct of the second World

War, threatening a new 'advance to barbarism.' We have arrived where

we started, in the sixteenth century, at the threat of total, lawless war,

but this time with weapons which may ruin all human civilization, and

even threaten the survival of mankind on this planet."'

3. The intemational response to the suffering caused by World War I1 is the
   development of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, each of which is
   devoted to protecting a certain category of non-combatants. Although the
   1949 Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Civilians Persons in
   Time of War (GC) is the first "stand alone" document exclusively dedicated
   to the protection of civilians, there are obvious gaps in protections for
   civilians which suggests the victors were not inclined to condemn their own
   conduct in World War 11:

a.  The characterization of Allied targeting of civilian population centers as

legitimate reprisal actions;

b. Providing virtually no protection for civilians who have not fallen ~mder

enemy control.

4. The "Gap Filler." In 1977, two treaties were promulgated to supplement the
   four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Protocols I & I1 to the Geneva
   Conventions of 1949 were intended to fill the gaps left by the Conventions.
   Protocol I for intemational armed conflict and Protocol I1 for internal armed
   conflict. The need for a more comprehensive civilian protection regime was
   highlighted in the official commentary to the Protocols:

' Josef L. Kunz, THE LAWSOF WAR, 50 Am J Int % L 3 13 (1950).

140
C11(1(7/~~ 6
( 1 I l//Lltl~