A civilian is someone who is not in the armed forces or an organised militia. Unlike soldiers, civilians are not engaged in war efforts and therefore enjoy numerous protections under the law of armed conflict. This includes the right not to be targeted by military attacks. The distinction between civilian and soldier is at the core of international humanitarian law. The concept is not only a legal one, however: it also defines the role of citizens in their society. In addition, it determines how the state can engage in foreign policy and how a country interacts with its neighbours.
In the context of peacekeeping operations and other missions involving military engagements, civilians are an important component of the force. They are a vital link to communities, providing them with essential services and creating trust and legitimacy. Civilians also play a significant role in the success of mission outcomes and determining whether a deployment is successful or not.
As civilians face a growing risk of harm in conflict, the question of how to protect them is more pressing than ever. Amid widespread discontent and distrust, governments and international organisations must address the root causes of violence to build a more resilient approach to addressing civilian harm and need.
There is no shortage of tools to prevent and mitigate civilian harm – from legal instruments and policies, to early warning mechanisms, civilian harm tracking and mitigation, and civilian-military dialogues. The challenge is to ensure that they are effectively leveraged, supported and implemented at all levels.
This article is part of a series on tackling the challenges of civilian harm and need in conflict. It forms part of the Beyond Compliance Symposium: How to Prevent Harm and Need in Conflict, which is co-hosted by SIPRI and Article 36.
The definition of who is a civilian in practice has always been a complex issue in times of war and armed conflict. Even after the 1949 Geneva Conventions were adopted, the question of what is a civilian remained unclear and subject to ambiguities. For instance, in practice, most manuals do not make a clear distinction between State armed forces and members of armed opposition groups and fail to consider the consequences of Rule 6 of the Law of Armed Conflict, which states that an individual loses the status of civilian if they participate directly in hostilities.
In the US, there is a growing recognition that the problem of civilian harm and need requires rethinking how the military operates. For example, the Department of Defense has launched a new civil-military coordination office and a congressional caucus to “conduct oversight and advance policies to prevent, reduce, and respond to civilian harm in U.S. and partners’ operations.” In the end, however, the best way to protect civilians is to stop war from happening in the first place. This will require the commitment of all actors – from governments to civilians themselves. In order to do so, they need to better understand the full complexity of civilian harm and need in conflict and develop innovative solutions that go beyond compliance.