Practice Relating to Rule 11. Indiscriminate Attacks

Additional Protocol I
Article 51(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 41(4). Article 51 was adopted by 77 votes in favour, one against and 16 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 163.
Additional Protocol I
According to Article 85(3)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, it is a grave breach of the Protocol to launch “an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects as defined in Article 57, paragraph 2 a) iii)”. 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 85(3)(b). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.
Additional Protocol II (draft)
Article 26(3) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided: “The employment of means of combat, and any methods which strike or affect indiscriminately the civilian population and combatants, or civilian objects and military objectives, are prohibited.” 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 40.
This provision was adopted in Committee III of the CDDH by 29 votes in favour, 15 against and 16 abstentions, while Article 26 as a whole was adopted by 44 votes in favour, none against and 22 abstentions. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.37, 4 April 1975, pp. 390 and 391, §§ 14 and 15.
Eventually, however, the proposal to retain this paragraph was rejected in the plenary by 30 votes in favour, 25 against and 34 abstentions. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 134.
Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 3(3) of the 1980 Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “The indiscriminate use of [mines, booby-traps and other devices] is prohibited.” 
Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 10 October 1980, Article 3(3).
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 3(8) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “The indiscriminate use of [mines, booby-traps and other devices] is prohibited.” 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 3(8).
ILA Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War
Articles 3 and 5(2) of the 1938 ILA Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War provides:
The bombardment by whatever means of towns, ports, villages or buildings which are defended is prohibited at any time (whether at night or day) when objects of military character cannot be clearly recognized.
In cases where the [military] objectives above specified are so situated that they cannot be bombarded without the indiscriminate bombardment of the civilian population, the aircraft must abstain from bombardment. 
Draft Convention for the Protection of Civilian Populations against New Engines of War, adopted by the International Law Association, Fortieth Conference, Amsterdam, 29 August–2 September 1938, Articles 3 and 5(2).
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 51(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 6
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 2.5 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 51(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 2.5.
San Remo Manual
Paragraph 42 of the 1994 San Remo Manual states: “[I]t is forbidden to employ methods or means of warfare which: … b) are indiscriminate”. 
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, § 42.
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Pursuant to Article 20(b)(ii) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[l]aunching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects” is a war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(b)(ii).
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines
Article 2(4) of Part III of the 1998 Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and IHL in the Philippines provides that the Agreement seeks to protect the right to life, especially from “indiscriminate bombardments of communities”. 
Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law between the Government of the Republic of the Philippines and the National Democratic Front of the Philippines, The Hague, 16 March 1998, Part III, Article 2(4).
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 5.5 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin states: “The United Nations force is prohibited from launching operations of a nature likely to strike military objectives and civilians in an indiscriminate manner.” 
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 5.5.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that it is a grave breach to intentionally launch an indiscriminate attack causing death or serious injury to body or health. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.03.
The manual also provides: “The prohibition of attacking civilian persons and civilian objects comprises all acts of violence, whether offensive or defensive. Indiscriminate attacks are included in such prohibition.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 4.03.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) and Defence Force Manual (1994) cite “launching indiscriminate attacks that affect the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause extensive and disproportionate loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects” as an example of acts which constitute “grave breaches or serious war crimes likely to warrant institution of criminal proceedings”. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1305(h); Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1315(h).
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides:
An extension of the general rule for the protection given to civilians is that indiscriminate attacks, that is, attacks not directed at military targets but likely to strike at both military and civilian targets without distinction, are forbidden. 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 921.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 955(d).
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
An extension of the general rule for the protection given to civilians is that indiscriminate attacks, that is, attacks not directed at military targets but likely to strike at both military and civilian targets without distinction, are forbidden. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 9.22; see also §§ 5.21 and 6.26.
The manual further states:
[The 1977 Additional Protocol I] extends the definition of grave breaches to include the following … acts when committed wilfully, in violation of the relevant provisions of the protocol, and causing death or serious injury to body or health:
- launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.26.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) provides: “Indiscriminate attacks are forbidden.” 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983., p. 27.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) provides that it is prohibited “to conduct indiscriminate attacks”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 13.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population and on civilian objects” constitute “grave breaches” of IHL. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 68; see also Part I bis, pp. 45 and 115.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) prohibits “blind bombardment”. 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, pp. 113 and 149.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states regarding the protection of populations outside the combat zone: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 230, § 542.
The manual also states that “an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects, knowing that this attack will cause excessive civilian losses and damage” constitutes a grave breach of IHL. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, pp. 295–296, § 661.
The manual further states: “Blind bombardments are formally prohibited just like any other disproportionate attack.” 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 59, § 251; see also p. 85, § 341, p. 230, § 542 and p. 259, § 614.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive collateral civilian damage” constitutes a grave breach. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16–3, § 16(b).
The manual also provides: “Indiscriminate attacks are those that may strike legitimate targets and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. They are prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-3, § 22, see also p. 6-3, § 28, p. 7-5, § 48 and p. 8-5, § 38.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on targeting: “Indiscriminate attacks are those that may strike legitimate targets and civilians or civilian objects without distinction. They are prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 416.1.
In its chapter on land warfare, the manual states: “The bombardment of any legitimate target must not be ‘indiscriminate.’” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 613.1.
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual states: “Indiscriminate attacks, as defined in Chapter 4 (Targeting), are prohibited.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 716.4.
In its chapter on naval warfare, the manual states:
1. The bombardment of any legitimate target must not be “indiscriminate”. It is prohibited to carry out an attack by bombardment by any means (such as aircraft, naval fire and missiles) that treats as a single legitimate target a number of clearly separated and distinct legitimate targets in an urban area or an area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects.
2. This prohibition applies to shore bombardments by naval forces. In this respect, “shore bombardments” include bombardments from both ships and aircraft. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 827.1–2.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual further states that “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive collateral civilian damage” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.b.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police): “The following prohibitions must be respected: … carrying out indiscriminate attacks.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter III, Section 1.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that launching “indiscriminate attacks” is prohibited and to do so is a war crime. 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 78; see also p. 108.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction):
I. Grave violations
They are enumerated by the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols, as well as by the Ivorian Penal Code.
They are:
- indiscriminate attacks. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 29.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides: “Indiscriminate attacks are those which can strike legitimate objectives as well as civilians and civilian objects without distinction. They are prohibited.” 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 28; see also p. 50.
Ecuador
According to Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989), “the indiscriminate destruction of cities, towns and villages” is a war crime. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.5.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “The law of armed conflicts prohibits … methods of warfare resorting to … indiscriminate attacks.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 85.
Germany
Germany’s Soldier’s Manual (1991) states that it is prohibited to use means or methods of warfare which are intended or of a nature “to harm military objectives and civilians or civilians objects without distinction”. 
Germany, Taschenkarte, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Bearbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, Zentrum Innere Führung, June 1991, p. 5
Germany
Under Germany’s Military Manual (1992), it is prohibited
to employ means or methods which are intended or of a nature … to injure military objectives, civilians, or civilian objects without distinction. The prohibition of indiscriminate warfare implies that the civilian population as such as well as individual civilians shall not be the object of attack and that they shall be spared as far as possible. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 401 and 404.
The manual provides that grave breaches of IHL are in particular “launching an indiscriminate attack in the knowledge that such attack will have adverse effects on civilian life and civilian objects”. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 1209.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
Combat operations may only be directed against the armed forces of the enemy and other military objectives, not however against the civilian population or civilian objects. Indiscriminate attacks are therefore prohibited. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 3.
India
India’s Police Manual (1986) prohibits the use of indiscriminate force against civilian rioters and demonstrators. 
India, Police Manual for Handling Civil Disturbances, Home Ministry, Government of Maharashtra, Bombay, 1986, pp. 36 and 101.
India
India’s Army Training Note (1995) orders troops to “avoid indiscriminate firing”. 
India, Army Training Note, Chief of Staff, Army Training Command, Ministry of Defence, Government of India, 1995, p. 4/24, § 17.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Military Manual (1982) prohibits indiscriminate attacks. 
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law, Legal Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, 1982, § 109.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states:
The prohibition of attacks on civilians and civilian property includes … attacks launched indiscriminately. This includes attacks which may be expected to cause incidental civilian losses and damage excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 10.
The manual notes that “launching an indiscriminate attack” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Ireland, Basic Guide to the Law of Armed Conflict, TP/TRG/01-2005, Director of Defence Forces Training, Department of Defence, July 2005, p. 12.
Israel
With reference to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states: “The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] does not engage in indiscriminate attacks.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 1.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, pp. 4–5.
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states that “indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects” are war crimes. 
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 85.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides that it is forbidden “to carry out indiscriminate attacks”. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 3.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. V-4.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0514.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual also states: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1043.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 517.
The manual also states that “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects” constitutes a grave breach. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1703(3).
Nigeria
The Report on the Practice of Nigeria interprets the prohibition of malicious destruction of property, buildings, churches and mosques provided for in Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) as a prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. 
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 1.4, referring to Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, §§ f–g.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to carry out indiscriminate attacks or attacks that could have excessive effects or cause unnecessary suffering.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 29.h.
The manual further states: “Missiles and projectiles, including those with over-the-horizon capabilities, shall be used in conformity with the principles of target discrimination, distinguishing between protected persons and objects and military objectives.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 133.a.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “Indiscriminate attacks or attacks that could have disproportionate effects or cause unnecessary suffering are prohibited.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 30(h), p. 243.
The manual also states: “Missiles and projectiles, including those with over-the-horizon capabilities, shall be used in conformity with the principles of distinction between protected persons and objects and military objectives.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 124(a), p. 316.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) prohibits “the launching of an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian persons in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects”. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 8(g).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “It is … prohibited to launch indiscriminate attacks while conducting combat operations.” 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 54; see also § 7 (prohibited methods of warfare).
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Attacks which do not discriminate between military and civilian targets are forbidden.” 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 28(f).
The manual also provides that “launching an indiscriminate attack which affects the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause loss of life, injury to civilians and damage to certain civilian objects” is a grave breach. 
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 37(b).
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “Attacks which do not discriminate between military and civilian targets are forbidden.” 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 50(f).
The manual also provides that an “[i]ndiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such an attack will cause excessive civilian casualties and damage” is a grave breach of the law of armed conflict and a war crime. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 57.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
[Indiscriminate military objectives] are those in which military objectives and civilians and civilian goods are combined in such a way that the attack would cause civilian damages that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage expected from the attack. The following are indiscriminate attacks and therefore forbidden: … 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 4.4.c.
The manual also provides that “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects which would be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated” constitutes a grave breach. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 11.8.b.(1).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
[Illegitimate military objectives] are targets in which the military objective is not clearly separated from civilians and civilian property. An attack on such targets would cause civilian casualties and damage that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the operation. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 4.4.c.
The manual further states that “it is prohibited to carry out indiscriminate attacks which make no distinction between military objectives and protected persons and objects”. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 7.3.b.(1).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:
Indiscriminate attacks
The inhuman effect on civilian populations has proved to be particularly great in attacks with a surface-covering effect directed against an area containing separate military targets among the civilian population and civilian objects. Because of their mode of operations, such attacks are termed indiscriminate attacks, meaning that the effects of the weapons strike military targets, civilian persons and civilian objects without discrimination. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 45.
Switzerland
According to Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987), the following constitutes a grave breach:
An attack which is launched without making any distinction [between civilians and civilian objects on the one hand and military objectives on the other hand] and which may affect the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that the attack will cause loss of human life, injuries to civilians and damage to civilian objects which would be excessive in the sense of Article 57(2)(a)(iii) [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 193(1)(b).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states: “Indiscriminate attacks, i.e. attacks which cannot distinguish between protected persons/objects and military objectives, … are prohibited in any place and at any time.” 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 225.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) provides that it is prohibited “to conduct indiscriminate attacks”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 12-13.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
1.8.5. Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include … launching attacks of an indiscriminate character in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects.
2.3.5.1. During combat in an urban environment … [s]pecial attention shall be paid to the prevention of targeting the civilian population and indiscriminate attacks. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.8.5 and 2.3.5.1; see also § 2.4.3.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides that it is forbidden “to carry out indiscriminate attacks.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 15, § 5(j).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.26; see also § 5.23 (conduct of hostilities), § 12.22 (air operations), § 13.28 (maritime warfare) and § 16.25 (enforcement of the law of armed conflict).
With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual states:
15.15. Attacks that are not directed against military targets are prohibited.
15.15.1. There is no specific rule on indiscriminate attacks under customary law but the principle of distinction prohibits attacks that are not aimed at a specific target. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 15.15–15.15.1.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states: “Particular weapons or methods of warfare may be prohibited because of their indiscriminate effects.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 6-3(c).
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “The principle of distinction, combined with the principle of military necessity, prohibits indiscriminate attacks.”  
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 5.3.2.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
Although the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) does not expressly refer to the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, the Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia finds that a similar norm may be derived from the fundamental principle restricting the parties’ right to choose means and methods of warfare. 
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 1.4, referring to Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 65.
Armenia
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), launching, during an armed conflict, an “indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause loss of life to civilians or damage to civilian objects excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind. 
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 390.3(2).
Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1991, provides that “a person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence”. 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act as amended, 1957, Section 7(1).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act (1995).
Australia
Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with respect to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:
268.38 War crimeexcessive incidental death, injury or damage
(1) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator launches an attack; and
(b) the perpetrator knows that the attack will cause incidental death or injury to civilians; and
(c) the perpetrator knows that the death or injury will be of such an extent as to be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty: Imprisonment for life.
(2) A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:
(a) the perpetrator launches an attack; and
(b) the perpetrator knows that the attack will cause:
(i) damage to civilian objects; or
(ii) widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment; and
(c) the perpetrator knows that the damage will be of such an extent as to be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated; and
(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.
Penalty for a contravention of this subsection: Imprisonment for 20 years. 
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.38, pp. 327–328.
Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that it is a war crime to “use means and methods of warfare which … strike indiscriminately” and to “launch an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects”. 
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(1) and (11).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1993), as amended in 1999, provides that it is a crime under international law to launch
an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause loss of human life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, without prejudice to the criminal nature of an attack whose harmful effects, even where proportionate to the military advantage anticipated, would be inconsistent with the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience. 
Belgium, Law concerning the Repression of Grave Breaches of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols as amended, 1993, Article 1(3)(12).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998) provides that it is a war crime to order “an indiscriminate attack without selecting a target, causing injury to the civilian population” or order “that civilian objects which are under specific protection of international law, non-defended localities and demilitarized zones be indiscriminately targeted” or carry out such attacks. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 154(1) and (2).
The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provisions. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 433(1) and (2).
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states that, in time of war, armed conflict or occupation, ordering or committing an “[a]ttack without selecting a target, by which the civilian population is harmed”, in violation of international law, constitutes a war crime. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 173(1)(b); see also Article 173(2)(b).
Canada
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides that “every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence”. 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
China
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “indiscriminate destruction of property” constitutes a war crime. 
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(27).
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000) imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, carries out or orders the carrying out of indiscriminate attacks”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 144.
Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997) provides that it is a war crime to launch or order the launching of “an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population, causing loss of civilian life” or “an indiscriminate attack affecting civilian objects under special protection of international law, as well as non-defended localities and demilitarized zones”. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 158(1) and (2).
Croatia
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by:
(1) Whoever violates the rules of international law in times of war, armed conflict or occupation and orders [or commits] an indiscriminate attack harming the civilian population …
(2) … [W]hoever violates the rules of international law in time of war, armed conflict or occupation by ordering [or committing] … indiscriminate attacks against civilian objects protected by international law. 
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 158(1) and (2).
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes “any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach”. 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).
Democratic Republic of the Congo
The Democratic Republic of the Congo’s Military Penal Code (2002) provides:
Article 165
Crimes against humanity are grave violations of international humanitarian law committed against any civilian population before or during war.
Crimes against humanity are not necessarily linked to the state of war and can be committed not only between persons of different nationality, but even between subjects of the same State.
Article 166
The grave breaches listed hereafter, affecting, by action or omission, the persons and objects protected by the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977, constitute crimes against humanity, repressed according to the provisions of the present Code, without prejudice to more severe penal provisions provided by the ordinary Penal Code:
11. Launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, without prejudice to the criminality of an attack whose harmful effects, even if proportionate to the military advantage anticipated, would be incompatible with the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience;
Article 167
The offences contained in the preceding article are punished with penal servitude for life.
If those contained in points 1, 2, 5, 6, 10 to 14 of the same article lead to the death or cause grave injury to the physical integrity or health of one or several persons, the perpetrators are liable to the death penalty. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Articles 165–167.
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment]. 
Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).
Estonia
Under Estonia’s Penal Code (2001), “a person who uses means of warfare in a manner not allowing to discriminate between military and civilian objects and thereby causes the death of civilians, health damage to civilians, damage to civilian objects or a danger to the life, health or property of civilians” commits a war crime. 
Estonia, Penal Code, 2001, § 96.
Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects, in the knowledge that it will cause loss and injury among civilians and damage to civilian objects” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(1)(b).
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Military Penal Code (1947) provides for the punishment of military personnel who are found guilty of carrying out an indiscriminate attack. 
Indonesia, Military Penal Code, 1947, Article 103.
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).
The Act further provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 51(4), is also a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Jordan
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict:
Intentionally directing indiscriminate attacks against the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(10).
Lithuania
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, “a military attack without choosing a specific military target or knowing it might cause loss of civilian life or the destruction of civilian objects” is a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 337.
Netherlands
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, it is a crime, during an international armed conflict, to commit:
the following acts, when they are committed intentionally and in violation of the relevant provisions of Additional Protocol (I) and cause death or serious injury to body or health: … launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(2)(c)(ii).
Likewise, “intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects … which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated” is also a crime, when committed in an international armed conflict. 
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Article 5(5)(b).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides:
Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence. 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).
Niger
According to Niger’s Penal Code (1961), as amended in 2003, it is a war crime to launch against persons and objects protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions or their Additional Protocols of 1977
an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause loss of human life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated, without prejudice to the criminal nature of an attack whose harmful effects, even where proportionate to the military advantage anticipated, would be inconsistent with the principles of international law derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of public conscience. 
Niger, Penal Code, 1961, as amended in 2003, Article 208.3(12).
Norway
Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:
Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment. 
Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).
Serbia
Serbia’s Criminal Code (2005) states that ordering or committing “wanton attacks without target selection, harming civilian population or civilian buildings under special protection of international law”, constitutes a war crime. 
Serbia, Criminal Code, 2005, Article 372(1).
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
2. Grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and the [1977] First [Additional] Protocol.
(1) A person of whatever nationality commits an offence if that person, whether within or outside Sierra Leone[,] commits, aids, abets or procures any other person to commit a grave breach specified in –
(e) … paragraph … 3 … of Article 85 of the First Protocol [on, inter alia, the grave breach of launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, as defined in Article 57(2)(a)(iii) of the Protocol]. 
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 2(1)(e).
Slovenia
Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994) provides that it is a war crime to order or commit “a random attack harming the civilian population” or “a random attack on civil buildings specially protected under international law, or on defenceless or demilitarized areas”. 
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 374(1) and (2).
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict, … carries out or orders an indiscriminate attack”. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 611(1).
Sweden
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, “initiating an indiscriminate attack knowing that such attack will cause exceptionally heavy losses or damage to civilians or to civilian property” constitutes a crime against international law. 
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes the act of “launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects” in an international or internal armed conflict. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:
26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.
26.3. The following are war crimes:
38. Launching attacks by using … methods of combat that do not allow to distinguish between military and non-military objectives or between combatants and civilian persons, such as, for example, … massive bombardments, recourse to a method … of attack that cannot be directed against a specific military object or the use of … methods of combat that can be expected to cause incidental injury or death to protected persons or damage to protected objects. 
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.38.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, provides that it is a war crime to order or commit “an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population” or “an indiscriminate attack on civilian facilities that are specifically protected under international law, non-defended localities and demilitarized zones”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 142(1) and (2).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1996, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1996, Section 3(1).
Canada
In 2013, in the Peters case, Canada’s Immigration and Refugee Protection Board rejected an immigration request on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Libya. The Board stated:
[W]hen the conflict began in February 2011 in Libya you were called upon [by Al-Saadi Gaddafi] to provide … security services for him in Libya. …
Now, with respect to specific examples of crimes against humanity perpetrated by the Gaddafi regime, there is quite extensive documentary evidence that has been put forward by the Minister, so I’m going to mainly focus on the atrocities committed between February and August 2011, …
At least 16 civilians were killed in indiscriminate attacks in Misrata between April 14th and 17th in 2011, including one incident where eight people were killed while standing in line for bread.
I am … satisfied, based on the totality of the information before me, and the findings relating to both allegations, that there are reasonable grounds to believe that you are described pursuant to both paragraphs 35(1)(a) and 37(1)(b) of the Immigration Refugee Protection Act and I am therefore issuing deportation orders against you.
As per my explanation at the outset of the hearing on January 14th, 2013, and at the beginning of this decision today, the only avenue of recourse available to you is to seek judicial review from the Federal Court of Canada and that application must be filed with the courts within 15 days of today’s date. 
Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Peters case, Record of an Admissibility Hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 29 January 2013, pp. 4, 13–14 and 15–16.
Canada
In 2013, in the MJS case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed an appeal against the Applicant’s exclusion from refugee protection on grounds of complicity in war crimes and crimes against humanity. The Court stated:
[2] The Refugee Protection Division [the Panel] found that Mr. MJS was excluded from refugee protection under section 98 of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act … and Article 1F(a) of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees …
IV. Analysis
(a) Did the Panel apply the wrong test to determine the complicity of Mr. MJS?
[22] The Panel also reiterated that Mr. MJS acknowledged in his testimony that he knew of the human rights violations committed by [the Group]. Earlier in its decision, the Panel found that “the documentary evidence clearly demonstrates that [the Group] committed crimes against humanity as well as war crimes in the period 1998 to 2005”, by, for example, … committing … indiscriminate attacks on civilians. …
[23] Simply because the Panel stated that some of these crimes had also been committed by [another group] does not detract from the Panel’s conclusion regarding [the Group’s] involvement in these crimes. 
Canada, Federal Court, MJS case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 20 March 2013, §§ 2 and 22–23.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
The principle of distinction is complex and encompasses a number of treaty and customary norms applicable in internal armed conflicts, in addition to, in many cases, enjoying ius cogens status. These rules [include] … the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, pp. 84–86; see also p. 94.
The Court further held:
The protection of civilians against indiscriminate attacks is a norm of customary international law applicable in all international or internal armed conflicts. Indiscriminate attacks are never justified, even when non-civilians or combatants are present among a civilian population. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 94.
(footnote in original omitted)
Germany
In 2010, in the Fuel Tankers case, the Federal Prosecutor General at Germany’s Federal Court of Justice investigated whether war crimes or other crimes under domestic law had been committed in the course of an airstrike which was ordered by a colonel (Oberst) of the German armed forces against two tankers transporting fuel for the International Security Assistance Force in Afghanistan stolen by the Taliban near Kunduz and which resulted in the deaths of a number of civilians. The Federal Prosecutor General stated:
Pursuant to § 170 para. 2 StPO [Penal Procedure Code], the investigation proceedings which were initiated by the order of 12 March 2010 against Colonel (Oberst) Klein and Company Sergeant Major (Hauptfeldwebel) Wilhelm due to suspected offences under the VStGB [International Crimes Code] and other offences are to be terminated as a result of the investigations conducted and based on the sources of information set out hereafter and on the reasons given in detail hereafter. 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Federal Prosecutor General, Fuel Tankers case, Decision, 16 April 2010, p. 1.
The Federal Prosecutor General also stated that “international humanitarian law … prohibits indiscriminate attacks.” 
Germany, Federal Court of Justice, Federal Prosecutor General, Fuel Tankers case, Decision, 16 April 2010, p. 59.
Israel
In its judgment in The Public Committee against Torture in Israel case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
[C]ivilians are not to be harmed in an indiscriminate attack; in other words, in an attack which, inter alia, is not directed against a particular military objective (see §51(4) of The First Protocol [1977 Additional Protocol I], which constitutes customary international law. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 29.
Spain
In 2010, in the Couso case, which concerned the killing of a Spanish journalist in Baghdad on 8 April 2003 by troops of the United States of America, the Criminal Chamber of Spain’s Supreme Court held:
As alleged [by the appellants], the appealed order [presently under review] seems to place en emphasis, in order to terminate the proceedings, on the second section of Article 611(1) of the PC [Penal Code (1995)] … when it is clear that on the last occasion the examining magistrate also based his proceedings on the first section referring to those who carry out or order an indiscriminate attack … [T]he latter should be evaluated by the Court, as was expressed in the dissenting opinion, according to the principles of international humanitarian and customary law, and not in an anticipated manner. As a result the appealed order lacks the necessary reasoning, as it ignores the substantial grounds [raised] in the second indictment order. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Segundo, § 3, p. 8.
[emphasis in original]
On the issue concerning breach of the law due to the failure to apply Article 611 of the Penal Code, the Court held:
2. Article 611 of the PC effectively punishes
“anyone who in the event of an armed conflict commits [any of the following acts], without prejudice to the penalty for the results of such acts, shall be punished with ten to fifteen years’ imprisonment:
1. Carries out or orders an indiscriminate attack”. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, p. 11.
[emphasis in original]
The Court also referred to norms of IHL relevant to the case under review, including Articles 51(4) and 85(3)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, pp. 14 and 16.
In deciding on the issue concerning breach of the law, the Court held:
The appealed decision declared the termination of the proceedings … as it considered that the “facts [of] the case did not constitute an offence” … [H]owever, the proceedings carried out do not permit sharing the conclusions of the first instance tribunal; rather, the facts [denounced] merit being subsumed under the cited penal provisions and the aforementioned norms of International Humanitarian Law. 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section II(II), Sexto, § 2, p. 16.
[emphasis in original]
The Court upheld the appeal against the order of 23 October 2009 by the Third Section of the Criminal Chamber of the Spanish National Court, which declared the termination of the proceedings, and held that “the proceedings must continue, and the outstanding preparatory enquiries must be undertaken, as well as any others arising from the clarification of the events under investigation.” 
Spain, Supreme Court, Couso case, Judgment, 13 July 2010, Section III, pp. 20–21.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian Court requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice held:
It is a firm and incontrovertible fact that political armed struggle must be governed by the laws of war. As a result, attacks against innocent [people] or against private rights or the rights of individuals are absolutely unjustified, even where a political motive is claimed.
Thus: if such an attack against innocent [persons] and private rights is carried out with such a violence and malicious intent that it causes unnecessary suffering, havoc and terror, it would [constitute the offence of] indiscriminate terrorism, namely [those acts] that are not selective when choosing their targets and expressly target the innocent. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, p. 9.
[emphasis in original]
Australia
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Australia stated:
The right to self-defence is not unlimited. It is subject to fundamental principles of humanity. Self-defence is not a justification … for indiscriminate attacks on the civilian population. Nor is it a justification for the use of nuclear weapons. 
Australia, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 30 October 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/22, p. 52, § 47.
Australia
In 2010, in a statement on Somalia before the UN Human Rights Council, the representative of Australia stated:
Australia … [is] deeply concerned by his [the Independent Expert’s] observation that the situation for women and children in Somalia has become more precarious. In particular, we note the Independent Expert’s report of high numbers of indiscriminate attacks against civilians … . We support the Independent Expert’s call for all parties in the conflict – government and opposition groups – to respect basic principles of human rights and humanitarian law and to protect civilians from further violence. 
Australia, Statement before the UN Human Rights Council, 13th Regular Session, Interactive Dialogue on the Situation of Human Rights in Somalia, 24 March 2010.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
The Report on the Practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina provides the following examples of alleged violations of the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks which were denounced by the authorities:
- indiscriminate artillery shelling of Sarajevo on 16 May 1992; 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Defence, Letter to the Headquarters of the Yugoslav Army in Belgrade, No. 02/236-1, 17 May 1992, Report on the Practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2000, Chapter 1.4.
- the attacks by aircraft of the Yugoslav Army in the Tuzla region, in which many residential facilities were destroyed and several civilians killed or wounded; 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Ministry of Defence, Letter to the Headquarters of the Yugoslav Army in Belgrade, No. 02/333-232, 1 June 1992, Report on the Practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2000, Chapter 1.4.
- the artillery shelling in the centre of Srebrenica, which resulted in civilian casualties; 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Appeal of the War Presidency of Srebrenica Municipality, No. 180/93, 25 January 1993, Report on the Practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2000, Chapter 1.4.
- the attack by a Croatian army helicopter in the centre of Mostar, which resulted in civilian casualties. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Headquarters of the Supreme Command of the Armed Forces, Office of the Commander in Chief, Information to UNPROFOR, No. 01-1/21-82, 8 February 1994, Report on the Practice of Bosnia and Herzegovina, 2000, Chapter 1.4.T.
Botswana
In 1996, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Botswana stated that it was appalled by the indiscriminate killing of innocent Lebanese civilians and the destruction of their towns and villages. 
Botswana, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3653, 15 April 1996, p. 11.
Brazil
The Report on the Practice of Brazil states that Brazil has ratified the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols and that, under the Brazilian Constitution, treaties become part of domestic law once ratified by the Congress and published in the official journal. Therefore, the rules pertaining to indiscriminate attacks as set forth in these treaties are binding upon Brazil. 
Report on the Practice of Brazil, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
Canada
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
The attack against UNHCR in Kandahar, Afghanistan, on October 31st, serves as a reminder of the great risks for those who work tirelessly to deliver humanitarian assistance. … These attacks underscore the importance of continued and sustained cooperation between the international and Afghan security forces to ensure civilians are protected from indiscriminate acts of violence. 
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada during a UN Security Council meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 9 November 2011.
Chile
The Report on the Practice of Chile states that it can be inferred from the opinio juris of Chile that the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks is an integral part of customary international law. 
Report on the Practice of Chile, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
China
The Report on the Practice of China states that any attack on a refugee camp will certainly be regarded by the Chinese Court as an indiscriminate attack that deserves condemnation. 
Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
Croatia
The Report on the Practice of Croatia maintains that it is Croatia’s opinio juris that the rules pertaining to the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks are part of customary international law. 
Report on the Practice of Croatia, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
Cuba
In 2009, in a statement before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the representative of Cuba stated:
Cuba expresses its strong concern at the constant deterioration of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, owing mainly to the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Israel against Palestinian civilians as well as many other illegal policies and practices … which violate the rights of the Palestinian people.  
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the Fourth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Item 32: Report of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, 10 November 2009, p. 1.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the status of the Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts, the representative of Cuba stated:
Increasingly, the civilian population are the victims and direct targets of all kinds of abuses committed by armed forces involved in conflicts. The constant imperialist aggression and permanent interference in the internal affairs of third world countries, … and the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, are [among] the fundamental causes of current violations of international humanitarian law. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the UN General Assembly on Item 86: The Status of the Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts, 13 October 2010, p. 1.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the situation in the Middle East, the deputy permanent representative of Cuba stated:
Cuba reiterates its great concern at the constant deterioration of the situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, owing mainly to the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Israel against Palestinian civilians. 
Cuba, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Cuba before the UN General Assembly on Item 36: The Situation in the Middle East, 30 November 2010, p. 1.
Denmark
In 2008, in a joint cost benefit analysis of a possible introduction of a national moratorium on all cluster munitions, Denmark’s Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
[The] provisions, which are outlined below, are generally recognized as being an expression of customary international law. …
The purpose of international humanitarian law is to protect the victims of war as much as possible. …
It follows from API [1977 Additional Protocol I] that military attacks that do not respect the distinction between civilians and military targets are illegal because of their indiscriminate nature. 
Denmark, Ministry of Defence and Ministry of Foreign Affairs, A Cost Benefit Analysis of a Possible Introduction of a National Danish Moratorium on All Cluster Munitions, 1 April 2008, p. 15.
Finland
In 1977, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, Finland stated that Article 51 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including Article 51(4) prohibiting indiscriminate attacks, contained important and timely principles that should be respected in all circumstances. 
Finland, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/32/SR.17, 13 October 1977, § 19.
France
At the CDDH, France voted against Article 46 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 51) because it considered:
The provisions of paragraphs 4, 5 and 7 were of a type which by their very complexity would seriously hamper the conduct of defensive military operations against an invader and prejudice the exercise of the inherent right of legitimate defence recognized in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations. 
France, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 163, § 118.
France
The instructions given to the French armed forces for the conduct of Opération Mistral, simulating a military operation under the right of self-defence or a mandate of the UN Security Council, state that “indiscriminate attacks … are prohibited”. 
France, Etat-major de la Force d’Action Rapide, Ordres pour l’Opération Mistral, 1995, Section 6, § 66.
France
In 1996, the Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, consisting of France, Israel, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United States, issued communiqués requesting that all parties avoid arbitrary or indiscriminate attacks on inhabited areas which directly or indirectly endangered civilian life or integrity. 
Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, Communiqué, 22 September 1996; Communiqué, 14–18 October 1996.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France, in a statement calling for the respect of international humanitarian law, which provided examples of serious violations that had recently occurred in several armed conflicts around the world, noted: “[B]oth Israel and Hamas have used weapons that have indiscriminate effects, since aerial bombing and mortar fire were not used in such a manner as to spare civilians.” 
France, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, “The Savaging of Humanitarian Law”, New York Times, 28 January 2009, p. 2.
Germany
In 1993, in response to a question in Parliament about the situation in Sudan, the German Court stated that “during military operations, instances occur over and again which violate the international law of war [such as] … the indiscriminate bombing of villages”. 
Germany, Reply by the government to a question in the Lower House of Parliament, Menschenrechtslage im Sudan, BT-Drucksache 12/6513, 28 December 1993, p. 3.
Germany
In 2009, in reply to a Minor Interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) titled “Investigation of serious violations of international humanitarian law in the recent Gaza war”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote:
9. How does the Federal Government assess the firing of rockets from towns and villages in Southern Israel by armed Palestinian groups in Gaza under international law?
Which specific provisions of international humanitarian law were violated by the Palestinian side?
… [A]ttacks which can hit military objectives and civilians or civilian objects indiscriminately are … prohibited. 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Jürgen Trittin, other Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 16/12673, 20 April 2009, p. 4.
The Federal Government also stated:
14. Can the Federal Government confirm or deny that ammunition with white phosphorous has been used in densely populated areas (e.g. Gaza City) and against civilian installations (e.g. the UN), and how does the Federal Government assess such use under international humanitarian law?
The Federal Government is aware of allegations that Israel has used phosphorous weapons in a way that violated international law. This is the subject of a number of investigations, including by Israel. The Federal Government has no information of its own on whether such weapons were used. Smoke ammunition which includes white phosphorus is not prohibited as such under international humanitarian law. But its use must comply with the general rules of international humanitarian law. Hence … an indiscriminate attack which does not distinguish between legitimate objectives and civilians … [is] prohibited. 
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Jürgen Trittin, other Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 16/12673, 20 April 2009, p. 6.
India
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, India stated that “the very purpose of international humanitarian law is to forbid indiscriminate attacks and demand protection of civilians”. 
India, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, p. 3.
India
The Report on the Practice of India states:
When [the armed forces] are called upon to deal with an internal conflict, they are bound to follow the principles regarding distinction between military objects and civilian objects so as to avoid indiscriminate attacks. The armed forces are instructed that when they provide assistance to civil authorities in dealing with internal conflicts, they must avoid indiscriminate use of force … The regulations addressed to armed police contain elaborate provisions aimed at avoiding indiscriminate attacks. 
Report on the Practice of India, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
India
In 2008, in a statement on the situation in Gaza, the official spokesperson of India’s Ministry of External Affairs stated:
The Government of India had hoped that military action by Israel against targets in the Gaza strip would abate. It is disappointing to note that the use of disproportionate force is resulting in a large number of civilian casualties on the one hand and the escalating violence on the other. This continued use of indiscriminate force is unwarranted and condemnable. 
India, Statement by the official spokesperson of the Ministry of External Affairs on the situation in Gaza, 29 December 2008.
India
In 2012, in a statement during a UN Security Council open debate on the Middle East, the permanent representative of India stated:
Indiscriminate violence not only puts the lives of civilians in real danger, but also leads to a vicious cycle of violence. We condemn all these attacks that cause harm to the civilian population and damage civilian infrastructure, and call for their full cessation. 
India, Statement by the permanent representative of India during a UN Security Council open debate on the Middle East, 23 April 2012.
Iraq
In a message sent to the UN Secretary-General in 1984, the President of Iraq stated: “The indiscriminate Iranian bombardment of civilian targets crowded with inhabitants is a major aspect of its ceaseless aggression against Iraq.” 
Iraq, Message from the President of Iraq, annexed to Letter dated 10 June 1984 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/16610, 19 June 1984, p. 2.
Iraq
The Report on the Practice of Iraq states that Iraq “inclines towards intensifying the refusal of [indiscriminate] attacks in order to avoid harming civilians”, regardless of whether “such attacks … might serve a military purpose”. The report interprets this as meaning “the banning of any kind of attacks directed on the civilians”, regardless of the nature of the intended military target. 
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 1.4.
The report also cites the text of a military communiqué issued by the General Command of the Iraqi armed forces during the Iran–Iraq War stating: “The enemy has reached a maximum degree of nervousness and loss of balance that lead it to commit repeated infringements and random bombardment without any distinction.” 
Iraq, Military Communiqué No. 23, 25 September 1980, Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 1.4.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1992, in a letter to the UN Secretary-General, the Islamic Republic of Iran expressed “alarm at the indiscriminate attacks by Iraqi forces against innocent Iraqi civilians” in the southern marshlands of Iraq. 
Islamic Republic of Iran, Letter dated 10 August 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24414, 11 August 1992.
Israel
In 1996, the Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, consisting of France, Israel, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United States, issued communiqués requesting that all parties avoid arbitrary or indiscriminate attacks on inhabited areas which directly or indirectly endangered civilian life or integrity. 
Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, Communiqué, 22 September 1996; Communiqué, 14–18 October 1996.
Israel
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs, in referring to Article 51(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, stated: “Attacks must not be “indiscriminate,” that is, untargeted, launched without consideration as to where harm will likely fall.” 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 223.
[emphasis in original; footnote in original omitted]
Jordan
The Report on the Practice of Jordan states that there have been no reports of indiscriminate attacks conducted by the armed forces of Jordan. 
Report on the Practice of Jordan, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
Lebanon
In 1996, the Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, consisting of France, Israel, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United States, issued communiqués requesting that all parties avoid arbitrary or indiscriminate attacks on inhabited areas which directly or indirectly endangered civilian life or integrity. 
Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, Communiqué, 22 September 1996; Communiqué, 14–18 October 1996.
Malaysia
In 1992, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, Malaysia relayed its deep concern over the deterioration of the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina and in particular the continuous indiscriminate bombardments of civilian populated areas. 
Malaysia, Letter dated 10 August 1992 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24400, 10 August 1992.
Malaysia
The Report on the Practice of Malaysia refers to the general prohibition of indiscriminate attacks. 
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Answers to additional questions on Chapter 1.4.
The report also notes that during the communist insurgency, the security forces were prohibited from launching indiscriminate attacks against civilians. 
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
Malaysia
In 2010, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
8. [The delegate of Malaysia] said that …
10. … [t]he laws of naval warfare incorporated the fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including necessity and proportionality … The passengers and crew of the Mavi Marmara and its accompanying vessels [which were attacked by the Israel Defense Forces in May 2010] were … entitled to the protection accorded under the [1949] Fourth Geneva Convention and the indiscriminate attacks against them needed to be considered a serious violation of international humanitarian law. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 18 October 2010, as published in the summary record of the 13th meeting, 8 December 2010, UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.13, §§ 8 and 10.
Malaysia
In 2012, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
[The delegate of Malaysia] said that … Israel, as the [O]ccupying Power in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, had failed to ensure that the people of Palestine lived a life free of misery, by blatantly disregarding international law, including the [1949] Geneva Conventions … Its list of violations included … indiscriminate attacks. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 22 October 2012, as published in the summary record of the 15th meeting, 24 December 2012, UN Doc. A/C.6/67/SR.15, § 47.
Mexico
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Mexico invoked “the principle by which the civilian population enjoys general protection and the prohibition to carry out indiscriminate attacks”. 
Mexico, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 19 June 1995, § 77(d).
Mexico
In 2010, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Mexico stated: “We must condemn the use of explosives in areas where civilian populations are concentrated because of their indiscriminate effects and the attendant risks.” 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative of Mexico before the UN Security Council, 6427th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6427, 22 November 2010, p. 23.
New Zealand
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, New Zealand stated, with reference to customary international law: “It is prohibited to use indiscriminate methods and means of warfare which do not distinguish between combatants and civilians and other non-combatants.” 
New Zealand, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 20 June 1995, § 71.
Nigeria
According to the Report on the Practice of Nigeria, it is Nigeria’s opinio juris that the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks is part of customary international law.  
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
Pakistan
According to the Report on the Practice of Pakistan, it is Pakistan’s opinio juris that indiscriminate attacks against civilians are prohibited. 
Report on the Practice of Pakistan, 1998, Chapter 1.4.
Poland
At the CDDH, Poland stated that Article 46 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 51) “had a special function since it contained the most important provisions of the Protocol, such as the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks that made no distinction between military personnel and civilians”. 
Poland, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 166, § 129.
Russian Federation
In 2008, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We vigorously condemn both deliberate attacks on civilians and their deaths resulting from [the] indiscriminate … use of force, which is a violation of international humanitarian law.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative of the Russian Federation before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 27 May 2008.
Russian Federation
In 2009, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We strongly condemn deliberate attacks on and the killing of civilians through the indiscriminate … use of force, which is a gross violation of international humanitarian law.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative of the Russian Federation before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 14 January 2009.
Russian Federation
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We resolutely condemn both wilful attacks against civilians and civilian loss of life as a result of indiscriminate … use of force, which constitute serious violations of international humanitarian law.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative of the Russian Federation before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 7 July 2010.
Russian Federation
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We resolutely condemn … civilian deaths resulting from the indiscriminate … use of force, which is a flagrant violation of international humanitarian law.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative of the Russian Federation before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 10 May 2011, p. 9.
Russian Federation
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We vigorously condemn … [the] demise [of civilians] as [a] result of the indiscriminate … use of force, which is a gross violation of international humanitarian law.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the permanent representative of the Russian Federation before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 9 November 2011, p. 23.
Russian Federation
In 2012, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation stated: “We … firmly condemn intentional attacks against civilians, including children, as well as indiscriminate … use of force that produces the same result.” 
Russian Federation, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of the Russian Federation before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict, 19 September 2012, p. 15.
Rwanda
The Report on the Practice of Rwanda states that indiscriminate attacks are prohibited according to the practice and the opinio juris of Rwanda and considers that this prohibition is a norm of customary international law binding on all States. 
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 1.4.
Rwanda
In 2010, in its Comments on the Draft UN Mapping Report on the DRC (Democratic Republic of the Congo), Rwanda stated: “Paragraphs 219, 220 and 221 of The Draft Mapping Report allege that the RPA [Rwandan Patriotic Army] indiscriminately fired heavy weapons at the Mugunga refugee camp [in November 1996] … In the conduct of operations, the RPA … never fired any weapons into the camp.” 
Rwanda, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Official Government of Rwanda Comments on the Draft UN Mapping Report on the DRC, 30 November 2010, § 24.
Slovenia
In 1992, in a note verbale addressed to the UN Secretary-General, Slovenia expressed its readiness to provide information concerning violations of IHL committed by members of the Yugoslav army during the 10-day conflict with Slovenia, including the “indiscriminate use of weapons”. 
Slovenia, Note verbale dated 5 November 1992 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/24789, 9 November 1992, p. 2.
Somalia
In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated: “The Government forces are also bound to respect customary IHL rules relating to the prohibited methods and means of warfare including … the prohibition of … indiscriminate attacks against civilians [and] against civilian objects”. 
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, 11 April 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, § 76.
South Africa
In its five-volume report on “gross violations of human rights” committed between 1960 and 1993, the South African Truth and Reconciliation Commission noted that the killing of more than 600 people in a 1978 attack by the South Africa Defence Force (SADF) on the South Western Africa People’s Organisation (SWAPO) base/refugee camp at Kassinga in Angola constituted a breach of IHL. It stated:
There is little evidence that the SADF took sufficient precautions to spare those civilians whom they knew were resident at Kassinga in large numbers. The fact that the operational orders for Reindeer included the instruction that “women and children must, where possible, not be shot” is evidence of the SADF’s prior knowledge of the presence of civilians. However, this apparent intention to spare their lives was rendered meaningless by the SADF’s decision to use fragmentation bombs in the initial air assault as such weapons kill and maim indiscriminately. Their use, therefore, in the face of knowledge of the presence of civilians, amounts to an indiscriminate and illegitimate use of force and a violation of Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The foreseeable killing of civilians at Kassinga was therefore a breach of humanitarian law. 
South Africa, Truth and Reconciliation Commission Report, 1998, Vol. 2, pp. 52–55, §§ 44–45.
Sweden
At the CDDH, Sweden stated:
Article 46 [now Article 51 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] might be considered as one of fundamental value for the whole Protocol. This article was elaborated during long negotiations in 1975 and was adopted in the same year by consensus in Committee III. 
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 198.
Sweden
In 2007, the Swedish Ministers for Foreign Affairs and for International Development Cooperation stated: “Israel must … abide by international law regulations. The indiscriminate attacks in recent times that primarily affect innocent civilians on both sides are entirely unacceptable.” 
Sweden, Statement by the Minister for Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Development Cooperation, 1 November 2007.
Switzerland
In 2008, in its response to a question by a member of the National Council, Switzerland’s Federal Council wrote:
2. … Indiscriminate Qassam rocket launches against Israeli localities by irregulars and Palestinian groups are contrary to international law and must be condemned unequivocally. For that matter, in its press release of 29 February 2008, the FDFA [Federal Department of Foreign Affairs] clearly condemned the repeated rocket launches on Sderot and Ashkelon from the Gaza strip. 
Switzerland, National Council, Response by the Federal Council to Interpellation No. 08.3127, 14 May 2008, p. 1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Conduct of hostilities
Not all Means and methods of warfare are allowed in an Armed conflict. International humanitarian law stipulates the military operations, tactics and weapons that are permissible. The two generally accepted principles of Distinction and Proportionality are the basis for a number of specific rules such as the prohibition of direct attacks on the civilian population or on Civilian objects, the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks …
Distinction
… The principle of distinction imposes limits on means and methods of warfare: any Weapon or strategy that cannot be directed exclusively at a specific military objective is prohibited.
Means and methods of warfare
Even in war not everything is allowed. Various means and methods are prohibited, including … indiscriminate attacks, …
Terrorism
The concept of “terrorism” has not yet been defined in International law. International law, Human rights and international humanitarian law nonetheless do prohibit many terrorism related acts and activities.
In fact, according to international humanitarian law, acts generally considered as acts of terrorism, such as … indiscriminate attacks … are prohibited both in international and non-international armed conflict. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 13–14, 17, 29 and 39.
Switzerland
In 2009, in response to a motion before the Council of States by the Commission on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
The humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka is of the highest concern to the Federal Council. It deplores the violations of international humanitarian law, in particular the undifferentiated and disproportional recourse to violence that has killed and wounded thousands of persons in the north of the country. 
Switzerland, Council of States, Response by the Federal Council to Motion No. 09.3358, 13 May 2009, p. 1.
Switzerland
In 2012, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs issued a press release entitled “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, which stated:
Deep concern about the humanitarian situation
2. Switzerland expresses its deep concern about the deterioration of the humanitarian situation in Syria. It deplores that because of non-compliance with international humanitarian law, in particular indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force, numerous civilian persons have already been killed.
International humanitarian law is applicable to non-international armed conflict.
4. International humanitarian law is applicable in non-international armed conflicts. All parties to the conflict are therefore obliged to respect its rules in all circumstances, including the rules protecting persons who are [not] or are no [longer] participating in the hostilities, as well as the rules relative to the means and methods of warfare. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, “Appeal by the Swiss authorities for compliance with international humanitarian law in Syria”, Press Release, 15 November 2012.
Syrian Arab Republic
In 1996, the Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, consisting of France, Israel, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United States, issued communiqués requesting that all parties avoid arbitrary or indiscriminate attacks on inhabited areas which directly or indirectly endangered civilian life or integrity. 
Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, Communiqué, 22 September 1996; Communiqué, 14–18 October 1996.
Syrian Arab Republic
On the basis of a statement by the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs before the UN General Assembly in 1997, the Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic asserts that the Syrian Arab Republic considers Article 51(4) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to be part of customary international law. 
Report on the Practice of the Syrian Arab Republic, 1997, Chapter 1.4, referring to Statement by the Syrian Minister of Foreign Affairs before the UN General Assembly, 1 October 1997.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
On 21 January 1991, in the context of the Gulf War, the UK Minister of Foreign Affairs summoned the Iraqi Ambassador to discuss Iraq’s obligations under international law. According to a statement by a spokesperson for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office after the meeting, the Minister had “expressed concern at the indiscriminate targeting of civilian sites by Iraqi SCUD missiles”. 
United Kingdom, Statement by Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesperson, 21 January 1991, BYIL, Vol. 62, 1991, p. 680.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1991, in a report submitted to the UN Security Council on operations in the Gulf War, the United Kingdom accused Iraq of having had “no compunction about launching indiscriminate missile attacks directed at civilians”. 
United Kingdom, Letter dated 13 February 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22218, 13 February 1991, pp. 1–2.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 1991, during a debate in the UN Security Council concerning the Gulf War, the United Kingdom reiterated its condemnation of the indiscriminate firing of missiles at civilian population centres. 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2977, 14 February 1991, § 72.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2004, in a written ministerial statement, the UK Foreign Secretary stated:
The basic obligations under international humanitarian law as regards civilian casualties in an armed conflict are set out in additional protocol I to the Geneva conventions, which also reflects customary international law. In particular, indiscriminate attacks are prohibited, and this includes any,
“attack which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated”.
This obligation under international humanitarian law has been fully complied with by the United Kingdom in respect of all military operations in Iraq. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written ministerial statement by the Foreign Secretary, Hansard, 17 November 2004, Vol. 426, Written Ministerial Statements, col. 93WS.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict (2010) states:
Protection of civilians in armed conflict matters from a legal perspective, because the UK has specific obligations concerning the protection of civilians in situations where it is involved in military action. International humanitarian law (IHL) … prohibits attacks that are indiscriminate. 
United Kingdom, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Government Strategy on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, March 2010, p. 2.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated: “Iraqi war crimes … included … indiscriminate attacks in the launching of Scud missiles against cities rather than specific military objectives, in violation of customary international law.” 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, pp. 632–633.
United States of America
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case in 1994, the United States stated: “It is unlawful to conduct any indiscriminate attack.” 
United States, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons (WHO) case, 10 June 1994, p. 27.
United States of America
In 1996, the Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, consisting of France, Israel, Lebanon, the Syrian Arab Republic and the United States, issued communiqués requesting that all parties avoid arbitrary or indiscriminate attacks on inhabited areas which directly or indirectly endangered civilian life or integrity. 
Monitoring Group on the Implementation of the 1996 Israel-Lebanon Ceasefire Understanding, Communiqué, 22 September 1996; Communiqué, 14–18 October 1996.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
On the basis of two accounts of events during the conflict in Croatia, the Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia states:
There are many examples … of indiscriminate attacks of individual and collective character which both parties to the armed conflict in Croatia in 1991 and 1992 were pointing at. The mixed nature of this conflict, being both internal and international, contributed to this as well. Both parties referred to these incidents as violations of international humanitarian law. The fact that the parties did not question this norm [prohibiting indiscriminate attacks] when speaking about the behavior of the opposite side is a clear indication of their opinio juris and a confirmation that such attacks were considered prohibited. 
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 1.4, referring to Vesna Bosanac, The Tragedy of the Civilian Population of the Commune of Vukovar during 1991 – a Testimony, in Zvonimir Ŝeparovic (ed.), Documenta Croatica, Croatian History and Identity and the War against Croatia, p. 114, and Miodrag Starcevic and Nikola Petkovic (eds.), Croatia ‘91 – Violence and Crime against the Law, pp. 67–69.
Zimbabwe
The Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe considers that the question of indiscriminate attacks is problematic since much depends on the objective in question, on necessity and on the military advantage to be gained. According to the report, the principle of proportionality, however, remains applicable. 
Report on the Practice of Zimbabwe, 1998, Chapter 1.4.
UN Security Council
In a resolution on Kosovo adopted in 1998, the UN Security Council expressed its grave concern at “the excessive and indiscriminate use of force by Serbian security forces and the Yugoslav Army which have resulted in numerous civilian casualties”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1199, 23 September 1998, preamble, voting record: 14-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Somalia, the UN Security Council stressed
the responsibility of all parties and armed groups in Somalia to take appropriate steps to protect the civilian population in the country, consistent with international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law, in particular by avoiding any indiscriminate attacks on populated areas. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1772, 20 August 2007, § 19, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1994, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council strongly condemned “the indiscriminate shelling by the Bosnian Serb party of the civilian population of Maglaj, which has resulted in heavy casualties, loss of life and material destruction”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1994/11, 14 March 1994, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President concerning the situation in the Darfur region of Sudan, the UN Security Council expressed “its deep concern at the continuing reports of large-scale violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law in Darfur, including indiscriminate attacks on civilians”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/18, 25 May 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President regarding the situation in Somalia, the UN Security Council expressed “its grave concern at the renewed fighting in Somalia” and deeply deplored “the loss of civilian life – condemning in particular the indiscriminate shelling of heavily populated areas of Mogadishu”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/13, 30 April 2007, p. 1.
League of Nations Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1938 on the protection of civilian populations against air bombardment in case of war, the Assembly of the League of Nations stated: “Any attack on legitimate military objectives must be carried out in such a way that civilian populations in the neighbourhood are not bombed through negligence.” 
League of Nations, Assembly, Resolution adopted on 30 September 1938, § I(3), Official Journal, Special Supplement No. 182, Records of the XIXth Ordinary Session of the Assembly, pp. 15–17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1971 on territories under Portuguese administration, the UN General Assembly condemned the indiscriminate bombing of civilians. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2795 (XXVI), 10 December 1971, § 4, voting record: 105-8-5-14.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly expressed its deep concern “at the severe consequences for the civilian population of indiscriminate bombardments and military operations aimed primarily at the villages and the agricultural structure”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 40/137, 13 December 1985, § 4 voting record: 80-22-40-17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly condemned “the indiscriminate shelling of cities and civilian areas”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 48/153, 20 December 1993, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly condemned “the indiscriminate shelling and besieging of cities and civilian areas”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 49/196, 23 December 1994, § 7, voting record: 150-0-14-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the UN General Assembly condemned “the indiscriminate shelling of civilians in the safe areas of Sarajevo, Tuzla, Bihać and Goražde”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, § 5, voting record: 144-1-20-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN General Assembly expressed concern about “continuing deliberate and indiscriminate aerial bombardments by the Government of the Sudan of civilian targets in southern Sudan, in clear violation of international humanitarian law” and urged the Government of the Sudan “to cease immediately all … attacks that are in violation of international humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 51/112, 12 December 1996, preamble and § 8, voting record: 100-16-50-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation of human rights in Kosovo, the UN General Assembly strongly condemned “indiscriminate and widespread attacks on civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 53/164, 9 December 1998, § 8, voting record: 122-3-34-26.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the situation of human rights in Sudan, the UN General Assembly expressed its deep concern at continuing serious violations of IHL by all parties, in particular “the indiscriminate aerial bombardments seriously and recurrently affecting civilian populations and installations, particularly bombings of schools and hospitals”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 55/116, 4 December 2000, § 2(a)(iv), voting record: 85-32-49-23.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the UN General Assembly especially condemned “the excessive and indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population, including extrajudicial executions, which has resulted in more than 2,600 Palestinian deaths and tens of thousands of injuries”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/96, 9 December 2003, § 4, voting record: 87-7-78-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the UN General Assembly:
Gravely concerned about the continuation of the tragic events that have taken place since 28 September 2000, including the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries,
4. … especially condemns the excessive and indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population, including extrajudicial executions, which has resulted in more than 3,400 Palestinian deaths, including those of more than 750 children, and tens of thousands of injuries. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/121, 10 December 2004, preamble and § 4, voting record: 84-9-80-18.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the UN General Assembly:
Gravely concerned about the continuing detrimental impact of the events that have taken place since 28 September 2000, including the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries, and the widespread destruction of property,
4. … especially condemns … the excessive and indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population, including extrajudicial executions.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/104, 8 December 2005, preamble and § 4, voting record: 86-10-74-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the work of the Special Committee to Investigate Israeli Practices Affecting the Human Rights of the Palestinian People and Other Arabs of the Occupied Territories, the UN General Assembly:
Gravely concerned about the continuing detrimental impact of the events that have taken place since 28 September 2000, including the excessive use of force by the Israeli occupying forces against Palestinian civilians, resulting in thousands of deaths and injuries, the widespread destruction of property and vital infrastructure and the internal displacement of civilians,
4. … especially condemns … the excessive and indiscriminate use of force against the civilian population, including extrajudicial executions. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/116, 14 December 2006, preamble and § 4, voting record: 90-9-81-12.
These statements were reiterated in a subsequent resolution in 2007. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/106, 17 December 2007, preamble and § 4, voting record: 93-8-74-17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the rights of the child, the UN General Assembly:
Recalls, in accordance with international humanitarian law, that indiscriminate attacks against civilians, including children, are prohibited and that they shall not be the object of attack, including by way of reprisal or excessive use of force, condemns these practices, and demands that all parties immediately put an end to them. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/141, 18 December 2007, § 40, voting record: 183-1-0-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution on Afghanistan adopted in 1987, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern about the methods of warfare employed contrary to IHL and in particular the severe consequences caused to civilians by indiscriminate bombardments. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1987/58, 11 March 1987, §§ 3–4, voting record: 26-8-7.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the human rights situation in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “the indiscriminate shelling of cities and civilian areas”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1992/S-2/1, 1 December 1992, § 7, voting record: 45-1-1.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the human rights situation in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned “the indiscriminate shelling of cities and civilian areas”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1993/7, 23 February 1993, § 12, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994 on the human rights situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned “the indiscriminate shelling of civilian populations, particularly in Sarajevo, and in the other declared safe areas of Tuzla, Bihac, Goražde, Srebrenica and Žepa, as well as Mostar and other endangered areas in central Bosnia and elsewhere”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/75, 9 March 1994, § 1, voting record: 41-1-10.
In another resolution on the former Yugoslavia in 1995, the Commission condemned “the indiscriminate shelling and besieging of cities and civilian areas”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/89, 8 March 1995, § 5, voting record: 44-0-7.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights noted with deep concern that the civilian population was still the target of indiscriminate military attacks. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/74, 8 March 1995, preamble, voting record: without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its deep concern “about continued reports of indiscriminate bombing of civilian targets, including camps for displaced persons, in southern Sudan” and called upon the Government of the Sudan “to cease immediately the deliberate and indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian targets”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/77, 8 March 1995, preamble and § 16, voting record: 33-7-10.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon the Government of the Sudan “to cease immediately the deliberate and indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian targets and relief operations”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1996/73, 19 April, 1996, § 12, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1997 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon the Government of the Sudan “to cease immediately the deliberate and indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian targets and relief operations”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res 1997/59, 15 April 1997, § 15, adopted without a vote
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon the Government of the Sudan “to cease immediately the deliberate and indiscriminate aerial bombardment of civilian targets and relief operations.” 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/67, 21 April 1998, § 15, voting record: 31-6-16.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation of human rights in Burundi, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged “all parties to the conflict to end the cycle of violence and killing, notably the indiscriminate violence against the civilian population”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/82, 24 April 1998, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution on Chechnya adopted in 2000, the UN Commission on Human Rights expressed its grave concern about “reports indicating disproportionate and indiscriminate use of Russian military force” and called upon all parties to the conflict “to take immediate steps to halt … the indiscriminate use of force”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2000/58, 25 April 2000, preamble and § 2, voting record: 25-7-19.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council strongly condemned “the indiscriminate and massive Israeli air strikes, in particular on the village of Qana on 30 July 2006”. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, preamble, voting record: 27-11-8.
UN Secretary-General
In January 1990, in a report on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UN Secretary-General stated: “Indiscriminate fire from DFF [De Facto Forces] positions has on several occasions resulted in fatal injuries to civilians in the UNIFIL area of operation.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/21102, 25 January 1990, § 15.
UN Secretary-General
In July 1990, in a report on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UN Secretary-General stated: “Indiscriminate fire has also been directed at villages from IDF/DFF [Israel Defense Forces/De Facto Forces] positions when the latter have come under attack from armed elements.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/21406, 24 July 1990, § 15.
This statement was repeated in January 1991. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/22129, 23 January 1991, § 16.
UN Secretary-General
In January 1992, in a report on UNIFIL in Lebanon, the UN Secretary-General stated: “IDF/DFF [Israel Defense Forces/De Facto Forces] increasingly reacted to attacks by firing indiscriminately into nearby villages, especially after sustaining casualties.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report on UNIFIL, UN Doc. S/23452, 21 January 1992, § 19.
UN Secretary-General
In 1997, in a report on the situation in Somalia, the UN Secretary-General commented on disturbing violations of human rights and IHL, citing as an example the indiscriminate use of force against and the killing of civilians in Mogadishu.  
UN Secretary-General, Report on the situation in Somalia, UN Doc. S/1997/135, 17 February 1997, § 32.
UN Secretary-General
In 1998, in a report on MONUA in Angola, the UN Secretary-General stated:
Over the past few months, indiscriminate as well as summary killings … have been reported in the course of attacks targeting entire villages … At such times, principles of humanitarian law are especially important as they seek to protect the most vulnerable groups – those who are not involved in military operations – from direct or indiscriminate attack or being forced to flee. 
UN Secretary-General, Report on MONUA, UN Doc. S/1998/931, 8 October 1998, § 17.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1994, in a report on the situation of human rights in the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights noted:
Although a number of Bosnian Serb attacks on Sarajevo occur in response to firing by forces of the army of Bosnia and Herzegovina from positions situated close to highly sensitive civilian locations, most attacks would appear to be indiscriminate. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Sixth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/110, 21 February 1994, §§ 59–61.
UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador
In its 1993 report, the UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador noted that the violence in rural areas in 1980 and 1981 was extremely indiscriminate. It stated that the violence was slightly more discriminate in urban areas and also in rural zones after 1983. 
UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, Report, UN Doc. S/25500, 1 April 1993, p. 44.
Describing incidents which took place in El Junquillo canton, where soldiers and members of the civil defence unit attacked a population composed exclusively of women, young children and old people, the Commission found the attack to be indiscriminate. 
UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, Report, UN Doc. S/25500, 1 April 1993, p. 67.
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)
In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) stated, with respect to its investigation into the attack on Dubrovnik:
There is evidence that the Dubrovnik authorities, (aided by UNESCO observers), appear to have been scrupulous about keeping weapons out of the Old Town, that the besieging forces could see virtually everything that was going on in the Old Town, and that the Old Town was clearly subject to indiscriminate, and possibly even deliberate, targeting. Therefore, this conclusion will also be the subject of a recommendation for further investigation with a view to prosecution. 
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Final report, Annex XI.A, UN Doc. S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. V), 28 December 1994, § 76.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers
In a declaration adopted in March 1992, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers expressed its deep concern over reports of “indiscriminate killings and outrages” committed during the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh. 
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Declaration on Nagorno-Karabakh, 11 March 1992, § 1.
Council of Europe Committee of Ministers
In a declaration on Bosnia and Herzegovina adopted in February 1994, the Council of Europe Committee of Ministers demanded the immediate cessation of the indiscriminate shelling of Sarajevo, which had been declared a safe area by the UN Security Council. 
Council of Europe, Committee of Ministers, Declaration on Bosnia and Herzegovina, 14 February 1994, § 3.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In 1995, in a resolution concerning the Russian Federation’s request for membership in the light of the situation in Chechnya, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly unreservedly condemned “the indiscriminate and disproportionate use of force by the Russian military, in particular against the civilian population”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1055, 2 February 1995, § 2.
European Community Ministers of Foreign Affairs
In a declaration adopted in 1991 on the situation in Yugoslavia, the EC Ministers of Foreign Affairs expressed alarm at “reports that the Yugoslav National Army (JNA), having resorted to a disproportionate and indiscriminate use of force, has shown itself to be no longer a neutral and disciplined institution”. 
EC, Declaration on Yugoslavia, Haarzuilens, 6 October 1991, annexed to Letter dated 7 October 1991 from the Netherlands to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/46/533, 7 October 1991.
European Community
In July 1992, following the bombardments of the city of Goražde and other cities in Bosnia and Herzegovina by Serb forces, the EC issued a statement to the effect that: “These brutal and indiscriminate attacks upon defenceless civilians are wholly contrary to the basic humanitarian precepts of international law.” 
EC, Statement on the bombardment of Goražde, annexed to Letter dated 15 July 1992 from Belgium, France and United Kingdom to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24299, 16 July 1992.
In another declaration on Yugoslavia dated 21 July 1992, the EC denounced attacks on unarmed civilians in similar terms. 
EC, Declaration on Yugoslavia, annexed to Letter dated 21 July 1992 from Belgium, France and United Kingdom to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/24328, 21 July 1992.
EU Council of Ministers
In 1998, the EU Council of Ministers issued a regulation stating:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia has not stopped the use of indiscriminate violence and brutal repression against its own citizens, which constitute serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law. 
EU, Council of Ministers, Council Regulation EC No. 1901/98, 7 September 1998.
European Council Presidency
In 2000, the conclusions of the Presidency of the European Council reaffirmed the need for the Russian Federation, in regard to Chechnya, to abide by its commitments, in particular to put an end to the indiscriminate use of military force. 
European Council, SN 100/00, Presidency Conclusions, Lisbon, 23–24 March 2000, p. 16, § 56.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1965)
The 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965 adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population against the dangers of indiscriminate warfare, in which it stated: “Indiscriminate warfare constitutes a danger to the civilian population and the future of civilization.” The resolution urged the ICRC to pursue the development of IHL “with particular reference to the need for protecting the civilian population against the sufferings caused by indiscriminate warfare”. 
20th International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 2–9 October 1965, Res. XXVIII.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1986)
The 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986 adopted a resolution in which it deplored “the indiscriminate attacks inflicted on civilian populations … in violation of the laws and customs of war”. 
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. I, preamble.
Extraordinary Chambers in the Courts of Cambodia
In the Kaing case before the ECCC, the accused was charged, both individually and as a superior, with, inter alia, various crimes against humanity and grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions. In its judgment in 2010, the Trial Chamber, considering the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, stated:
The prohibition against targeting the civilian population does not exclude the possibility of civilian casualties incidental to an attack aimed at legitimate military targets. However, indiscriminate attacks, that is attacks that affect civilians or civilian objects and military objects without distinction, may also be qualified as direct attacks on civilians. 
ECCC, Kaing case, Judgment, 26 July 2010, § 310.
[footnote in original omitted]
International Court of Justice
In its judgment in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (DRC v. Uganda) in 2005, the ICJ stated:
The Court … finds that there is sufficient evidence of a reliable quality to support the DRC’s [Democratic Republic of the Congo’s] allegation that the UPDF [Uganda People’s Defence Force] failed to protect the civilian population and to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants in the course of fighting against other troops, especially the FAR [Rwandan Armed Forces]. According to the report of the inter-agency assessment mission to Kisangani … the armed conflict between Ugandan and Rwandan forces in Kisangani led to “fighting spreading into residential areas and indiscriminate shelling occurring for 6 days … Over 760 civilians were killed, and an estimated 1,700 wounded. More than 4,000 houses were partially damaged, destroyed or made uninhabitable. Sixty-nine schools were shelled, and other public buildings were badly damaged. Medical facilities and the cathedral were also damaged during the shelling, and 65,000 residents were forced to flee the fighting and seek refuge in nearby forests.” MONUC’s [United Nations Mission in the DRC] special report on the events in Ituri, January 2002–December 2003 … states that on 6 and 7 March 2003, “during and after fighting between UPC [Union of Congolese Patriots] and UPDF in Bunia, several civilians were killed, houses and shops were looted and civilians were wounded by gunshots … Stray bullets reportedly killed several civilians; others had their houses shelled.” … In this context, the Court notes that indiscriminate shelling is in itself a grave violation of humanitarian law. 
ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (DRC v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, § 208.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its decision on the defence motion for interlocutory appeal on jurisdiction in the Tadić case in 1995, the ICTY Appeals Chamber held that rules of customary international law have developed that regulate non-international armed conflict. To reach this conclusion the Tribunal referred to various sources including, inter alia, the behaviour of belligerent States, governments and insurgents, the action of the ICRC, UN General Assembly Resolutions 2444 (XXIII) of 1968 and 2675 (XXV) of 1970, military manuals and declarations issued by regional organizations. The Appeals Chamber stated that these rules covered areas such as the protection of civilians against the effects of hostilities, in particular protection against indiscriminate attacks. 
ICTY, Tadić case, Interlocutory Appeal, 2 October 1995, §§ 100–127.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its review of the indictments in the Karadžić and Mladić case in 1996, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated: “Throughout the conflict, the strategy of Bosnian Serb forces consisted in indiscriminately targeting civilians. Such was the case during the entire siege of Sarajevo, and at times in the safe areas of Srebrenica, Žepa, Goražde, Bihać and Tuzla.” 
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, Review of the Indictments, 11 July 1996, § 18.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In an interlocutory decision in the Kordić and Čerkez case in 1999, the ICTY Trial Chamber held that it was “indisputable” that the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks was a generally accepted obligation. 
ICTY, Kordić and Čerkez case, Decision on the Joint Defence Motion, 2 March 1999, § 31.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its judgment in the Kupreškić case in 2000, the ICTY Trial Chamber stated:
Attacks, even when they are directed against legitimate military targets, are unlawful if conducted using indiscriminate means or methods of warfare, or in such a way as to cause indiscriminate damage to civilians. 
ICTY, Kupreškić case, Judgment, 14 January 2000, § 524.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In its judgment in the Galić case in 2003, the ICTY Trial Chamber noted that “indiscriminate attacks are expressly prohibited by Additional Protocol I. This prohibition reflects a well-established rule of customary law applicable in all armed conflicts.” 
ICTY, Galić case, Judgment, 5 December 2003, § 57.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Perišić case before the ICTY in 2005, the accused, Momčilo Perišić, was charged, inter alia, with attacks on civilians, a violation of the laws or customs of war (“recognised by Article 51(2) of Additional Protocol I and Article 13(2) of Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, punishable under Article […] 3 … of the Statute of the Tribunal”), for various acts alleged to have been committed while he was chief of the general staff of the Yugoslav Army (VJ) between 1993 and 1998. 
ICTY, Perišić case, Amended Indictment, 26 September 2005, §§ 46, 54, and 62, Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, and 8.
These acts included:
40. Between August 1993 and November 1995 [the accused] aided and abetted the planning, preparation, or execution of a military campaign of artillery and mortar shelling and sniping onto civilian areas of Sarajevo and upon its civilian population, killing and wounding thousands of civilians.
42. The Sarevo Romanija Corps conducted a protracted campaign of shelling and sniping upon Sarajevo during which civilians were either specifically targeted or were the subject of reckless fire into areas where civilians were known to have been.
47. [For his omissions in relation to crimes perpetrated in Zagreb when] [o]n 2 May 1995 and 3 May 1995 Milian Martić [President of the Republic of Serbian Krajina and Supreme Commander of the Army of the Serbian Krajina] planned, instigated, ordered, committed or otherwise aided and abetted the planning, preparation, and execution of the shelling of civilian areas in the city of Zagreb and upon its civilian population.
51. The shelling [of Zagreb] was not justified by military necessity. The affected locations were either specifically targeted or the result of reckless fire into areas where civilians were known to have been. 
ICTY, Perišić case, Amended Indictment, 26 September 2005, §§ 40, 42, 47 and 51.
International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia
In the Dragomir Milošević case before the ICTY in 2006, the accused was charged, inter alia, with unlawful attacks on civilians as a violation of the laws or customs of war, punishable under Article 51 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and Article 13 of the 1977 Additional Protocol II and under Articles 3 and 7(1) and (3) of the 1993 ICTY Statute. According to the amended indictment of 18 December 2006, these attacks by their nature involved the deliberate and/or indiscriminate targeting of civilians:
From on or about 10 August 1994 to on or about 21 November 1995, Dragomir Milošević, as Commander of Bosnian Serb forces comprising or attached to the Sarajevo Romanija Corps and/or forces affiliated with the VRS, conducted a coordinated and protracted campaign of sniper attacks upon the civilian population of Sarajevo, killing and wounding a large number of civilians of all ages and both sexes, such attacks by their nature involving the deliberate and/or indiscriminate targeting of civilians with direct fire weapons. 
ICTY, Dragomir Milošević case, Prosecution’s Submission of Amended Indictment Pursuant to Rule 50 and Trial Chamber’s Decision dated 12 December 2006, 18 December 2006, § 23.
In its judgment in 2009, the ICTY Appeals Chamber stated that “[t]here is an absolute prohibition against the targeting of civilians in customary international law, encompassing indiscriminate attacks.” 
ICTY, Dragomir Milošević case, Judgment on Appeal, 12 November 2009, § 53.
(footnotes in original omitted)
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission
In its Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims (Eritrea’s Claim) partial award in 2005, the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, in considering the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks, stated that “[t]he provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Geneva Protocol I cited … express customary international humanitarian law. Those provisions … prohibit indiscriminate attacks”. 
Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission, Western Front, Aerial Bombardment and Related Claims, Eritrea’s Claim, Partial Award, 19 December 2005, § 95.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:
The attack may only be directed at a specific military objective. The military objective must be identified as such and clearly designated and assigned. The attack shall be limited to the assigned military objective. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 428.
They teach, furthermore, that an “indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive civilian casualties and damage” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 778(c).
ICRC
In an appeal issued in October 1973, the ICRC urged all the belligerents in the conflict in the Middle East (Egypt, Iraq, Israel and the Syrian Arab Republic) to observe forthwith, in particular, the provisions of, inter alia, Article 46(3) of the draft Additional Protocol I, which stated: “The employment of … any methods which strike or affect indiscriminately the civilian population and combatants, or civilian objects and military objectives, are prohibited.” All governments concerned replied favourably. 
ICRC, The International Committee’s Action in the Middle East, IRRC, No. 152, 1973, pp. 584–585.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1978 concerning the conflict in Lebanon, the ICRC urgently appealed to the belligerents “to cease forthwith the indiscriminate shelling of the civilian population”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1341, Lebanon: ICRC appeals for truce, 2 October 1978.
ICRC
In an appeal issued in 1983 concerning the Iran–Iraq War, the ICRC pointed to grave violations of IHL committed by both countries, including “indiscriminate bombardment of towns and villages”. 
ICRC, Conflict between Iraq and Iran: ICRC Appeal, IRRC, No. 235, 1983, p. 221.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1983 concerning the conflict in Lebanon, the ICRC stated:
In the camps of Nahr el Bared and Bedaoui, and in certain sectors of the city of Tripoli, civilians are at the mercy of indiscriminate shelling … The ICRC insists that the presence of armed elements among the civilian population does not justify the indiscriminate shelling of women, children and old people.  
ICRC, Press Release No. 1474, Fighting in Tripoli: appeal from the ICRC, 4 November 1983.
Council of Delegates (1987)
At its Rio de Janeiro Session in 1987, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the formal commitment by the Movement to obtain the full implementation of the Geneva Conventions in which it requested the ICRC “to take all necessary steps to enable it to protect and assist civilian victims of indiscriminate attacks”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Rio de Janeiro, 27 November 1987, Res. 5, § 2.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1988 with respect to the Iran–Iraq War, the ICRC recalled that it had already denounced the indiscriminate bombing of civilians on several occasions and stated that it had again approached the two belligerents in order to insist that “all necessary measures be taken to ensure that civilians are no longer subjected to indiscriminate attack”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1563, Iran/Iraq conflict: civilian population affected by bombing, 10 March 1988.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1989 in the context of the conflict in Lebanon, the ICRC stated:
The ICRC once again earnestly appeals to the parties concerned to end immediately the indiscriminate shelling of civilians and civilian property, which is an unacceptable violation of the most elementary humanitarian rules, and urges them to do everything in their power to ensure that these rules are henceforth duly respected. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 89/8, ICRC appeal against shelling in Lebanon, 28 July 1989.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “The following general rules are recognized as binding on any party to an armed conflict: … It is forbidden … to launch indiscriminate attacks.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, 14 December 1990, § II, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 24.
ICRC
On several occasions in 1992, the ICRC called on the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan not to launch indiscriminate attacks. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1712, Afghanistan: ICRC Appeal for Compliance with Humanitarian Rules, 5 May 1992; Press Release No. 1724, Kabul: ICRC urges respect for civilians as medical facilities struggle to cope, 20 July 1992; Press Release No. 1726, Afghanistan: New ICRC Appeal for Compliance with Humanitarian Rules, 14 August 1992.
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia “not to launch indiscriminate attacks”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC reminded the parties to the conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh of their obligation “to refrain from indiscriminate attacks”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/25, Nagorno-Karabakh conflict: 60,000 civilians flee fighting in south-western Azerbaijan, 19 August 1993.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1994 in the context of the conflict in Yemen, the ICRC stated that indiscriminate attacks were prohibited. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1773, Fighting in Yemen, 9 May 1994; see also Press Release No. 1775, Yemen: ICRC active on both sides appeals to belligerents, 12 May 1994.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “All attacks directed indiscriminately at military and civilian objectives … are prohibited.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § II, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 504.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated: “Attacks which indiscriminately strike military and civilian objectives … are prohibited.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § II, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1308.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1995, the ICRC called upon all the parties involved in Turkey’s military operations in northern Iraq “to refrain from launching any indiscriminate attack that may endanger the civilian population”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1797, ICRC calls for compliance with international humanitarian law in Turkey and Northern Iraq, 22 March 1995.
ICRC
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC proposed that the following war crime, when committed in an international armed conflict, be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court:
launching an indiscriminate attack affecting the civilian population or civilian objects in the knowledge that such attack will cause excessive loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects, which is excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. 
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, § 1(b)(ii).
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 2000, the ICRC reminded all those involved in the violence in the Near East that indiscriminate attacks were “absolutely and unconditionally prohibited”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 00/42, ICRC Appeal to All Involved in Violence in the Near East, 21 November 2000.
ICRC
In a communication to the press in 2001 in connection with the conflict in Afghanistan, the ICRC stated that indiscriminate attacks were prohibited. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 01/47, Afghanistan: ICRC calls on all parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law, 24 October 2001.
Bothe, Partsch and Solf
In their commentary on the 1977 Additional Protocols, Bothe, Partsch and Solf state:
The deletion of the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks in the simplified Protocol II suggests that para. 2 [of Article 13] be examined carefully to determine whether it covers any type of indiscriminate attacks covered by paras. 4 and 5 of Art. 51 of Protocol I. It is certainly arguable that attacks against densely populated places which are not directed at military objectives, those which cannot be so directed, and the area bombardments prohibited by para. 5(a) of Art. 51 are inferentially included within the prohibition against making the civilian population the object of attack. Their deletion may be said to be part of the simplification of the text. 
Michael Bothe, Karl Joseph Partsch, Waldemar A. Solf (eds.), New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts, Martinus Nijhoff, The Hague, 1982, p. 677.
Oppenheim
Oppenheim states: “International Law protects non-combatants from indiscriminate bombardment from the air; recourse to such bombardment constitutes a war crime.” 
Lassa Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, Disputes, War and Neutrality, Sixth edition, revised, Hersch Lauterpacht (ed.), Longmans, Green and Co., London/New York/Toronto, 1944, p. 416, § 214ea.
International Institute of Humanitarian Law
The Rules of International Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Non-international Armed Conflicts, adopted in 1990 by the Council of the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, provide: “The obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians is a general rule applicable in non-international armed conflicts. It prohibits indiscriminate attacks.” 
International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Rules of International Humanitarian Law Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Non-international Armed Conflicts, Rule A1, IRRC, No. 278, 1990, p. 387.
Front Patriotique Rwandais (FPR)
The Report on the Practice of Rwanda notes that in April 1994, during the conflict in Rwanda, the FPR confirmed that future attacks against military positions in Kigali where the civilian population was being used as a human shield would be avoided. According to the report, the reason invoked was that FPR soldiers did not want to strike at military objectives and at civilians without distinction. 
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 1.4, referring to Statement of the FPR, Ingabo, No. 027, Kanama, 1997, pp. 17–18.
Human Rights Watch
In 1994, in the context of the conflict in Yemen, Human Rights Watch urged the Court of Yemen “to pay closest attention to the requirements of the rules of war, in particular to the prohibition on indiscriminate attacks in areas of civilian concentration … We note that the rules of war apply equally to government and rebel troops.” 
Human Rights Watch, Letter to the Government of Yemen, New York, 19 May 1994.
Memorial Human Rights Center
A report by the Memorial Human Rights Center documenting the Russian Federation’s operation in the Chechen village of Samashki in April 1995 alleged that Russian forces had attacked the village indiscriminately. The report stated that ICRC representatives had assessed the general number of deaths in the village and the large proportion of civilians among them. The ICRC representatives gave a series of interviews on the topic in which they protested about violations of common laws of warfare by Interior Ministry soldiers, i.e. “indiscriminate attacks” during military operations. 
Memorial Human Rights Center, By All Available Means: the Russian Federation Ministry of Internal Affairs Operation in the Village of Samashki: April 7–8, 1995, Moscow, 1996, § 9.3, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1415.