Règle correspondante
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Commanders shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-1, § 4; see also p. 2-2, § 12.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states:
1. Distinction. The principle of distinction imposes an obligation on commanders to distinguish between legitimate targets and civilian objects and the civilian population. It is of primary importance when selecting targets.
2. This obligation is, of course, dependent on the quality of the information available to commanders at the time decisions are made. Commanders must make reasonable, good faith efforts to gather intelligence and to review the intelligence available to them.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 204.
In its chapter on targeting, the manual further states:
403. Distinction principle
1. To ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population and civilian objects, commanders shall at all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives.
…
411. Protection of civilians and civilian objects
1. The protection of civilians and civilian objects is a fundamental principle of the LOAC. Parties to a conflict have a duty to distinguish between civilians and combatants as well as between civilian objects and military objectives. Civilians are entitled to protection from the dangers arising from military operations. In conducting operations care should always be taken to spare civilians and civilian objects.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 403 and 411.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “Combatants are legitimate targets and may be attacked.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-2, § 12.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) requires Canadian forces to “engage only opposing forces and military objectives”.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 1.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states:
406. Definition of legitimate targets
1. “Legitimate targets” include combatants, unlawful combatants and military objectives.
…
408. Combatants
1. Combatants are legitimate targets and may be attacked unless they have been captured, surrendered, expressed a clear intention to surrender, or are hors de combat (i.e., out of combat), provided they refrain from hostile acts and do not attempt to escape …
409. Airborne troops
1. Airborne troops are combatants and therefore legitimate targets. They may be attacked during their descent by parachute from aircraft.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 406.1 and 408–409.
Rule 1 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs Canadian Forces (CF) personnel: “Engage only opposing forces and military objectives.”
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 1.
The Code of Conduct further explains:
1. Rule # 1 is the cornerstone of the Law of Armed Conflict. It is consistent with and in fact reflects two of the Principles of War, namely “selection and maintenance of the aim” and “economy of effort.” Any deviation from the military aim jeopardizes the mission. Thus, whether you are involved in defensive or offensive operations, your effort must be directed toward the continued maintenance of the aim. It would be considered a waste of resources to engage forces that are not hostile or that have been rendered incapable of further hostilities, or to attack objectives or other objects not used for a military purpose. It is unlawful as well as unsound from an operational point of view.
…
3. Force used during operations must be directed against opposing forces and military objectives. Therefore, civilians not taking part in hostilities must not be targeted. Rule #1 not only makes sense morally but also helps to ensure the most efficient use of military resources. In simple terms, “warriors fight warriors.”
…
5. An “opposing force” is any individual or group of individuals who pose a threat to you or your mission. It is sometimes difficult to identify who the opposing forces are. At one time most armed conflict involved organized armed forces. However, since World War II an increasing number of conflicts involve paramilitary, irregular or poorly organized armed groups. Sometimes these groups are fighting for ethnic or religious reasons. Often members of such paramilitary or irregular armed groups do not wear uniforms or operate in organized units. … In an armed conflict … the enemy forces are opposing forces whether or not they pose an immediate threat.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 1, §§ 1, 3 and 5.
Canada’s Use of Force Manual (2008) states:
In terms of use of force, an essential feature of the LOAC [law of armed conflict] is that it allows for the deliberate use of deadly force against individuals directly participating in hostilities (during international or non-international armed conflicts), whether or not they are presenting a threat at the moment.
Canada, Use of Force for CF Operations, Canadian Forces Joint Publication, Chief of the Defence Staff, B-GJ-005-501/FP-001, August 2008, § 105.6.
Upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Canada stated:
It is the understanding of the Government of Canada in relation to Article 52 that … the first sentence of paragraph 2 of the Article is not intended to, nor does it, deal with the question of incidental or collateral damage resulting from an attack directed against a military objective.
Canada, Reservations and statements of understanding made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 20 November 1990, § 8(b).
At the CDDH, Canada stated that the first sentence of Article 47(2) of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 52(2)) “prohibits only attacks that could be directed against non-military objectives. It does not deal with the result of a legitimate attack on military objectives and incidental damage that such attack may cause.”
Canada, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 179.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “As a general rule, civilians … shall not be attacked.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-4, § 32; see also p. 7-5, § 46 (air to land operations).
It further states that “making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 16(a).
With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “The civilian population and civilians are to be protected against the dangers arising from the conflict. Neither the civilian population nor individual civilians may be made the object of attack.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-5, § 37.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) states:
Force used during operations must be directed against opposing forces and military objectives. Therefore, civilians not taking part in hostilities must not be targeted. [This rule] not only makes sense morally but also helps to ensure the most efficient use of military resources. In simple terms, “warriors fight warriors” … An “opposing force” is any individual or group of individuals who pose a threat to you or your mission … In an armed conflict, on the other hand, the enemy forces are opposing forces whether or not they pose an immediate threat.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 1, §§ 3 and 5.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that the concept of humanity “confirms the basic immunity of civilian populations and civilians from being objects of attack during armed conflict”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 202.6.
In its chapter entitled “Combatant Status”, the manual states: “Civilians are non-combatants. As a general rule, they may not be attacked unless they participate directly in hostilities.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 312.
In its chapter on targeting, the manual also states: “As a general rule, civilians and civilian objects shall not be attacked.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 423.
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual further states: “The civilian population as a whole, as well as individual civilians, shall not be the object of attack. Civilians shall enjoy this protection unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 716.2.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that “making the civilian population or individual civilians the object of attack” is 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.a.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states: “The civilian population and civilians are to be protected against the dangers arising from the conflict. Neither the civilian population nor individual civilians may be made the object of attack.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1720.
Rule 1 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs CF personnel: “Engage only opposing forces and military objectives.”
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 1.
The Code of Conduct further explains:
Force used during operations must be directed against opposing forces and military objectives. Therefore, civilians not taking part in hostilities must not be targeted. Rule #1 not only makes sense morally but also helps to ensure the most efficient use of military resources. In simple terms, “warriors fight warriors.”
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 1, § 3.
Canada’s Use of Force Manual (2008), in a section entitled “Principles and rules governing the use of force that directly relates to the conduct of an armed conflict”, states: “Distinction. As a general rule civilians … shall not be the object of attack (acts of violence against the adversary, whether in offence or defence).”
Canada, Use of Force for CF Operations, Canadian Forces Joint Publication, Chief of the Defence Staff, B-GJ-005-501/FP-001, August 2008, § 112.1.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “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).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000), as amended in 2001, provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, as amended in 2001, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Human Rights Council on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
In the past few days, the international community has witnessed appalling images from Libya as the Gaddafi regime has carried out brutal attacks against its own people.
…
This violence must stop. As Prime Minister [Stephen] Harper stated, “The international community must send a very clear message: the killing of innocent civilians – the citizens of its own count[r]y – constitutes a gross violation of human rights and must carry serious consequences.
Canada, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the UN Human Rights Council, 28 February 2011.
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated: “Deliberate and targeted attacks on civilian populations must not be tolerated.”
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 10 May 2011.
In 2011, in an address to the House of Commons on the situation in Libya, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Canada stated:
Canada has been vocal in condemning the targeting of civilians by the Qadhafi regime … This regime has chosen to wage war on its own people. In the face of this blatant disregard for both human rights and international law, Canada has demanded that the regime halt its attacks against its own people.
Canada, House of Commons, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to the House of Commons on the Situation in Libya, 14 June 2011.
In 2011, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on children and armed conflict made on behalf of the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
Members of the Friends Group have reliably called on the [UN] Security Council to strengthen its protection framework even more and consistently called for all six grave violations committed against children in armed conflict to be included amongst the [UN] Security Council Resolution 1612 [of 2005] listing criteria. The Friends Group has supported a progressive approach in this regard and therefore commends the [UN] Security Council in filling an important gap in the child protection framework by including attacks against schools and hospitals as the latest trigger through the resolution it will adopt today [Resolution 1998(2011)].
For the Friends Group, a new trigger such as this not only includes in the annexes to the Secretary General’s reports on children and armed conflict those parties to armed conflict that, in contravention of applicable international law, engage in attacks against schools and hospitals, but also those who engage in threats or attacks against schoolchildren, patients, educational or medical personnel.
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate in connection with the agenda item “Children and Armed Conflict”, made on behalf of the Group of Friends of Children and Armed Conflict, 12 July 2011.
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:
United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973 mandated the use of all necessary means to protect civilians under threat of attack in Libya. Resolution 1973 and, before that, 1970 sent a clear message to the previous Libyan regime and to the wider international community that deliberate and targeted attacks against civilian populations and gross violations of human rights will carry serious consequences.
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 9 November 2011.
In 2012, in a statement before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the promotion and protection of human rights, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
Canada strongly condemns the widespread violations of human rights and violence committed by the Assad regime against the Syrian people. We note with particular concern reports of the targeting of civilians by the Syrian army; all parties to the conflict must respect international law and ensure the protection of civilians.
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly on the promotion and protection of human rights, 8 November 2012.
In 2012, in a statement on the strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations, the permanent representative of Canada stated: “The people of Syria must be safe from … attacks. … We urge all parties to the conflict to fully respect their obligations, especially their obligations to take constant care to spare the civilian population from the effects of hostilities.”
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada on the strengthening of the coordination of humanitarian and disaster relief assistance of the United Nations, 13 December 2012.
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of Canada stated:
It is deeply concerning that there remain so many civilians around the world who are victims of deliberate and targeted attacks.
…
UN Secretary General reports on the protection of civilians can be an important tool to bring attention to protection challenges. But they need to clearly and unabashedly identify those countries and those actors who are targeting, abusing and killing civilians, and hold them to account. Canada will not be silent when it comes to identifying and condemning those who commit deliberate and barbaric attacks on civilian populations.
Canada, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Canada during the UN Security Council open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 12 February 2013.
In 2013, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development issued a press release entitled “Canada Condemns Attack on Shiite Mosque in Eastern Syria”, which stated:
Canada’s Ambassador for Religious Freedom … today condemned the attack on a Shiite Mosque in eastern Syria:
“ … The targeting of religious communities, including Shiite, Sunni and Christian civilians, by extremist elements who are exploiting the chaos of war is a deeply worrying trend that we are watching closely.
The targeting of people and their places of worship, whatever the source, cannot be tolerated and must end. …
…”
Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, “Canada Condemns Attack on Shiite Mosque in Eastern Syria”, Press Release, 16 June 2013.
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Canada stated:
The brutal conflict in Syria represents a stark example of how much work remains to be achieved to better protect civilians who are routinely victims of deliberate and targeted attacks … Canada calls on all parties to the conflict in Syria to refrain from attacking civilians … in conformity with their obligations under international law.
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 19 August 2013, p. 1.
In 2013, Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development issued a press release entitled “Canada Condemns Violence in Tripoli”, which stated: “Foreign Affairs Minister … today issued the following statement: ‘Canada condemns the recent violence in Tripoli [Libya], in particular the attacks against civilians …’”.
Canada, Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development, “Canada Condemns Violence in Tripoli”, Press Release, 16 November 2013.
