Thank you, Mr.
Chairman,
The law of
armed conflict has faced, from the outset, a wide range of challenges that
arise from the nature of contemporary warfare. Among these challenges, asymmetric warfare stands out as
particularly problematic, as it involves a situation in which a state that
adheres to the Laws of Armed Conflict is faced by a n non-state entity, which
does not see itself as bound by the law of armed conflict and abuses the
principles of international humanitarian law to gain an advantage over its
adversary.
The law of armed conflict is
premised on the distinction between civilians and combatants. From this
principle naturally derives the obligation of combatants to clearly distinguish
themselves from the civilian population. Sadly, the world has witnessed time
and time again that terrorists taking part in asymmetric conflicts, intentionally locate
themselves and their weaponry amongst civilian population's and use innocent
people including women, children, the sick and the elderly as human shields.
They booby-trap civilian areas and abuse medical facilities and ambulances.
They abuse protected sites, public institutions, places of worship and UN
schools and facilities, and interfere with humanitarian relief efforts. This
practice is regularly supplemented by another grave breach of international
law: intentionally targeting the civilian population of the belligerent state.
This unlawful and abhorrent
practice has been part of Israel's reality for decades, within the context of
armed conflicts with Hezbollah, Hamas and other terrorist groups in the area.
It creates difficulties and dilemmas for Israeli commanders and soldiers, in
their effort to uphold international law in the face of an enemy that blatantly
disregards and abuses the protections afforded by the laws of armed conflict,
in order to gain an advantage on both the battlefield and in world public
opinion. The sad reality is that
innocent civilians suffer in armed conflicts, especially in situations where a
non-state entity violates the law and intentionally puts its civilian
population at risk. Israel firmly believes that the law of armed conflict
remains the primary legal framework for regulating the conduct of hostilities,
including hostilities with non-state actors. At the same time, it is important
that the existing body of law that relates to the law of armed conflict, to
which Israel and all states are bound, be interpreted in such a way that it
effectively meets the emerging challenges and changing faces of contemporary
armed conflicts, including asymmetric warfare.
Mr. Chairman,
Israel is not
the only state with concerns regarding the Additional Protocols. Nonetheless, our commitment to the law of
armed conflict, including the Geneva Conventions and customary international
law, is clear.
Israel is a
party to many conventions that deal with the law of armed conflict, including;
the four Geneva Conventions, the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
in the Event of Armed Conflict, the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the
Rights of the Child and the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the
Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.
Israel's commitment to the law
of armed conflict is further reflected in the careful legal scrutiny of
military operations, both before and during the conduct of hostilities.
Israel's commitment is demonstrated in Israel's ability and willingness to
conduct thorough, credible and independent investigations into allegations that
a violation of the laws of armed conflict has taken place. It is further
demonstrated by Israel's recent efforts to review and reform its investigation
mechanisms.
The cutting
edge decisions and constant judicial review by our independent judiciary,
further highlights Israel's commitment to international law. The Israeli
Supreme Court offers some of the broadest rules of standing of any court
worldwide and opens its doors to any effected party, citizens and non-citizens
alike, including Palestinians, human right groups and private persons.
Throughout its history, Israel's High Court of Justice has heard hundreds of
petitions on issues relating to the law of armed conflict and at times has even
halted military operations and security measures taken by the authorities in
real time. Indeed, Israel's High Court of Justice decisions on matters related
to the law of armed conflict and the delicate balance between effectively
fighting terrorism on the one hand and the need to protect civil and human
rights on the other hand, have gained international recognition and have
contributed to the development of the law of armed conflict.
Israel's challenging encounters
with asymmetric warfare has led it to greatly intensify the legal training of
its soldiers, as well as increase the involvement of legal advisors both in the
planning phase and during actual combat on the battlefield. These legal
advisors are institutionally independent, and are not subordinate to the
commanders they advise.
Mr. Chairman,
It is Israel's position that the
dissemination of the laws of armed conflict and promoting compliance with and
respect of these norms is of the highest importance. In this regard we note the
important contribution of the ICRC and its humanitarian work on the ground in
so many parts of the world.
Thank you,
Mr. Chairman.