Sociology

 P a g e | 1
Warning: This paper is already submitted. If you copy it, it will be caught as plagiarised.
Title: Sociology
Subject: Sociology
Type of Paper: Assignment
Words: 2363
Which types of activities do not constitute direct participation
While, as noted above, making an essential contribution to the war effort could involve a
civilian in direct participation, a non-essential contribution to the general war efforts (e.g., by
supplying foodstuffs to combatants) is not tantamount to active participation in hostilities. [54]
Thus, working in a munitions factory, supplying food to combatants, transport of food or
humanitarian supplies, etc. are not considered to constitute direct participation. According to
A.P.V. Rogers:
‘Taking a direct part in hostilities must be more narrowly construed than making a
contribution to the war effort and it would not include taking part in arms production or military
engineering works of military transport.’[55]
Combatants clearly rely on the munitions made in the factories where civilians work and
are equally dependent on the food they are supplied with. But in this case, the causality is too
remote, and there is also no objective intention on the part of these civilians to participate. The
civilian does not intend to harm the enemy by his actions or to gain any military advantage.
Notwithstanding the importance of certain key scientists to a military effort, most civilian
scientists working for the military could not be considered as directly participating in hostilities
where they are merely participating in the war effort. However, where by their work civilians put
their own lives in danger, they cannot claim the protection against attack. As Kalshoven points
out: ‘civilians cannot enjoy protection from attack when they enter military objectives (e.g., by
working in a military base or in a munitions factory) or accompanying military units. This
protection is diminished even when civilians merely live near or pass by a military objective,
by dint of the very tangible danger of a legitimate collateral damage in case of attack.’[56]lso
part of customary international law.
Which types of activities constitute direct participation
According to the ICRC Commentary on Additional Protocol I: ‘Direct participation in 
P a g e | 2
Warning: This paper is already submitted. If you copy it, it will be caught as plagiarised.
hostilities implies a direct casual relationship between the activity engaged in and the harm done
to the enemy at the time and place where the activity occurs.’[44] The Commentary on
Additional Protocol II states in a similar vein that: ‘The notion of direct participation in
hostilities implies that there is a sufficient casual relationship between the act of participation and
its immediate consequences.’[45]
But, in fact, this view, like the term ‘direct participation in hostilities’ itself is somewhat
misleading as it suggests that only direct participation in a literal sense in activities amounting to
attacks or which enable the launching of attacks on an enemy are covered. On the contrary, it is
generally and increasingly considered that there are many activities which involve a more
indirect role for civilians, where the civilian is one or more steps (geographically or temporally)
away from the actual application of violence (which may be virtual rather than physical) and
may not even consider him or herself to be a direct participant in hostilities, and which do not
actually involve attacks in the literal or kinetic sense, or where the causality relationship is more
indirect, yet which are also considered as direct participation in hostilities.
One can observe that at both ends of a spectrum of activities lie acts about which there
appears to be consensus or at least little controversy that they constitute direct participation in
hostilities or that they do not. It is those that lie somewhere in between that give rise to
uncertainty.
Before focusing on the difficult cases, it is useful to first identify what are generally
considered as clear-cut cases of direct participation by civilians in hostilities. According to
Kalshoven: ‘’[T]o take a direct part in hostilities’ must be interpreted to mean that the person in
question performs hostile acts, which, by their nature or purpose, are designed to strike enemy
combatants or materiel; acts in other words, such as firing at enemy soldiers, throwing a
Molotov-cocktail at an enemy tank, blowing up a bridge carrying enemy war materiel, and so
on.’[46] The US Navy manual states:
‘Civilians who take a direct part in hostilities by taking up arms or otherwise trying to
kill, injure, or capture enemy personnel or destroy enemy property lose their immunity and may
be attacked. Direct participation may also include civilians serving as guards, intelligence agents,
or lookouts on behalf of military forces. Direct participation in hostilities must be judged on