Abstract/Summary

The continuing hostilities in Syria, Yemen, and Ukraine illustrate that cities invariably provide the stage for contemporary armed conflict. Within these complex urban environments, military operations take place amidst the densely packed physical terrain and a concentrated civilian population. These features make urban warfare more dangerous for combatants and civilians alike. Given the rate of civilian casualties, some commentators are increasingly critical of what they consider to be the failure of modern armed forces to take the precautionary measures demanded by International Humanitarian Law (IHL) before undertaking urban attacks. However, in common with the wider body of IHL, the rules concerning the taking of precautions in attack reflect the careful balancing of military and humanitarian considerations by states, and such criticism tends to unduly skew that balance in favour of humanitarian concerns. In practice, IHL develops through state practice, and this makes it necessary to consider whether an IHL framework developed from the experiences of air warfare before 1977 remains fit for purpose in the context of contemporary urban warfare. This study explores the precise challenges posed by the urban environment to military practitioners and critically analyses the practice of states, through their armed forces, when conducting attacks as part of urban warfare. Although the existing IHL framework remains fit for purpose, the research highlights the importance of interpreting the relevant IHL rules as the Diplomatic Conference intended them to operate—as a means of reconciling military and humanitarian considerations. The taking of precautionary measures is not a zero-sum game: if precautions are ‘done well’, civilian harm mitigation need not impose undue constraints on the conduct of necessary military action.