Implications of the 'Achievement of Compliance' for the Protection of Civilians

As the war in Ukraine continues and we are once again presented with horrifying images of destroyed homes, shattered infrastructure, indiscriminate injury and death, we are powerfully reminded that harm to civilian populations during periods of armed conflict remains one of the great humanitarian problems of the 21st century. Today, the ongoing urbanisation of warfare means that there are presently 50 million people whose lives are affected by conflicts playing out in villages, towns and cities around the globe (United Nations Security Council, 2021).

In light of this shift to urban centres, statistics relating to civilian harm paint a grave picture. In the last decade, Action on Armed Violence's 'Explosive Violence Monitor' (2022) has found that, year on year, civilians have accounted for 73% of the total casualties caused by the use of explosive weapons, a figure which rises to an astonishing 90% in urban areas.

My research in collaboration with Article 36 - a specialist humanitarian advocacy organisation and co-recipient of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize - speaks directly to this issue. At its core, my work deploys contemporary methodological approaches to investigate the practices of military personnel engaged in actual instances of targeting and the use of force.

By doing so, it demonstrates the extent to which current legal and political mechanisms for the protection of civilians fall short of sufficiently protecting civilian populations. Given that, my research occupies a vital position at the intersection between academic inquiry and humanitarian advocacy and will be pivotal in developing a new evidentiary basis for international policy and advocacy in coming years.

My PhD, entitled 'Law in War: Legal Reasoning, Targeting, and the Use of Force', provides an unprecedentedly detailed analysis of the means by which a group of US personnel, both before and after the fact, worked up the legal justifications for a disastrous strike which led to the deaths of at least 15 civilians. With a focus on the methods used in theatre by military personnel to creatively interpret international law so as to enable them to carry out their military objectives unimpeded, my research has generated three general conclusions:

1) Compliance with the laws of war is something that military personnel can be proficient in, with competent personnel possessing a strong capacity to "[find] in the rules the means for doing whatever need be done" (Bittner 1965: 251). In other words, those with a strong knowledge of the rules and their relation to them can find legal justifications for engaging in activities which appear, on the face of things, to be precisely what the rules are meant to proscribe.

2) Despite militarised states protestations to the contrary, compliance with the laws of war cannot be treated as synonymous with the protection of civilians. In fact, military personnel's overwhelming preoccupation with the letter of the law - as opposed to its 'spirit' - serves to endanger civilians during periods of armed conflict.

3) Finally, given the above, rather than constraining the use of force, applications of the laws of war on the battlefield amplify opportunities for legally engaging in it.

In light of these conclusions, my research both empirically corroborates but also advances beyond Jones' claim (2020) that contemporary operational orientations to the laws of war have succeeded in expanding the scope and extent of legitimate violence. Though these conclusions are well established in my PhD thesis, the proposed fellowship will facilitate the dissemination of my findings through a series of events co-organised with Article 36 at the UN and other high-profile fora; through journal articles that will allow me to generate significant impact opportunities; and through conference presentations and networking activity which will allow me to cement my status as a strong Early Career Researcher and indeed future research leader within my field.