Filip A. LARIU
This article examines the challenges and limits of the principle of distinction in regard to the instrumentalization of natural disasters in armed conflict. While IHL requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants, as well as between civilian and military objects, the disruption caused by natural disasters complicates this fundamental obligation. Existing scholarship has analyzed distinction in conventional warfare, but its application in disaster-affected conflicts remains underexplored. This study employs a legal doctrinal approach, assessing primary IHL sources to determine whether the exploitation of disaster effects constitutes a breach of distinction. The findings reveal two potential theories – one states that such instrumentalization inherently violates IHL, while the second advocates for a case-by-case analysis focused strictly on human action. The study underscores the need for heightened scrutiny in targeting decisions within disaster zones. By addressing this issue, this article contributes to the ongoing discourse on adapting IHL to contemporary challenges and ensuring the continued protection of civilians in conflict settings.
