Indeed, numerous LOAC treaty provisions expressly ban such practice.
Of key relevance during international armed conflict is
Article 28 of Geneva Convention IV (GC IV), which prohibits the use as shields of “protected persons,” a term encompassing civilians “who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals” (
art. 4).
As explained in the article itself, “[t]he presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations.”
Article 28 was a response to the widespread use of civilians as shields in occupied territory during the Second World War.
A 1958
Commentary to the article offers the examples of “belligerents compelling civilians to remain in places of strategic importance (such as railway stations, viaducts, dams, power stations or factories), or to accompany military convoys, or again, to serve as a protective screen for the fighting troops.”
Because all three examples involve “compelled” actions, as distinct from merely taking advantage of the presence of civilians, they constitute
active shielding akin to the incidents highlighted in the introduction to this post.
Not only does the prohibition bind parties to GC IV, it is recognized as reflecting customary international law. Indeed, the International Court of Justice has labeled the fundamental rules set forth in the 1949 Geneva Conventions as “intransgressible principles of international law” (
Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion, para. 79; see also Israeli Supreme Court,
Public Committee against Torture, para. 4). While the Court was not addressing human shielding as such, it appears clear that using those individuals qualifying as protected persons under GC IV in that manner undeniably violates the article’s customary LOAC rule counterpart.