Maintaining the protection of non-combatants

This article brings moral analysis to bear on the distinctive problem of ma intaining the protection of nan-combatants in contemporary warfare. While a ll warfare imposes burdens on non-combatants, moral tradition and the law o f armed conflicts distinguish combatants from non-combatants and seek to pr otect the latter from direct, intended attacks. Much contemporary warfare r ejects the two premises on which these efforts are based: that it is right and necessary to distinguish beta;een combatants and non-combatants in a so ciety at way and that it is necessary to distinguish direct, intended harm to non-combatants from 'collateral' harm that non-combatants may suffer fro m properly directed and intended military actions. Indeed, as exemplified b y numerous contemporary conflicts (e.g. Rwanda, former Yugoslavia, Northern Ireland) inflamed by ethnic, religious, or ideological rivalries, recent w arfare often reveals a pattern in which the armed forces of one or both sid es directly and intentionally attack non-combatants as a preferred means of making war. The article addresses this problem in five steps, which define the article's five major sections: first, an analysis of the problem of wa rfare on non-combatants in moral terms drawn from the just war tradition; s econd, an examination of the historical development of non-combatant protec tion and the reasons for it in this tradition; third, a summary look at the protection of non-combatants in positive international law, from the law o f armed conflicts through the ideas of crimes against humanity and genocide ; fourth, an examination of the problem of warfare on non-combatants in two contemporary conflicts, those in Rwanda-Zaire and tbe former Yugoslavia; a nd fifth, a concluding section of moral argument for the importance of main taining the protection of non-combatants in armed conflicts.