Urbanisation of Armed Conflicts

I. Introduction

War is a social phenomenon and is evolving through armed violations. The current trend has been where war is being fought in urban areas, the main reason for the shift is because the centre of power is based in the urban areas. In recent years, cities in countries such as Syria, Ukraine, and Somalia have been sites of major incidents of armed conflict. Such violence has led observers to note that armed conflict is becoming more urbanised in nature and increasingly affecting cities.

In Urban areas, concentration of resources and captivity of civilians is easy. Many cities have recently experienced destructive conflicts and some are in grave threat and violent military operations. The destruction of civilian property, the collapse of healthcare infrastructure and the terror brought by bombing have led to thousands of civilian deaths and caused many survivors to flee². Contemporary armed conflicts and humanitarian problems that are caused as a consequence due to the use of explosive weapons. Urban concentration is different from Urbanisation, The proportion of people living in urban areas, whereas Urban concentration is about the spatial distribution of urban populations. The ICRC knows from direct observation that the use in populated areas of explosive weapons that have wide area effects continues to be a major cause of injury and death among civilians and of damage to civilian objects. Services in some areas are accustomed in a way that they are deprived of health care, electricity in addition, fighting in urban centres results in widespread displacement. Fighting in urban centres results in widespread of displacement. To explain this phenomenon of urbanisation, the first thing to consider is the change in global demographics. Secondly, the asymmetric nature of contemporary conflicts can partly explain their urbanisation.³ Where there is a stark disparity of means and forces, the weakest belligerent has every interest in fighting in an urban area. The urban environment also offers them greater media exposure and concentrates the economic, political and symbolic centres of the power they are fighting. Lastly, the role played by the civilian population in conflicts has also changed and can explain their urbanisation.⁴

II. Ihl and urban warfare

“The link between civil conflict and urban areas is intricate, Cities are used to be places of refuge or relative security during conflict. At the time of war these cities become economic hub, which can be called as War economies. Urban areas may also become sites of insurgency and combat.” Hostilities in populated areas may be driven by the strategic importance parties to a conflict attach to their control over certain population centres, especially where politics is deep rooted in a certain social, ethnic, or religious demographic.⁵ IHL is a set of rules which aims to limit the after effects of armed conflict, protect people who do not participate in combat and explains the use of authorised means (weapons) and methods of war. There are no specific rules that pertain to urban environment. The two core principles of IHL, distinction and proportionality can question the legality of explosives or weapons used in urban areas, as IHL does not expressly forbidden.

The principle of distinction aims to protect civilian population, infrastructure and property against unacceptable harm and destruction, even after devastating humanitarian consequences of urban warfare raise serious questions regarding how parties to such conflicts interpret and apply relevant IHL rules. The use of explosive weapons in populated areas also challenges their respect for the principle of proportionality. This principle forbids attacks whose expected damage would be excessive when compared to the military advantage gained⁶ The principle of proportionality’s interpretation in urban areas raises certain issues which does not explicitly forbids attacks whose expected damage would be excessive when compared to the military advantage gained. Yet the use of explosive weapons in populates areas also challenges the principle of proportionality.

In 1949 four Geneva Conventions, which are still in force today, were adopted, each of them dealing with the protection of a specific category of persons who are not, or are no longer, taking part in hostilities:

1. First Convention: on the care of the wounded and sick members of armed forces in the field

2. Second Convention: on the care of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea

3. Third Convention: on the treatment of prisoners of war

4. Fourth Convention: on the protection of civilian persons in time of war.⁷

Humanitarian organisations like the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) are reacting to relief efforts in cities of urban wars. The worldwide trend toward urbanisation, increasingly volatile internal political situations in emerging nations, and changes in the character of armed conflict are all contributing to the rise in urban violence and the resurrection of combat in cities. IHL's current issues extend not only on non compliance with the regulations. Changes in warfare's techniques, means, methods and geography continue to put treaty and customary international law's flexibility and adaptability in question. As the globe becomes more urbanised, so do conflicts, making urban warfare and its effects on civilian life, infrastructure, and services a major concern. Many conflicting parties have failed to adapt their weapons and tactics to the specific vulnerability of individuals living in cities.

III. ICRC and urban warfare

The ICRC is an independent, neutral organisation ensuring humanitarian protection and assistance for victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence. It takes action in response to emergencies and at the same time promotes respect for international humanitarian law and its implementation in national law. In 2020, the ICRC was present in more than 100 countries through delegations, sub-delegations, offices and missions.⁸ The ICRC addresses the consequences of urban violence affecting young people, infrastructure. In 2020, the ICRC continued to engage with key actors like NGO’s and other organisation on a range of topics, including: urban warfare, new technologies in warfare and cyber warfare; counter-terrorism measures and sanctions regimes; support relationships in armed conflict; business, security, IHL and human rights; and the protection of the environment. The ICRC’s continuous engagement at diplomatic and technical levels was a factor in 42 ratifications of or accessions to IHL treaties or other relevant instruments (or amendments to them) by 35 states. The ICRC also engaged extensively with stakeholders on pandemic-related issues such as digital risks, COVID-19 and IHL, and equitable access to vaccines. It provided input for the Inter-Agency Standing Committee’s COVID-19 guidance for humanitarian settings, published guidance on military involvement in security operations, and jointly developed, with other Movement partners, COVID-19-specific guidelines on civilian-military relations. After its decade-long engagement on the topic of nuclear weapons, the Movement welcomed the imminent entry into force in early 2021 of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which had been adopted in 2017. The ICRC also had lengthy discussions with stakeholders about pandemic-related problems such digital hazards, COVID-19 and IHL. It contributed to the Inter-Agency Standing Committee's COVID-19 humanitarian recommendations, released guidance on military engagement in security operations, and established COVID-19-specific rules on civilian-military ties with other Movement partners.The Movement hailed the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, which had been approved in 2017, entering into force in early 2021, after a decade of involvement on the subject. With input from the working units, the ICRC worked on issues of concern at various international forums, such as safeguarding essential services and resources in conflict-affected urban areas; the treatment of people who had participated in an armed conflict outside their countries and of their families, especially their children; preventing and addressing sexual violence; the protection due to health workers and facilities under IHL; the provision of mental health and psychosocial support during the pandemic.⁹

The ICRC worked on a multidisciplinary research and proposed three important principles or standings of IHL:

1. the protection of civilians against the effects of hostilities during urban warfare;

2. the protection of the civilian population during sieges; and

3. the use of explosive weapons in populated areas

IV. The protection of civilians

Urban warfare endangers civilians by intermingling with military and political policies. The present challenges are the military and civilians harms. Policies framing can aid in protecting civilians and limit the effects of urban warfare against them, these policies should be formulated in par with the provisions and support provided under IHL, the main reason for policy formation is IHL does not mainly and solely express rules and regulations pertaining to urban warfare. IHL prohibits attacks directed at civilians and objects, which includes indiscriminate attacks, which means attacks that strike military and civilians objectives without divergence. IHL also prohibits attacks that may be expected to cause incidental civilian harm that would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. While the existence of the principle of proportionality is uncontested and is applied daily by military commanders, the key concepts on which it relies (“incidental civilian harm”, “military advantage”, and “excessiveness”) would benefit from further clarification, which the ICRC has sought to support.¹⁰ IHL also insist parties to take precautions which requires them to gather the maximum possible amount of information so as to assess the effects of an attack (plans, areas of vulnerability etc.). This assessment is facilitated by technological developments and also by the generation of empirical data regarding the use of certain weapons, available in Open Source. In this respect, certain civil society actors have gathered data about urban conflicts in order to model the consequences of armed violence on civilian buildings and to present this information to belligerents¹¹ The methods of precautions can be understood only when time evolves as it drastically changes with number of factors like technology development, cyber attacks, invention and identification of new techniques and tactics used by the opposite party etc.. The main aim is minimising incidental civilian harm which is expected and forecasted. The principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution are complementary and these principles are to be in use when the attack is lawful. Depending on the circumstances, displacement can become a civilian harm as it increase the risk of death, injury or disease.

V. Protecting the civilian population during sieges

A siege can be described as a tactic to encircle an enemy’s armed forces, in order to prevent their movement or cut them off from support and supply channels. The ultimate aim of a siege is usually to force the enemy to surrender, historically through starvation and thirst, though in contemporary conflicts besieging forces usually attempt to capture the besieged area through hostilities.¹² Three sets of rules of IHL are of particular relevance to sieges. The first comprises the rules regulating the conduct of hostilities; these are primarily of relevance to the bombardment dimension of sieges. The second set is the prohibition of starvation of civilians as a method of warfare, as well as the rules regulating humanitarian relief operations; these are of relevance to the encirclement dimension. The third comprises the rules on evacuations, which can provide a way of alleviating the adverse effects of sieges on civilians. This briefing proceeds on the assumption that all these rules are the same in both international and non-international armed conflicts. It is not just the besieging party that has obligations. The besieged party must also comply with a number of rules that play an important role in protecting civilians in besieged areas and in reducing the adverse impact of sieges on civilians.The second set of IHL rules of relevance to sieges comprises the prohibition of the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare. In terms of threshold of need, ‘starvation’ implies a high degree of deprivation, more significant than the ‘not adequately provided’ standard that brings into play the rules of IHL regulating humanitarian relief operations.¹³ The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) principles governing humanitarian relief operations play a critical role in reducing the impact of siege encirclement and isolation on populations. They are particularly important in light of the present disagreement about the breadth of the restriction on civilian starvation as a technique of warfare, as well as the fact that, as previously stated, these standards apply when civilians are subjected to less severe deprivation than "starvation." The side that has effective authority over people — in the event of sieges, the besieged party, bears primary responsibility for fulfilling their fundamental requirements. If civilians are not adequately provided with food, water, medical supplies, clothing, means of shelter, heating fuel and other supplies essential to their survival, and if humanitarian relief operations are already being conducted in the state where the siege is occurring, besieging and besieged forces must allow and facilitate the rapid and unobstructed passage of humanitarian relief operations. Both sides are entitled to adopt measures of control such as searches of the relief consignments.¹⁴ the rules of IHL restrict the conduct of siege warfare in a number of significant ways. It may even be true that compliance with IHL by the besieging forces may delay the achievement of the military objectives of the siege.¹⁵

VI. Use of explosive weapons in populated areas

The use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area against military objectives located in populated areas is not prohibited per se under IHL, but it is regulated by the rules on the conduct of hostilities. In its 2015 report, the ICRC outlined key IHL questions raised by the use of explosive weapons with a wide impact area in populated areas. The inaccuracy of certain types of explosive weapon systems, like as many of the artillery, mortar, and multiple rocket launcher systems in use today, including cyber attacks, using unguided munitions, as well as unguided air-delivered bombs and rockets – raises serious concerns under the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks, according to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in a 2015 report. Their limited precision, it is extremely difficult to aim these weapons against a specified military objective as required by this rule: there is a substantial chance that they will attack both military and civilian targets. While increasing the accuracy of delivery systems would help reduce the weapons wide area effects in populated areas, their accuracy could be obviated by the use of large calibre munitions, that have a large destructive radius relative to the size of the military objective, which might still be contrary to IHL.

The ‘Trinity Model’: Factors to consider regarding the use of explosive weapons in populated areas was formulated by ICRC. There are three factors that influence the extent of incidental civilian casualties and damage to civilian objects in a given case of use of explosive weapons in populated areas. These three factors are: (1) the environment around the target; (2) the vulnerability of the population; and (3) the kinetic effects of the weapon or weapon system. These factors should be considered together in order to understand, in a comprehensive manner, the potential harm to the civilian population when such weapons are used in populated areas. Regarding the environment, it is important to consider both the natural and the built environment in the vicinity of the target. In populated areas, the built environment is particularly important for foreseeing the impact of the use of explosive weapons, as buildings and other objects create a higher level of secondary fragmentation. For example, gravel, cement, wood, rocks, glass and metal may be projected out by the blast wave and create additional fragments that can injure or kill civilians located in the vicinity of the explosion. In addition, civilians seeking shelter inside buildings may be trapped or killed if the building they are in collapses. Knowledge of the construction materials and construction quality is an important sub-factor in understanding the effects of an attack.¹⁶ In determining the vulnerability of civilians, the important variable that has to be considered are, how many people are in the vicinity of the target (which will be affected by the time of day), the actual use of the area at the time of the proposed attack (e.g. whether civilians are indoors or outside), whether civilians have access to cover, the boundary and whether they are in a position to evacuate an area, either permanently or temporarily. These variables are influenced¹⁷ by social and cultural habits. In the military, this assessment is often referred to as a ‘pattern of life’ analysis. In terms of Environment it is important to consider both the natural and the built in environment in the vicinity. The built environment is particularly important for foreseeing the impact of the use of explosive weapons, as buildings, high population and other objects create a higher level of fragmentation. For example, gravel, cement, wood, rocks, glass and metal may be projected out by the blast wave and create additional fragments that can injure or kill civilians located in the vicinity of the explosion. In addition, civilians seeking shelter inside buildings may be trapped or killed if the building they are in collapses.¹⁸ Many military forces use fire adjustment tactics such as "walking fire" against a target or "bracketing" a target when deploying indirect fire weapon systems like artillery in order to hit the target after numerous rounds of fire. Shooting shots closer to the target, monitoring their impact, and making changes before firing "for effect"¹⁹ at the target are examples of such tactics (fire in salvos). In and of itself, such techniques of adjusting fire within a populated area entail a considerable danger of civilian injury, as "adjustment" rounds are likely to hit off target and strike persons and/or civilian items.The use of such techniques in populated areas therefore raises questions under the prohibition against indiscriminate attacks. ²⁰

The ICRC has called on all States and parties to armed conflicts to adopt a policy of avoidance of use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas, regardless of whether or not such use would violate IHL, based on three observations:

1. the grave pattern of civilian harm caused by the use of these weapons and the humanitarian and moral imperative to prevent, or at least reduce, such levels of destruction and suffering

2. the objective difficulty of employing – in conformity with the prohibitions against indiscriminate and disproportionate attacks – explosive weapons with a wide impact area against military objectives situated in populated areas

3. the persistent lack of clarity on how States, and parties to armed conflicts in particular, interpret and apply said IHL rules with regard to the use of heavy explosive weapons in populated areas. As the ICRC has previously stated, “there are divergent views on whether these rules sufficiently regulate the use of such weapons, or whether there is a need to clarify their interpretation or to develop new standards or rules. Based on the effects of explosive weapons in populated areas being witnessed today, there are serious questions regarding how the parties using such weapons are interpreting and applying IHL.” ²¹

VII. 21st century wars

Far and away the deadliest war of the 21st century was a conflict that had its genesis in the 20th.

1. The Rwandan genocide, the toppling and death of Zairean Pres. An estimated three million people, mostly civilians were killed in the fighting or died of disease or malnutrition as a result of the conflict.

2. The Arab Spring and the revolt that ousted the government in Yemen sparked the civil war. The were widely suspected of receiving material support from Iran, and multiple weaponry shipments from Iran were intercepted en route to the fighting zone. The United Nations said in August 2016 that 10,000 people had been killed in the conflict, including approximately 4,000 civilians. Coalition air attacks were responsible for the majority of civilian casualties. In addition, the war has forced more than three million Yemenis to flee their homes. The human cost of the conflict is terribly obvious .It has directly killed an estimated 100,000 people while pushing a country that was already the Arab world’s poorest to the brink of famine. Yemen has become a critical fault line in the Middle East-wide rivalry between Iran on the one hand and the U.S. and its regional allies on the other. Yet a year after it briefly grabbed international headlines, the five-year-old conflict is at risk of slipping back out of international consciousness.

3. Burkina Faso is the latest country in Africa's Sahel area to succumb to the region's insecurity. Since 2016, Islamist terrorists have waged a low-intensity insurgency in the country's north, including an airstrike in 2019. The violence has expanded throughout most of the country's north and east, displacing nearly half a million people (out of a total population of 20 million) and threatens to destabilise other regions, notably the south west.

4. The battle in Libya is likely to worsen as different factions increasingly rely on international military support to shift the power balance. Since the nation broke into two parallel governments following contentious elections in 2014, the possibility of severe bloodshed has loomed. It has, however, taken a perilous new turn in the last year. In April 2019, soldiers led by Khalifa Haftar and backed by the eastern government lay siege on Tripoli, pushing the country closer to civil war. According to Haftar, he is fighting terrorists. While some of his opponents are Islamists, they are the same militias that destroyed the Islamic State with the help of the United States and other allies.

5. Tensions between the U.S. and Iran rose dangerously in 2019; the year ahead could bring their rivalry to boiling point. The Trump administration’s decision to withdraw from the 2015 nuclear agreement and impose mounting unilateral sanctions against Tehran has inflicted significant costs, but thus far has produced neither the diplomatic capitulation Washington seeks nor the internal collapse for which it may hope.²²

6. A flare-up between India and Pakistan in 2019 over the disputed territory of Kashmir brought the situation back into sharp attention after it had been off the world radar for years. Since the first Indian-Pakistani conflict in 1947-48, both nations have claimed Himalayan territory, which is divided by an unofficial border known as the Line of Control. The first was an Islamist militant suicide strike against Indian paramilitaries in Kashmir in February. In response, India bombed a suspected terrorist camp in Pakistan, triggering a Pakistani strike in Indian-controlled Kashmir. Tensions spiked again in August when India revoked the state of Jammu and Kashmir’s semi-autonomous status, which had served as the foundation for its joining India 72 years ago, and brought it under New Delhi’s direct rule.

VIII. Future of urban warfare

Rapid urbanisation across the globe is reshaping the outlook of states. With large rural populations migrating into cities, settlement patterns fundamentally change with implications for social, political and economic order. Today more than half of the world's population live in cities and UN projections place urbanisation at 70% by 2050.²³Urban warfare kills, injures and displaces significantly more civilians - and destroys more critical civilian infrastructure and essential services - than any other combat in open areas. In addition, we often see how after fighting, explosive remnants of war or unexploded ordnance delay the reconstruction and prolong, or prevent, the return of those displaced. As the physical world violently crumbles apart in front of the eyes of families living through urban warfare, the emotional and mental costs are very real. The intensity and proximity of urban warfare to civilian life can cause lasting psychological scars on the survivors. ICRC guidelines few recommendations

1. Urban warfare doctrine, highlighting the protection of civilians as a key element of urban operations, while weighting alongside mission accomplishments and force protection within the limits of the laws of armed conflict (LOAC);

1. Specific and realistic urban warfare training prior to operations, including the emphasis on practical application of LOAC by junior commanders;

2. Planning of urban operations that considers human terrain and infrastructure in detail, not only as they might impact the battle but in terms of the impact of the fighting on them as well including the priority of options to avoid and, or, mitigate civilian harm;

3. Conduct whilst always operating within LOAC obligations, meaning commanders should favour means and methods which first avoid and, if not possible, mitigate civilian harm;

2. Finally, addresses partnered operations, and annexes to assist in the planning of evacuations and screenings of those people leaving an urban area.²⁴

IX. Conclusion

Urban warfare thus entails a more demanding analytical process during the planning phase, as well as complex decision-making in real-time scenario. As can be seen above, the military commander must consider a greater number of issues than while fighting in open spaces. Only a few military services are known to train expressly for urban warfare or to impose specific restrictions on the choice and deployment of explosive weapons in populated areas in order to avoid or minimise civilian casualties. A better understanding of the current military policies and practices, as well as more clarity on how States interpret and apply the relevant rules of IHL to the use of explosive weapons in populated areas, would help to inform debates on this important humanitarian issue, foster possible convergence of views, and assist parties to armed conflicts who are actively trying to follow the law in good faith. In the end, this will result in improved citizen safety in populous places. The international humanitarian community has been wrestling with the difficulties of responding to disasters in urban settings for some years. Simultaneously, the humanitarian environment as a whole has shifted dramatically. ²⁵

A traditional humanitarian response, for example, can have adverse implications for urban planning and the functioning of local markets for food, water, and energy (i.e., material and logistical assistance primarily based on direct services provided to affected people and the construction of camps within or near urban areas). Cash-transfer schemes, on the other hand, may help to revive urban economies by increasing demand for products and services from afflicted communities. Traditional approaches may create dependency and fail to recognise the potential of urban refugees and internally displaced persons (IDPs), who offer a wealth of assets, skills, and resources to their host cities that may help grow and diversify existing markets. Women, who are more likely to earn income and financial independence in metropolitan settings, are particularly missing out on this chance. Failure to integrate displaced individuals into the city's fabric can result in slums and social cohesion problems, which can lead to urban violence.

In brief, humanitarian actors struggle to deal with the complexities of cities and to fully utilise the talents and resources available in metropolitan settings. Humanitarian intervention is often not informed by the knowledge and expertise of urban development actors and the formal and informal structures in which they work. Long-term rehabilitation might be hampered if development considerations are not included in urgent humanitarian responses. While humanitarian actors cannot cure urban problems, they may seek to improve city processes and create new frameworks in which future urban growth can thrive while minimising disturbance to urban development paths, within which future urban development can flourish, while limiting disruption to urban development trajectories. It should be stressed here that the imperative to save lives can be aligned with the fast-tracking of recovery and strengthening resilience. ²⁶

*****