When Letter of the Law Does Not Spell 'Clarity'
The law of war is at once an oxymoron and highly developed. Various conventions and protocols lay out numerous rules for acceptable conduct in military operations. But applying them in densely populated towns like those on the West Bank can be difficult.

Even if a neutral inquiry found that one side or the other had violated the law, the enforcement tools are few. Neither the Israelis nor the Palestinians are likely to subject themselves to an international court.

"One thing you can say about the whole theater of operations over there is that it's a red-light district where international law doesn't apply," said Peter J. Spiro, a professor at Hofstra Law School. "It is an anomalous zone where there have been enormous challenges in bringing to bear the norms of international law."

It is not clear, given who the combatants are, whether the bodies of law concerning war even fully apply. "You get into a question of whether the conflict between Israel and Palestine in the West Bank is of an international character," said Prof. Douglass W. Cassel Jr., the director of the Center for International Human Rights at Northwestern University School of Law.

But legal scholars agreed that the fundamental principles of international humanitarian and military law are constant whether the conflict is a war between nations, a civil war or something else entirely. So long as there is conflict and civilians are nearby, most legal scholars say, 1977 amendments to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 provide the best authority on military conduct and protection of civilians.

Prof. Ruth Wedgwood of Yale Law School said there are two basic norms: "You cannot target a civilian object for its own sake," and "when you target military targets, you have to do so in a way that does not cause unnecessary harm to civilians or civilian objects."

What is clear is that both sides must take care to protect civilians. The protocols require "constant care" that civilian lives and property be spared, though it specifically prohibits only those attacks that will cause harm "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated."

The side under attack has obligations, too, for instance, to"avoid locating military objectives within or near densely populated areas."

These principles tend to fall apart where the battlefield is urban. In many recent conflicts, notably in Croatia and Bosnia, the use of civilian buildings by combatants was common. "Sometimes they do that to disguise themselves and sometimes they do it to create a shield of hostages," Professor Wedgwood said.

Professor Cassel said any legal analysis must await a definitive account of the facts, and cited these key questions: "To what extent was this alleged, reported Israeli tactic of mowing down civilian structures justified by military necessity, and to what extent was it a reaction in anger to the killing of some Israeli troops? What did Israel know and reasonably expect about civilian casualties?"

Professor Cassel said he was particularly concerned about reports that Israeli authorities did not allow food and medicine to reach civilians.

"It is difficult to understand how there could have been a sufficient military necessity to keep food relief and medical relief out for as long as they did," he said. "I would have some very serious questions about whether they did not commit violations" of international law.

Even if laws were violated, what are the penalties if neither side will submit to an international court?

In some cases, experts said, sanctions may apply.
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/05/01/international/middleeast/01LAW.html