Is Cutting Off Water a War Crime?

The deliberate act of cutting off water supplies during armed conflict is a deeply concerning issue with significant implications under international humanitarian law. The short answer is: yes, under certain circumstances, cutting off water can absolutely be considered a war crime. This article will delve into the legal framework surrounding this issue, explain the nuances involved, and address common questions to provide a comprehensive understanding of this complex topic.

The Foundation: Water as a Basic Human Right

The core principle underlying the prohibition of cutting off water is the recognition that access to water is a basic human right. Denying populations access to clean water can lead to catastrophic health consequences, including dehydration, disease outbreaks, and ultimately, death. This understanding is reflected in various international laws and conventions aimed at protecting civilian populations during armed conflicts.

International Humanitarian Law and Water

Several legal frameworks support the idea that targeting water supplies is a war crime:

• Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols: The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols form the bedrock of international humanitarian law. While the conventions do not explicitly mention water in every article, they emphasize the protection of civilian populations and infrastructure vital to their survival.
  • Article 54 of Additional Protocol I prohibits attacking, destroying, removing, or rendering useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as drinking water installations.
  • Article 56 of Protocol I and Article 15 of Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit attacks on dams and dykes, recognizing the immense danger of their destruction, which can cause devastating floods and cut off critical water supplies.
• Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC): The Rome Statute defines war crimes that fall under the ICC’s jurisdiction.
  • Article 8(2)(b)(xxv) of the statute recognizes the starvation of civilians as a method of warfare as a war crime. Depriving a population of water, leading to widespread malnutrition and death, can be interpreted as a form of starvation.
• Customary International Law: Certain principles of international humanitarian law are considered customary, meaning they are so widely accepted that they are binding even on states that have not ratified specific treaties. The prohibition on attacking vital infrastructure, such as water systems, falls under this category.

What Constitutes a “War Crime”?

Not every disruption to water access is automatically a war crime. To qualify as such, the following elements typically need to be present:

• Intentionality: The action must be deliberate and intended to cause harm to civilians by depriving them of water. Incidental damage to water infrastructure during legitimate military operations, while regrettable, may not qualify as a war crime if not intentionally targeted for civilian harm.
• Disproportionality: Even if a military objective exists, the resulting harm to civilians must be proportional to the military gain. If depriving civilians of water has no significant strategic benefit but causes great suffering, it is likely considered a war crime.
• Discrimination: Attacks must not be directed towards civilians. Targeting water supplies solely to inflict suffering on civilian populations is a direct violation of this principle.

The Nuances and Challenges

While the principle that cutting off water can be a war crime is clear, several nuances and challenges make the issue complex:

• Military Necessity: Combatants sometimes claim that disrupting water supplies is a military necessity, but this does not automatically justify such actions. Military necessity cannot excuse blatant violations of humanitarian law. The threshold for acceptable military necessity must be balanced against the immense suffering caused by denying water.
• Dual-Use Infrastructure: Some infrastructure can serve both military and civilian purposes. The laws of war require that combatants make a genuine effort to differentiate between military targets and civilian infrastructure.
• Accidental Damage: Damage to water supplies that occurs as a result of lawful military attacks against military targets is not a war crime. However, reasonable efforts must be made to avoid or minimize such collateral damage to civilian infrastructure.
• Proof of Intent: Establishing that an attack on water supplies was deliberate can be difficult. Often, the intentions behind military actions remain hidden, making prosecutions a challenge.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs)

Here are 15 related frequently asked questions to further clarify the issue:

1. Are all attacks on infrastructure war crimes?

No. Not all attacks on infrastructure are war crimes. Attacks on military infrastructure, such as weapons storage facilities, are legitimate military actions. However, attacks on civilian infrastructure like water treatment plants or dams are war crimes under specific circumstances.

2. Is it a war crime to destroy a dam?

Yes, destroying a dam can be considered a war crime under specific conditions, especially when done deliberately to harm the civilian population. Article 56 of Protocol I and Article 15 of Protocol II of the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions explicitly prohibit attacks on dams.

3. Can starvation be used as a weapon of war?

No, starvation of civilians as a method of warfare is explicitly recognized as a war crime. Denying access to food and water that leads to starvation falls under this definition.

4. What happens if you destroy a dam in a war zone?

If a dam is destroyed, and it is found to be a war crime, it can lead to international investigations and potential prosecution for war crimes. The perpetrator could face jail time, and if the act resulted in mass casualties, potentially the death penalty, although the later is rarely implemented internationally.

5. Is cutting off electricity also a war crime?

Similar to water, cutting off electricity can be considered a war crime if it is done intentionally to harm the civilian population by targeting infrastructure critical to their survival. This falls under the category of depriving a population of what they need to sustain themselves.

6. Are flamethrowers considered a war crime?

No, flamethrowers are not inherently war crimes, however, their use is regulated under international law. Protocol III of the Geneva Convention prohibits the use of incendiary weapons against civilian targets. If used indiscriminately on civilian populations, then it is a war crime.

7. What are some other examples of war crimes?

Other war crimes include murder; mutilation, cruel treatment and torture; taking of hostages; intentionally directing attacks against the civilian population; and intentionally directing attacks against religious, educational, and cultural sites.

8. Is using poison a war crime?

Yes, poisoning or contaminating water supplies or other sources that civilians depend upon is a violation of international law and a war crime.

9. Does the Geneva Convention apply to all conflicts?

Yes, the Geneva Conventions apply to all international armed conflicts. Some parts also apply to internal conflicts. They set a standard of how warring parties must treat both combatants and civilians.

10. How are war crimes prosecuted?

War crimes can be prosecuted through national legal systems or by international bodies like the International Criminal Court (ICC).

11. What is the role of the UN in war crimes?

The UN plays a crucial role in monitoring conflicts, investigating allegations of war crimes, and promoting accountability. The UN Security Council can also authorize the use of force in response to severe violations of international law.

12. Are there specific rules for targeting civilian infrastructure?

Yes, international law prohibits the intentional targeting of civilian infrastructure. There has to be a clear military objective, with any potential damage to civilian infrastructure being proportionate to the gains. It also requires distinction between military targets and civilian infrastructure.

13. How is proportionality determined in warfare?

Proportionality in warfare is determined by assessing the harm caused to civilians compared to the military advantage gained. Any harm must not be excessive, and reasonable efforts must be made to minimize civilian casualties and destruction of civilian infrastructure.

14. Can state leaders be prosecuted for war crimes?

Yes, state leaders can be prosecuted for war crimes if they are found responsible for ordering or facilitating such actions.

15. What is the difference between war crimes and crimes against humanity?

War crimes are violations of the laws of war committed during armed conflict, while crimes against humanity are egregious acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack against a civilian population, regardless of whether an armed conflict is occurring.

Conclusion

Cutting off water as a tactic of warfare is not only a violation of human rights, it can constitute a war crime under international law. The deliberate targeting of water supplies to inflict suffering on civilian populations is strictly prohibited. Understanding the legal frameworks and nuances surrounding this issue is crucial in promoting accountability and ensuring the protection of civilians in armed conflicts.