A Systematic Review of HPM Energy Absorbers for Building Applications

A modern weapon, high power microwave (HPM) pulses, can have a profound effect on the quality of functioning of society as the use of this weapon can result in damage to or destruction of electronic equipment and computer and telecommunications systems, both military and civilian. Protection against the energy of HPM pulses can be achieved in two basic ways: by using radiation-absorbent materials (RAM) or artificial electromagnetic (EM) structures. If the object to be protected is a building, protection based on RAM is used. Hence, this literature review focuses on the possibilities of using HPM energy absorbers in building products and structures. Attention is concentrated on four basic types of elements: claddings, concrete and mortar, small-sized elements (bricks, hollow masonry units), and paint coatings. In each of the categories, examples of HPM radiation absorbers having a high potential to be combined with basic construction materials are given on the basis of the literature on the subject.

Combatant socialization and norms of restraint: Examining officer training at the US Military Academy and Army ROTC

Can armed groups socialize combatants to norms of restraint – in essence, train soldiers to adopt norms of international humanitarian law on the battlefield? How can social scientists accurately measure such socialization? Despite being the central focus of organizational and ideational theories of conflict, studies to date have not engaged in systematic, survey-based examination of this central socialization mechanism theorized to influence military conduct. This study advances scholarly understanding by providing the first comparative, survey-based examination of combatant socialization to norms of restraint, using surveys and interviews with US Army cadets at the US Military Academy (USMA), Army Reserve Officer Training Corps (ROTC), and active duty Army combatants. Additionally, to better understand ‘restraint’ from combatants’ perspective, this study introduces the concept of the ‘combatant’s trilemma’ under which combatants conceptualize civilian protection as part of a costly trade-off with the values of military advantage and force protection. Survey results hold both positive and negative implications for socialization to law of war norms: military socialization can shift combatants’ preferences for battlefield conduct. However, intensive norm socialization may be required to shift combatants’ preferences from force protection to civilian protection norms. Study findings hold significant implications for understanding violence against civilians in conflict and for policies to disseminate civilian protection norms in armed groups worldwide.

Direct Participation in Hostilities and Its Effect on Proportionality

Unlike members of the armed forces and combatants who can be targeted, civilians are protected from direct attack. However, civilians do not always enjoy protection. When civilians take a direct part in the hostilities, such as by taking up arms against the enemy, they lose their civilian protection and can be lawfully targeted. Classifying a civilian who is directly participating in hostilities as such is relevant to proportionality as well as to the principle of distinction, as it changes the proportionality analysis in two complementary ways. First, an attack on a civilian that is taking a direct part in hostilities would arguably augment the expected military advantage of the strike. Second, such civilians do not enjoy protection from attack and are also not considered civilians in the proportionality assessment. This means that classifying civilians as direct participants in hostilities might make an otherwise disproportionate attack proportionate, and vice versa. This chapter explains the concept of direct participation in hostilities, and its relevance to the proportionality analysis.

Pacifism in International Relations

The aim of this chapter is to explore the contribution of pacifism to international relations (IR), and in particular to demonstrate its relevance to discussions around peacebuilding, statebuilding, and peace formation. The chapter argues that despite its currently subjugated status within IR, as a form of theory rooted in a real-world critique of violence and its effects and in the historical practices of peacemaking and nonviolent resistance, pacifism is ideally placed to offer insights and suggestions for both practitioners and theorists of peacebuilding. The chapter begins by explaining what pacifism is, its main types and approaches, and offers a brief outline of the history and legacy of pacifism in IR, some of the main objections to pacifism, and some answers given by pacifists to these criticisms. The chapter goes on to explore what pacifism can contribute to IR by way of, first, a critique of violence, power, and just war theory and, second, positive contributions to discussions of power and agency, security, civilian protection, peacebuilding, statebuilding, and peace formation. The chapter makes the case that pacifism is a credible and insightful approach to IR that should be taken far more seriously than it is. Moreover, the current historical juncture provides an ideal moment for the return of pacifism to IR, although there are a number of serious challenges it will first have to surmount.

Drawing Out Experiential Conflict Knowledge in Myanmar: Arts-Based Methods in Qualitative Research With Conflict-Affected Communities

This article argues that arts-based methods such as drawing are particularly useful as means to explore experiential insights into how violent conflict impacts individuals and communities in specific sociocultural contexts and shapes their views of development and peace. It illustrates this through the discussion of a drawing workshop with members of violence-affected communities in Kachin state, Myanmar. Reflecting on the workshop findings and dynamics and on the positive impacts the methods’ adoption had on practices of an international civilian protection NGO in Myanmar, the article concludes that, when implemented with care, arts-based methods do not only help accessing deep context-specific insights to complement outsider-expert analyses, by creating a safe space to share experiences, but they also enable new engagements among local actors and with outside organisations, which can strengthen the primacy of local actors in peacebuilding and development initiatives.

The Humanitarian Civilian

In international humanitarian law (IHL), the principle of distinction delineates the difference between the civilian and the combatant, and it safeguards the former from being intentionally targeted in armed conflicts. This monograph explores the way in which the idea of distinction circulates within, and beyond, IHL. Taking a bottom-up approach, the multi-sited study follows distinction across three realms: the Kinetic realm, where distinction is in motion in South Sudan; the Pedagogical realm, where distinction is taught in civil–military training spaces in Europe; and the Intellectual realm, where distinction is formulated and adjudicated in Geneva and the Hague. Directing attention to international humanitarian actors, the book shows that these actors seize upon signifiers of ‘civilianness’ in everyday practice. To safeguard their civilian status, and to deflect any qualities of ‘combatantness’ that might affix to them, humanitarian actors strive to distinguish themselves from other international actors in their midst. The latter include peacekeepers working for the UN Mission in South Sudan (UNMISS), and soldiers who deploy with NATO missions. Crucially, some of the distinctions enacted cut along civilian–civilian lines, suggesting that humanitarian actors are longing for something more than civilian status–the ‘civilian plus’. This special status presents a paradox: the appeal to the ‘civilian plus’ undermines general civilian protection, yet as the civilian ideal becomes increasingly beleaguered, a special civilian status appears ever more desirable. However disruptive these practices may be to the principle of distinction in IHL, it is emphasized that even at the most normative level there is no bright-line distinction to be found.

How is the line drawn?

This chapter presents distinction as a performance and conveys the dynamism of everyday distinction practices. Distinction takes on an explicit visual life in the Kinetic realm: humanitarian actors deploy signs and symbols, and they carry themselves in deliberate ways to show they are distinct. Everything in these practices is a matter of degree and subtle gradation. Other international actors emerge here as potential sources of contamination, including actors who would be entitled to civilian protection in IHL. Humanitarian actors embark on dogged attempts to assert distinction from these other actors, but distinction is always already compromised. While the possible futility of their distinction project leads some humanitarian actors to rally behind distinction even more strongly, other humanitarians balance distinction with other pressing priorities. In the civil–military training spaces, international military and peacekeeping actors voice incredulity at the logic of humanitarian distinction practices. From the perspective of these other actors, humanitarians are behaving erratically and prevaricating. The Intellectual realm focuses on the civilian concept, locating a continuum of ‘civilianness’ in international law. The discussion examines qualities that have historically been associated with civilianness—such as harmlessness, innocence, and non-participation in fighting—and highlights the shifting relevance of an armed/unarmed marker. Engaging with the adjudication of crimes against humanity cases in the Hague, it is shown that even in international tribunals civilianness might be a matter of degree. The chapter closes by introducing three unfamiliar figures: the ‘civilian plus’, ‘mere civilian’, and ‘civilian minus’.

Part II Predominant Security Challenges and International Law, Human Security, Ch.20 Civilian Protection in Armed Conflict

This chapter discusses civilian protection in armed conflicts. Inevitably, all armed conflicts cause suffering for civilians. International humanitarian law (IHL) aims to reduce suffering but as a normative regime it cannot completely address the plight of civilians, which has much broader political, economic, and ideological dimensions. That said, considering that many of the hardships experienced by civilians appear to actually be a direct result of IHL violations, better respect for IHL would indeed lead to better protection for civilians. While contemporary armed conflicts pose a number of challenges to this body of law, the correct application, interpretation, and, where necessary, development of IHL is a valid starting point for increased civilian protection. The chapter offers a brief historical overview of the areas of international law relating to the protection of civilians during times of armed conflict. It then focuses on a number of key challenges facing both the normative regime and the practical application of rules—from denial of civilian status, terrorism, the nature of warfare (asymmetric, urban, and protracted), and the impact of displacement, to new technologies.

The Myanmar-Rohingya Crisis, Civilian Protection, and the Dilemma of the Responsibility to Protect Norm Institutionalization

Existing studies on the Myanmar-Rohingyan crisis have explored the contending issues from a narrow perspective. This underscores the need for broader engagement by interrogating the veracity of the claims of mass atrocities against the Rohingyans, nonauthorization of the Responsibility to Protect (RtoP), and implications for consolidating and internalizing the RtoP norm. This study argues that, while the acts of genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and ethnic cleansing against the Rohingyans satisfies four of the crimes upon which RtoP can be authorized, its nonauthorization suggests that in spite of its commitment to “Never Again,” the international community is yet to come to terms with issues bordering on mass atrocity and civilian protection. This inaction amidst widespread atrocities against the Rohingyans explains why the RtoP is not only contested, but also risks the chances of further nonutilization and institutionalization. Thus, the possibility that the RtoP would remain valuable depends on how the international criminal court and the global community prosecute those culpable of atrocities against the Rohingyans, adopt a clear rule of establishing when mass atrocity has been perpetuated and demand RtoP intervention, and ensure that these interventions are guided by the principle of Jus in Bellum and Jus ad Bello.