Introduction

This chapter provides an overview of the monograph, outlining the structure of the discussion and introducing the key arguments that will be advanced. The principle of distinction, as a targeting rule in international humanitarian law (IHL), is introduced along with the concept of the civilian as it circulates in IHL. Three sets of international actors are presented—humanitarian actors, peacekeepers, and military actors—and the humanitarian actor is situated as the central character of the study. The boundaries between these actors are loosely sketched, so that they can be elucidated gradually over the course of the discussion as the empirical findings are revealed. The three central claims of the monograph are outlined as follows. First, it is argued that a wide range of unconventional actors, operating in unconventional places, produce IHL rules in everyday practice. Second, it is contended that distinction, not only as a grounded practice but also as a vaunted IHL rule, is perpetually disrupted. Third, the existence of a ‘civilian plus’ status in international practice is proposed. A brief overview of the study’s methodology is also provided, along with an introduction to the Kinetic, Pedagogical, and Intellectual realms.

Who draws the line?

This chapter demonstrates that international humanitarian actors take it upon themselves to assert distinction, in contexts in which international actors are encouraged to demolish boundaries and work together. Empirical findings from South Sudan reveal that safeguarding distinction involves managing the perceptions of an amorphous onlooker: the ‘phantom local’. This imagined local audience—which comprises armed actors, authorities, and beneficiaries—ultimately decides who is who amongst international actors. In the civil–military training spaces, humanitarian actors again emphasize the role of perceptions, and here they also extol the importance of IHL. Across these global sites, power struggles ensue as other international actors contest the vision of distinction that humanitarians promulgate. The exploration of the Intellectual realm focuses squarely on the figure of the humanitarian actor in IHL, examining the historical evolution of this figure and its treatment in the First Additional Protocol (AP I). It is argued that IHL projects a Red Cross fantasy, such that protections for humanitarian actors are grounded in a very particular vision of ‘humanitarianness’. This leaves other humanitarians with status anxiety, yet their efforts to emulate this vision serve to further entrench the Red Cross actor’s paradigmatic status.

What is the distinction?

Chapter 2 introduces, but does not resolve, the conundrum of what the idea of distinction is that is circulating in international practices and how it relates to the IHL targeting rule. The main point conveyed is that distinction in the conduct of hostilities sense is in play, but that it is being deployed in ways we might not expect. Actors routinely move the line to assert intra-civilian distinctions, and collapse IHL’s principle of distinction together with other values, ideas and principles to compose the ‘distinction vernacular’. The muddling of distinction is easier to observe in the training spaces than in South Sudan, as conversations about IHL are more explicit in the former. Trainees can be found struggling to locate a civilian–combatant binary in the conduct of hostilities sense, and they extend this fuzzy treatment to their categorization of humanitarian actors. The chapter also outlines the comprehensive ethos that guides contemporary international missions, explaining how the ‘working together’ mentality shapes international interventions. From the perspective of international humanitarian actors, international military and peacekeeping actors are encroaching upon them and blurring the lines. The discussion of the Intellectual realm examines the status of the main actors, canvasses civil-military guidance documents, and considers high-level pronouncements about distinction. Attention is drawn to slippage between a civilian–combatant distinction and other fault lines, as distinction’s haziness prevails at this normative level.

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’.

Where is the line drawn?

This chapter pursues the ‘civilian plus’, ‘mere civilian’, and ‘civilian minus’ across the three realms, exploring where the line is being drawn within the civilian category. Adopting parallel structures, the discussions in the Kinetic and Pedagogical realm first consider the humanitarian actor as a ‘civilian plus’ figure, and then as a ‘civilian minus’ figure. It is shown that in everyday practice, humanitarian actors strive to escape the vulnerability of the ‘mere civilian’ and to disperse any qualities of combatantness that might swirl around them. They root their claims to the ‘civilian plus’ in their important professional role and in the risk of harm it exposes them to; they also emphasize the expertise required to carry out humanitarian work. Other international actors detect a humanitarian superiority complex at play, sensing that humanitarian actors look down on them from a virtuous perch. Intriguingly, it is the very same professional role that could legitimate a claim to a special status that also impugns the civilianness of humanitarian actors—as when they are accused of ‘feeding the enemy’. The discussion in the Intellectual realm conveys that these intra-civilian distinctions are not disturbing an otherwise stable binary framework. Attention is drawn to IHL targeting rules that trouble a bright-line distinction. It is further shown that before the civilian was defined in AP I, the category was disaggregated for purposes of protection and access to services. Revisiting the Red Cross fantasy, it is proposed that IHL sets some humanitarian actors apart from other civilians.

Conclusion

The final chapter opens with one last encounter from South Sudan, highlighting the importance of the temporal element to everyday distinction practices. As is shown, struggles over distinction unfold at the most micro of levels: within a single individual. Having deferred normative questions, the discussion now confronts the conundrum of whether a special status for humanitarian actors is desirable. A debate is presented between two composite perspectives: the ‘help the helpers’ view (in favour of a special status for humanitarian actors) and the ‘against humanitarian exceptionalism’ view (wary of a special status). Ultimately siding with the latter outlook, the monograph argues that caution is merited in the face of proposals to give humanitarian actors a special civilian status. Emphasizing the relational nature of distinction, the discussion considers whether further fragmentation of IHL’s civilian category might adversely impact all those civilians not singled out for special treatment. This is a live issue that extends beyond the realm of humanitarian actors: advocates are increasingly calling for more lex specialis for different types of civilians, such as children and journalists. After contemplating the implications of this wider investigation for a range of issues, such as humanitarian practice and the civilian concept, the discussion gestures towards potential avenues for further inquiry.