A changing standard of feasibility: the failure of U.S.-Led coalition forces to adapt feasible precautions in attack to is's human shielding tactics

• Author: Danielle Flanagan
• Position: Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. and Global Law Scholar 2021
• Pages: 101-123

NOTES

A CHANGING STANDARD OF FEASIBILITY: THE

FAILURE OF U.S.-LED COALITION FORCES TO

ADAPT FEASIBLE PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK TO

IS’S HUMAN SHIELDING TACTICS

DANIELLE FLANAGAN*

ABSTRACT

The practice of human shielding affords conf‌lict parties signif‌icant tactical

advantages in warfare, deterring the attacking party from targeting military

objectives or compelling that party to breach its obligations under international

humanitarian law at a high political price. These advantages were quickly rec-

ognized and leveraged by the Islamic State (IS) in its f‌ight against the U.S.-led

Anti-IS coalition in west Mosul and Raqqa. As IS f‌ighters lost territory, civil-

ians were forced to serve as human shields in the remaining areas under occu-

pation. IS repeatedly laced civilian infrastructure with explosives, mined exit

routes to prevent civilians from leaving conf‌lict areas, and positioned f‌ighters

in densely populated areas to reduce the overall use of coalition strikes and ar-

tillery. While these human shielding tactics created a diff‌icult operational envi-

ronment for the coalition forces’ campaign, the coalition did not alter its strike

assessments despite multiple rounds of hostilities and high civilian casualty

rates.

This Note examines whether the U.S.-led coalition violated its legal obliga-

tion to take all feasible precautions in attack by failing to adapt its target selec-

tion and engagement tactics to changing circumstances, specif‌ically IS’s use of

civilians as human shields. Discussion will focus predominantly on the precau-

tions relating to the verif‌ication of non-civilian objectives and the methods and

means of attack. The examination proceeds in four parts, brief‌ly reviewing the

use of human shields as a tactical tool in asymmetric conf‌lict, the legal frame-

work, and the compliance of the U.S.-led coalition to the feasible precautions

requirement within its operations in west Mosul and Raqqa. Ultimately, it con-

cludes that while feasibility is a f‌lexible standard that accommodates different

* Danielle Flanagan. Georgetown University Law Center, J.D. and Global Law Scholar 2021.

The author would like to thank the editors of The Georgetown Journal of International Law for their

suggestions and careful editorial work. The author would like to dedicate this note to the lawyers,

activists, and organizations working to protect civilians in conf‌lict. All opinions are those of the

author and do not ref‌lect the views of any organization. V

C 2021, Danielle Flanagan.

101

operational realities, it does not obviate the need for coalition forces to adapt

precautions to lessons learned from past experience.

I. INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 102

II. OVERVIEW OF HUMAN SHIELDS AS A TACTICAL TOOL IN

ASYMMETRIC CONFLICT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104

III. THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK BEARING ON THE OBLIGATION TO TAKE

FEASIBLE PRECAUTIONS IN ATTACK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 105

A. Understanding the Standard of Feasibility. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 107

B. Information Required for the Verif‌ication of Objectives in

Attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108

C. Means and Methods of Attack . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110

D. Lessons Learned from Past Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 111

E. Relative Technological Capabilities of the Conf‌lict Parties. . . 113

IV. EVALUATION OF THE U.S.-LED COALITION’S COMPLIANCE TO THE

FEASIBLE PRECAUTIONS REQUIREMENT IN LIGHT OF IS HUMAN

SHIELDING TACTICS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 114

A. U.S.-led Coalition Operations in West Mosul. . . . . . . . . . . . 115

1. The Coalition Failed to Verify Objectives in Attack 115

2. The Coalition Failed to Use the Least Harmful

Methods and Means of Attack Available . . . . . . . . 117

B. U.S.-led Coalition Operations in Raqqa . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

1. The Coalition Again Failed to Verify Objectives in

Attack. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119

2. The Coalition Again Failed to Use the Least

Harmful Methods and Means of Attack Available . 120

V. CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 122

I. INTRODUCTION

Contemporary conf‌lict has been increasingly waged in urban set-

tings, bringing civilian populations closer to the frontlines where civil-

ian and military objects become more diff‌icult to distinguish. The

vulnerability of these populations has only been compounded by con-

f‌lict parties’ deliberate use of civilians to shield themselves from attack.

Due to the inability of some forces to protect their military interests

with conventional methods, they seek to overcome the military might

of their adversary through human shielding tactics among other forms

of asymmetric warfare. The specif‌ic practice of human shielding affords

conf‌lict parties with a signif‌icant tactical advantage, as it can either

deter the attacking party from targeting military objectives, or compel

the attacking party to breach its obligations under international

GEORGETOWN JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW

102 [Vol. 53