The Problem of Human Shields in Combatant Situations and the Morality of Possible Solutions

Human shields is a term that describes civilians present in or around combat targets to deter an enemy from attacking those targets.  It also describes civilians in a combat situation being forced to walk or march in front of soldiers literately being used as a shield.  Killing civilians always causes problems for whoever shot them, whether it be by accident or on purpose.  An enemy's own people can be used as human shields to deter an enemy.  International humanitarian law forbids using civilians as human shields by placing them next to soldiers, or next to military facilities, with the intention of gaining immunity from attack, or by forcing the civilians to carry out dangerous military assignments.  The very basic concept of the human shields is immoral because it reduces a human being to nothing more than an object to be used.  Human shields also gives the impression that the person is not worth keeping alive, which is true because the person using human shields only cares about his own life.  He does not care who he uses, women, children or the elderly, anybody as long as he escapes.


Captain Daniel P. Schoenekase of the Air Force gives many examples of how human shields have been used in recent military history.  The most recent and most notable violator of international law against the use of human shields has been Iraq in every major conflict they have had since the 1980s.  Cambodia, during the Vietnam War, used ethnic Vietnamese civilians as human shields against their own government.  During the civil war of Sierra Leone in the 1990s people of the Revolutionary United Front would regularly kidnap children and used them as human shields against the government forces.  In these few examples one can see the moral repulsiveness of forcibly using civilians as shields against attack of any form.

There are several types of human shields -- proximity, involuntary or hostages, and and finally willing human shields.  The first kind, the proximity shields, are near military target, and the presence of these people present a great likeliness of high civilian causalities.  The civilians causalities could then be used by the opposing force in propaganda to put their enemy in a more bitter opinion of their people, thus preventing the enemy from gaining allies within their borders.  Most of the time the proximity human shields do not even know that they are being used as shields.  Usually they are people who are in a neighborhood or even hopitals.  For example, during the Gulf War Saddam Hussein would station his weapons near hospitals, knowing that the American forces would not fire so close to civilians, especially the sick and injured.  At the time nothing could be done effectively to get at the weapons.  Aiming with the missiles at the time was pointing in the general direction and hope that it would hit close enough to the target to cause some damage.  Today targeting systems are much better, so the military can fire a drone guided missile and direct the missile to hit the target, and the surrounding areas take minimal damage.

The next type of human shield are the involuntary, also known as hostages.  a hostage is defined as "a person given as a pledge or taken prisoner as by an enemy or terrorist, until certain conditions are met."  Any civilian in a combat situation are at risk of being taken and used b soldiers of either side.  However, the taking and using of hostages is strictly forbidden by the fourth Geneva Convention.

Finally there are the voluntary shields, who are a recent development in the war with Iraq.  A voluntary human shield is someone who is usually a foreign peace activist who comes and stand in the way of military in peaceful protest of the war.  Captain Schoenekase explains in his article  that in recent years debates have arisen on "whether voluntary human shields have become a form of quasi-combatant by their active participation."  The Human Rights Watch says that since that these voluntary shields are not actively engaged in hostile behavior towards either sides, they should be treated as non-combatants and retain civilian status. Some scholars say that voluntary human shields have forfeited their immunity of being civilians.  This argument states that anyone who has willing taken positions at the location of a military target has acted knowing the risk they were taking and they have little right to be considered as a non-combatant

When dealing with a situation involving human shields, there are several options that are available.  The easiest option is to kick down the door and go in guns blazing and shoot everyone in sight.  Both shields, willing or not, and the bad guys are dead, but the problem is solved.  It is similar to surgery when the doctor has to remove a tumor.  The healthy cells are removed for the greater good of the whole.  But one cell and a complete human being has a great deal of difference in importance.  The option of guns blazing is mostly condemned by international law and by most people in the world.  it is immoral because it violates the persons' dignity; no care is given to the non-combatants who most likely did not want to be in a fighting situation.  Killing everyone in sight also is a failure of a soldier to fulfill his purpose which would be fighting for the good of the citizens of that country.

Then there is the option of negotiation, which is used in situations with hostages, especially when the situation is not a full-out combat.  This option's morality can go either way.  There is a risk of the enemy getting away in the process of negotiation, and they might kill the hostages even if they get all they demanded.  But one must also consider what to do if the enemy demands and entirety of several large banks for the lives of a few hostages.  It is a hard choice between bankrupting the city, affecting thousands of people's lives, or saving the life of a handful of people.

Another option is the use of mob control weapons that police have used in the United States.  The police use things like rubber bullets and tear gas to subdue and disperse a crowd without needing to pull out a gun that uses bullets to kill.  The most damage that rubber bullets do is give anyone that it strikes a big and painful bruise, but they are alive, and tear gas mostly likely leaves stinging eyes and a bad tastes in one's mouth,  Also, in the confusion of the tear gas, a soldier can get closer to the enemy to get a clearer hit.  Captain Schoenekase also explains that "soldiers can be trained to deal with human-shields tactics through advance marksmanship training that emphasizes target detection, acquisition, discrimination, and engagement."  The morality in these options is actually positive, the dignity and lives of the people used as human shields is preserved.

Human shields are an ugly thing that has arise because of war.  Innocent women, children, and elderly are forced into combat situations in which they do not know if they are going to live or die.  The immorality of human shields is unquestionable with the way human shields are treated.  The dignity of the lives of the non-combatants becomes worthless when used as a shield -- they become nothing more than a tool.  Soldiers, when they fight, try to minimize the amount of collateral damage to protect civilians as much as they can and is a requirement set before they by their commanding officers.  The solutions presented above each have something to offer when dealing with human shields and each have a different degree of morality.