Deepening journalists’ understanding of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was the aim of a training session by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for journalists in the Northeast, writes DUKU JOEL from Maiduguri
For over a decade, the Northeast region of Nigeria has been the epicentre of a violent insurgency led by Boko Haram.
This prolonged conflict has devastated lives, displaced communities, and tested the resilience of local institutions.
Amid this turmoil, journalists have played a critical role in documenting the crisis, keeping the public informed, and holding stakeholders accountable.
However, reporting on armed conflict is fraught with challenges, including navigating ethical dilemmas and understanding the complex legal frameworks governing war.
Recognising this need, the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) recently organised a training session for reporters from four states in Nigeria, focusing particularly on those covering the Northeast.
The programme aimed to deepen journalists’ understanding of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), often referred to as the “law of war” and its application in conflict reporting.
About 20 journalists participated in the training, gaining valuable insights into how to report on conflict responsibly while educating the public on the critical notion that “even wars have rules”.
Understanding International Humanitarian Law
IHL is a set of rules designed to limit the effects of armed conflict on people and objects.
They seek to protect those who are not participating in the hostilities, such as civilians, medical personnel, and humanitarian workers, and restrict the means and methods of warfare.
These laws are enshrined in key treaties like the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols.
For journalists reporting on conflicts, understanding IHL provides a framework to analyse and report on violations, fostering greater accountability and public awareness.
During the training, reporters were introduced to the fundamental principles of IHL, including distinction, proportionality, and necessity.
They learned how to identify violations, such as attacks on civilian infrastructure or the use of prohibited weapons, and how to present such incidents in a way that informs and educates the public without compromising the safety of affected communities.
The IHL has also answered the big question as to whether journalists could be targets during armed conflicts through specific provisions in the law.
For instance, the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions addresses specifically the protection of journalists during armed conflicts.
The provision explicitly recognises journalists as civilians and provides them with the same protections under IHL as other civilians during armed conflicts.
They are given the following cover as:
•Civilian Status: In conflict areas, journalists are entitled to protection under IHL, provided they do not take a direct part in hostilities. They are also prohibited from attacks and shall/must not be targeted by military operations. Journalists may also carry identification cards issued by their governments or media organisations to verify their status as journalists. However, this is not a requirement for their protection.
War correspondents
While not specific to the 1977 Protocols, Article 4(A)(4) of the Third Geneva Convention (1949) provides protections for war correspondents accredited to armed forces.
War correspondents are considered civilians but are entitled to prisoner-of-war status if captured, provided they carry appropriate accreditation.
There are other general Provisions in Additional Protocol I which also applies to journalists:
•Article 51: General protection of civilians, prohibiting attacks or acts of violence against civilians, including journalists.
•Article 52: Protection of civilian objects, such as press offices and broadcasting stations, provided they are not used for military purposes.
•Article 85: Specifies grave breaches of the Protocol, including making civilians or civilian objects the object of attack, which would apply to deliberate attacks on journalists.
In conflicts not of an international outlook (civil wars, insurgencies), Additional Protocol II of the Geneva Conventions extends similar protections to civilians, including journalists. The relevant provisions include:
•Article 13: General protection of civilians from violence, including journalists, unless they participate directly in hostilities. A direct and deliberate attack on journalists as civilians in armed conflict under IHL constitutes war crimes.
All parties to a conflict must know their obligations and distinguish between combatants and civilians, ensuring journalists are not targeted.
On the other hand, journalists under IHL must maintain their neutrality and not engage in acts that could be perceived as direct participation in hostilities. They must carry their identification or accreditation cards which can help verify their civilian status and role as journalists.
Journalism for accountability
Journalists are often the first witnesses to acts that may constitute violations of IHL.
By understanding the laws of war, they can play a pivotal role in highlighting abuses and advocating for accountability.
For example, reports detailing attacks on schools or hospitals, when framed within the context of IHL, not only inform the public but also provide critical evidence for advocacy and legal action.
One of the trainers emphasised the importance of precise language in conflict reporting.
Terms like “war crime” carry specific legal implications and should only be used when the facts align with the criteria set out in IHL. Misuse of such terms can undermine the credibility of journalists and the broader advocacy for justice.
Challenges in applying IHL
Despite its importance, incorporating IHL into journalism is not without challenges.
Reporters often work under tight deadlines, with limited resources, and in highly dangerous environments.
Balancing the need for compelling storytelling with the responsibility to provide accurate, lawful reporting can be daunting. Moreover, journalists may face pressure from stakeholders to downplay or exaggerate certain incidents, further complicating their role.
The training addressed these challenges by equipping participants with practical tools and strategies.
Journalists were taught how to verify information, collaborate with legal experts, and navigate ethical dilemmas. They also explored ways to engage audiences on the significance of IHL, fostering a more informed and empathetic public.
One of the complexities in understanding the rules of war by journalists is distinguishing between civilian objects and military objectives to arrive at an accurate story.
Civilian object and military objective is one of the important fundamental principles of International Humanitarian Law (IHL), designed to protect civilian lives and property during armed conflicts.
Civilian objects
Civilian objects are defined as all objects that are not military objectives.
They include properties and infrastructure used for civilian purposes. Under IHL, civilian objects are protected from attack unless and until they are being used to contribute to military action.
Examples of civilian objects:
•Homes, apartments, and residential buildings.
•Schools and universities.
•Hospitals and medical facilities.
•Places of worship (e.g., churches, mosques, temples).
•Infrastructure such as bridges, roads, and water supply systems used for civilian purposes.
•Civilian vehicles (e.g., buses, ambulances).
•Protection of civilian objects:
•General prohibition: Civilian objects cannot be targeted in attacks. Intentionally attacking a civilian object constitutes a violation of IHL and may be classified as a war crime.
•Loss of Protection: Civilian objects lose their protection and may become military objectives if they are used to make an effective contribution to military action. For example, a school being used as a military base or weapons depot becomes a legitimate target.
Military objectives
Military objectives are objects that, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, make an effective contribution to military action and whose destruction, capture, or neutralisation offers a definite military advantage.
Under Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I, an object is a military objective if it satisfies both of the following conditions:
•Effective Contribution to Military Action: The object contributes to the military capability of a party to the conflict. This includes objects inherently military (e.g., tanks, weapons) or civilian objects used for military purposes (e.g., a civilian factory producing weapons).
•Definite Military Advantage: The destruction or neutralisation of the object must provide a clear and concrete advantage in the context of the conflict.
Examples of military objectives:
•Military bases, barracks, and command centres.
•Weapons and ammunition depots.
•Tanks, warships, aircraft, and military vehicles.
•Communication infrastructure used by the armed forces.
•Roads or bridges critical to military logistics.
Principle of proportionality
When attacking a military objective, the principle of proportionality must be observed.
This means that the expected harm to civilians and civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage of the attack.
Even if a target is a legitimate military objective, an attack may still be unlawful if it causes disproportionate harm to civilians.
Dual-use objects
Some objects serve both civilian and military purposes (e.g., a bridge used by civilians and the military). These are known as dual-use objects. They can be targeted if their military use outweighs their civilian function, but such attacks must still comply with the principles of necessity, proportionality, and precaution.
Precautionary measures in attacks
IHL requires parties to a conflict to take precautions to minimise harm to civilians and civilian objects:
•Verify that targets are military objectives.
•Choose means and methods of attack to avoid or minimise incidental harm to civilians.
•Provide effective warnings to civilians whenever possible.
•Impact of the training
For the 20 journalists who attended, the training was a transformative experience. Many noted that it not only enhanced their professional skills but also deepened their sense of responsibility.
“I now understand that my work as a journalist can contribute to protecting lives and promoting justice,” one participant remarked.
The broader impact of such initiatives extends beyond individual reporters. As journalists incorporate IHL into their reporting, they help create a culture of accountability and respect for the rules of war.
This, in turn, can influence the behaviour of parties to the conflict, encourage compliance with IHL, and ultimately reduce suffering in war-torn communities.
In conflict zones like Northeast Nigeria, where the lines between combatants and civilians are often blurred, the role of journalists is more crucial than ever.
By equipping reporters with knowledge of International Humanitarian Law, the ICRC has taken a significant step toward enhancing the quality and impact of conflict reporting.
As these journalists return to their newsrooms, their work will not only inform but also inspire a deeper understanding of the laws that aim to bring humanity to the battlefield.
