50 No. 73 JUSTICE obligations of an occupying power under the 1907 Hague Regulations and GC IV. Despite these criticisms, the Advisory Opinion will most likely be considered an authoritative definition of military occupation. For the sake of the argument, this article will proceed on the premise that Gaza is under military occupation, thus making Article 4(2) GC IV applicable. According to that provision, a civilian may be detained “as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power.” Therefore, a journalist engaged in any such activities is liable to be detained, and “where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention,” specifically of the rights set forth by Articles 106-107 and 110-112 GC IV. Accordingly, journalists detained for the above reasons may be prevented from pursuing their profession. Of course, according to Article 4(3) GC IV, a detained journalist must be treated humanely and continues to enjoy the rights of fair trial. 5. Concluding Remarks Journalists engaged in professional missions in areas of armed conflict voluntarily expose themselves to considerable risks. While such exposure may be considered inevitable for the performance of journalistic activities, this does not bestow upon journalists a higher degree of protection than other civilians. Under IHL, journalists are civilians and, as such, they enjoy no special status or protections. From the perspective of the media, the death of a colleague will always be a sensitive issue, but this does not justify the scandalization of the incidental killing of journalists through attacks against persons or objects qualifying as lawful targets. Decisions on attacks that are expected to cause civilian collateral damage are the most difficult and challenging tasks of military commanders, and they do not approve such attacks lightheartedly. The incidental killing or injuring of civilians is a corollary of armed hostilities that cannot be completely avoided, but in the collateral damage assessment, it does not make a difference whether “ordinary civilians” or journalists are incidentally harmed. Accordingly, the answer to the question posed in the title of this article is clearly in the negative. n Prof. Dr. Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg is the Chair of Public Law, in particular Public International Law, European Law and Foreign Constitutional Law at the Europa-Universität Viadrina (Germany). He also serves as President of the International Society for Military Law and the Law of War.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=