48 No. 74 JUSTICE investigations and arrests in some countries, as has reportedly been the case in France25 and Canada.26 Furthermore, it creates a permissive environment for interventions by organizations such as the HRF. The Campaigners' Perspective: The Pros and Cons of Targeting Junior Soldiers In the past, lawfare27 campaigns focused on the highest echelons of political and military command for practical reasons: only these individuals were publicly known to be involved in the war, and media coverage made it easier to track their international travel. Furthermore, there is a legal advantage to targeting senior officials. Under the concept of command responsibility in international criminal law, leaders can be held accountable for crimes they did not personally commit or explicitly instructed if they failed to adequately control the forces under their command, sometimes even without actual knowledge of the transgressions.28 This can bridge the evidentiary gap between an alleged crime in the field and a commander's involvement. On the other hand, a significant disadvantage of targeting senior leaders is that they often enjoy diplomatic immunity, placing them beyond the reach of foreign courts. This immunity can be granted ad hoc by a host government wishing to avoid the diplomatic fallout from arresting a foreign official, as seen in the Tzipi Livni case.29 Junior soldiers are far more accessible targets. They are numerous, especially in the context of the current war, which has involved over 300,000 reservists.30 They are often less aware of the risks, may expose their whereabouts on social media, and typically do not enjoy any form of immunity. However, securing an arrest requires showing grounds for the allegation that the targeted individual was personally involved in a war crime – a difficult task. It is perhaps no coincidence that the examples mentioned are of combat engineers or involve claims of “massive demolitions of civilian homes.” People do not typically post videos of themselves committing clear war crimes, such as murdering civilians or abusing detainees. Demolishing a structure with explosives is not per se a war crime; neutralizing enemy military infrastructure is a legitimate act of war. Under the Laws of Armed Conflict (LoAC), destroying enemy property is permissible if “imperatively demanded by the necessities of war.”31 Abundant evidence has shown that Hamas’s military infrastructure is deeply embedded within civilian buildings in Gaza.32 A structure that appears to be a residential building may conceal a shaft leading to a military tunnel. The IDF's response to these tactics involves extensive 25. AFP, “Report: French anti-terror prosecutors open ‘incitement to genocide’ probe into French-Israelis suspected of blocking aid for Gaza,” THE TIMES OF ISRAEL (June 6, 2025), available at https://www. timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/report-french-antiterror-prosecutors-open-incitement-to-genocide-probeinto-french-israelis-suspected-of-blocking-aid-for-gaz a/?fbclid=IwY2xjawKvsA1leHRuA2FlbQIxMQBicml kETFnTm8zNVBWWUVFRWhtaVVWAR5YnVpVz Um-i-CGFfSXvf7W9YjP8TxnABtcMldHpuCafLwuU XXJ9pSZUameBQ_aem_IHodkm9dc_Zov8y91PYmwQ 26. Rachel Fink and Judy Maltz, “Canada's Federal Police Conducting Probe Into Potential War Criminals Relating to Gaza War,” HAARETZ (June 4, 2025), available at https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/2025-06-04/tyarticle/.premium/canadas-federal-police-launches-probeinto-possible-israeli-war-crimes-in-gaza/00000197-3a95d340-a5d7-baff6a1d0000 27. The term “lawfare” is used in different contexts under various definitions. In this context, I find most appropriate the definition of Major General Charles J. Dunlap Jr., of the USAF: “Lawfare describes a method of warfare where law is used as a means of realizing a military objective… There are many dimensions to lawfare, but the one ever more frequently embraced by U.S. opponents is a cynical manipulation of the rule of law and the humanitarian values it represents. Rather seeking battlefield victories, per se, challengers try to destroy the will to fight by undermining the public support that is indispensable when democracies like the U.S. conduct military interventions. A principal way of bringing about that end is to make it appear that the U.S. is waging war in violation of the letter or spirit of LOAC.” “Law and Military Interventions: Preserving Humanitarian Values in 21st Conflicts 4,” HUMANITARIAN CHALLENGES IN MILITARY INTERVENTION CONFERENCE (Nov. 29, 2001), available at https://people.duke.edu/~pfeaver/dunlap.pdf 28. The Rome Statute, supra note 14, at art. 28. 29. Supra note 9. 30. Subcommittee Protocol, supra note 20. 31. Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and its Annex: Regulations Concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, reg. 23(g), Oct. 18, 1907, available at https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ ihl-treaties/hague-conv-iv-1907/regulations-art23?activeTab=; see also The Rome Statute, supra note 14, at art. 8(2)(b)(xiii), 8(2)(e)(xii).
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjgzNzA=