THE REVOLVING DOOR OF CIVILIAN PROTECTION: A MALFUNCTION OF INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Abstract

International Humanitarian Law (IHL) established that civilians are protected from direct attackin as much as they are not directly participating in hostilities. This is the principle of "revolvingdoor" in which civilians continuously forfeit and regain protection in hostilities. This argument of civilian protection has been a controversial principle with arguments and counter arguments. Using the method of critical textual analysis and hermeneutic this study argued that, the "revolving door" of civilian protection is problematic and the study conceive it as a malfunctioning of IHL. In this direction the work argued that it undermines the principle of distinction and targeting, can lead to a slippery slope and abuses. The study submits that if a civilian decides to directly participate in hostilities he/she loses this status and can be targeted and can only regain it if he/she unequivocally abnegate and extricate with a satisfactorily observed period of refraining from participation.