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.

Headnote

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.

Keywords: Revolving door, International Humanitarian Law, civilians, hostilities, Distinction

Introduction

International Humanitarian law (IHL) also known as 'law of Armed Conflict' or the 'Law of War' (jus in Bello) comprises of 'those rules of international law which establishes minimum standard of humanity that must be respected in any situation of armed conflict.! Under this law civilians are those who are not directly involved in armed conflict and are protected 'unless and for such time as a civilian takes a direct part in hostilities' but unfortunately they are usually the worst victims of war. In the words of Boothby 'there has been a tendency over the last century and a half for civilians to constitute an increasing proportion of the causalities in armed conflict'. In this law they are not to be targeted rather they should be protected in as much as they are not directly participating in hostilities. Protection of civilians is the bedrock of IHL and this further extends to their properties, women, children and displaced persons. Their dignity, security and survival are ensured under IHL and this protection is guaranteed by the principle of distinction but whenever a civilian directly participates in hostilities he/she loses this protection. The question then was the meaning of Direct Participation in Hostilities (DPH). It was on this background that the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) came up with the 'Interpretive Guidance' to buttress what constitutes Direct Participation and the extent to which a civilian loses protection from attack.

In an attempt to articulate and interpret this idea several new concepts emerged in the discourse which gave birth to a new argument on the 'revolving door of protection' of civilians. In the words of Blusi it refers to 'the idea that a civilian can repeatedly lose and regain protection in hostilities'4. ForWatkins it is 'a conceptual door of immunity that a civilian can repeatedly hide between in-between participation in hostilities's. Further more, 'there is no definitive limit as to how many times a civilian can participate in hostile acts until he or she becomes a permanent target during the conflict'. He further maintained that 'it is a continuous loss and regaining of protection from attack during hostilities'? which implies that 'civilians are protected from attack while the door is open and become military targets when it closes'. This study becomes important due to the complexities, controversies, arguments and counter arguments revolving around the "revolving door of protection" of civilians.

This 'revolving door' argument of civilian protection has been problematic and aggressively debated. For some it is an integral part of IHL while for other it is a malfunction of it. This study critically analyzed the revolving door argument in view of establishing whether it is an integral part of THL or a malfunction of it. Many scholars have written on this revolving door arguments (Blusi 2022, Watkin 2010, Boothby 2010, Schmit 2010 etc.) but not much attention has been given to the argument that, it is a malfunction of IHL. This is very necessary because of its importance to IHL especially regarding the protection of civilians during hostilities. This study argued that the revolving door of protection of civilians is a malfunction of the IHL in as much as it undermines the principle of distinction and law of targeting, can lead to a slippery slope and abuses. Tocritically discuss this issue it became imperative to once again reiterate who is a civilian, when he/she is directly participating in hostilities, actions that tantamount to direct hostilities and the conditions that govern the loss and regain of this protection. After a critical evaluation of this areas of concern this study argued that while acknowledging the protection status of civilians in IHL, the 'revolving door' of civilian protection is problematic since it allows civilians to freely opt in and out of this status as expressed in the phrase 'unless and for such time as they take direct part in hostilities'. In this directionthe paper recommends that if a civilian decides to directly participate in hostilities he/she loses this status and can be targetedand can only regain itif he/sheunambiguouslyrenounce and disengage within an observed specified time of non-participation.

This study is subdivided into five sections. The first section briefly deals with the concept and morality of war. The second section explains who a civilian is and when he or she is directly involved in hostilities and actions that constitute hostilities. The third evaluates how it leads to a slippery slope and abuses. The fourth section considers how it undermines the principle of distinction and law of targeting. The fifth section is a succinct conclusion.

The Concept and Morality of War

War in the strict sense 'is an armed conflict between states or large organized groups similar to states.) This display of human social failure is premised on human 'greed, envy, hate, ambition and passion.' Every war begins from some original injustice which the aggrieved refused to endure and forgive. Originating from an act of injustice, wars in a strict sense are unjustifiable because the parties engaged in wars (the aggressors and the defenders) could have acted otherwise.

With regard to the moral admissibility of wars Iwuagwu avers,

Opinions are divided as to the morality of war, the militarists see it as the last option to peace and freedom while the pacifists reject it totally because the evil it causes most often outweigh the harm that might otherwise befall a state. For the advocates of war, the militarists, the unconditional rejection of force would be nothing but license for might to prevail (Iraqi invasion of Kuwait is an example) hence diminishing moral and religious freedom whose loss is of greater value than physical destruction.

When one considers the devastating effects of war especially loss of life and property war should be out rightly condemned. Iwuagwu echoes such evils of war and conflict when he says that during such conflicts,

many families are completely wiped out leaving no survivor, many people sustain varying degrees of injuries that leaves them permanently incapacitated, many children are orphaned, many families suffer the loss oftheir breadwinners, many families are displaced and dislocated. Many people are traumatized as a result of the horrifying experiences and many are plunged into avoidable poverty as a result of irreparable material 1055е5.12

The devastating effects of war makes it reprehensible and undesirable. It is as a result of man's greed, passions, hatred and in ordinate ambition that war has in many cases become inevitable. In many instances peaceful communities and states have seen war thrust on them against their wills by a belligerent and unjust aggressor. Failure to defend themselves may make them to be annihilated or captured and be reduced to slaves. In this instance war is inevitable and even justified as a moral duty of self-defense.13 It is on this ground that that moral philosophers and theologians since St. Augustine and Aquinas have put forward the theory of a just war and the conditions for prosecuting such a war.14

Who is a Civilian?

The first question that demands un ambiguous answer is, who is a civilian? Ordinarily a civilian is a person who is not a member of the armed forces.In armed conflict they are non-combatants and IHL distinguishes them from combatants. Combatants are those who have right to participate in hostilities. "They enjoy protection from prosecution for this participation, provided it was conducted lawfully. This is referred to as 'combatant immunity 15. This implies that to 'destroy a military object is not a crimeand to kill a combatant does not constitutemurder. They cannot be prosecuted for participating in hostilities under domestic criminal law. They can be targeted except when hors de combat (that is when captured, surrenders, injured, sick such that he cannot defend himself)'. While civilians are not to be targeted or attacked, ICRC states that 'civilians are protected against attack, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities". This is a customary norm and universally accepted position.

This further raises the question of what constitutes direct participation in hostilities (DPH). This has been a point of controversy in protection of civilians in the international community. This principle is seen in both treaty and customary law, but the controversy lies in its content. However the issue of content of DPH has not been generally agreed upon. A clear explanation of 'direct participation' is very important because it 'determines who and for how long a civilian loses his/her protection against attack and becomes a legitimate military targets. The idea of revolving door of civilian protection has even made the interpretation of DPHmore urgent and necessary. The IHL treaty and customary norms did not make a significant contribution to what constitutes DPH but a brief consultation of the 'Interpretive Guidance' recommendation will be helpful. The two key concepts are 'direct Participation'and "Hostilities".19 For Schmitt 'direct participation is determined by a person's conduct rather than their status or function and focuses on individual acts carried out during hostilities.'29 He further maintains that the 'idea of direct participation in hostilities refers to specific acts carried out by individuals as part of the conduct of hostilities between parties to an armed conflict.'2t He identified three conditions for an act to constitute direct participation. First there must be a threshold of harm, this include 'death, injury or destruction of objects and persons protected from attack like civilian and civilian objects'22, Secondly there must be a causal link between the act committed and the effect of said act, this is the aspect that qualifies an act as direct rather than indirect.'23 Thirdly there must be a belligerent nexusdirectly connected to the conflict.24 Thereforefor an act to constitute DPH 'the act must reach the threshold of harm,occur through a direct causal step and be specifically designed or objectively intended to cause harm.'25 Although some have criticized these criteria as 'exaggerated degree of under-inclusiveness in assessing civilian DPH.26 For others these criteria lack professional expertise and legally incorrect. In addition using weapons and working as intelligent agent is tantamount to DPH.

Civilian's protection from attack and the loss of this protection when he directly participates in hostilities gave rise to the 'revolving door' of civilian protection. This 'revolving door' the 'Interpretive Guidance' argues to be an integral part of IHL. In this direction 'civilians remain protected against attack prior to and following an act of direct participation. 27 This idea of revolving door was a hotly debated matter during the Fifth Expert Meeting for the Interpretive Guidance where some authorities saw it as 'misleading' and argued that 'civilians can abuse it to their advantage.'28 Some scholars considered it as 'stepping stone for potential abuse rather than a necessity to ensure the respect of IHL.'29 Van der Toorn criticized it by arguing that "it creates a de factor uneven legal playing field with the burden being borne by members of state forces who are targetable at all times during conflict while repeated participants in hostilities can seek shelter through intervals of rest.'30 Contributing to this Boothby added that 'intervals of rest between different DPH acts may only serve as opportunities for DPH civilians to plan for the next attack.'3! For other experts the term is appropriate and can easily be understood by alay man.'32 Interpretive Guidance itself saw it as subject of controversy 'that even a repeated pattern of hostile acts cannot reliably predict future behavior.'s3

Slippery Slope Argument

The argument of this study is that the idea of revolving door of civilian protection is capable of leading to a slippery slope. Slippery slope argument is the view that acourse of action is rejected because if it is allowed to continue it will lead to several other unimaginable unacceptable ends or actions /unintended consequences. It says that an initial act will inevitably lead to several undesirable acts or more extreme acts. Ariche and Iwuagwu on slippery slope argues that 'the issue is that if something is seen as not so harmful and is allowed it will transcend to or definitely lead to something that might be unthinkable or morally questionable.'34 Volokh defines it thus 'I think the most useful definition of a slippery slope is one that covers all situation where decision A, which you might find appealing, ends up materially increasing the probability that others will bring about decision B which you oppose.'35 The work argues that a civilian who participates in direct hostilities does that intentionally and there is no guaranty that she will not do it the second, third time and so on. It is not a spontaneous act but an act carried out after careful deliberation and planning. If they continue to have the protection under revolving door it will definitely lead to the point where it becomes a war strategy through which they will continue to perpetuate different war crimes without being targeted. This will become disastrous and many unexpected activities will emerge such as hiding in civilian places and using civilian objects to commit war crimes. This act has the possibility of putting the lives of other civilians in danger. Imagine a civilian taking part in direct hostilities and then return back to a civilian property, the implication of this is that while targeting the civilians who took part in hostilities the lives of otherinnocent civilians who do not take part in hostilities will be in danger. This puts the protected civilian status at risk and endanger the lives of other civilian population resulting to unintended harm. It will definitely lead to those acts which no one will approve in IHL and abuses will definitely become inevitable.

There are a lot of unexpected, unimaginable consequences that will result from the revolving door principle. The crux of this argument is that the revolving door will lead to a slippery slope where civilians will hide under this protection and commit serious war crimes since they know that they can take part in direct hostilities today and opt out the next minute and continue to enjoy the status of a civilian and protected from attack. It is possible they might opt out in order to plan and re-strategize for the next level of attack to the point it becomes a continuous activity. It is also possible they might hide under that protection and be giving information to the enemies that will jeopardize the effort of the military. The escape route provided to civilians through the revolving door principle makes them assume the status of violent non-state actors (VNSAs) who always carry out their insurgency acts as bandits, militia groups, freedom fighters or terrorists while dwelling among harmless civilians. These violent non-state actors according to Iwuagwu et al, 'have the capacity to hurt anyone at any time when one is within their jurisdiction. Some of them have the capacity to challenge and engage the security forces.'3® Colonel sharing similar view argued that 'it is certainly logic to assume that a civilian who persistently participates in hostilities is prone to continue. Furthermore, between intervals of participation he is likely preparing himself for the next attack, namely checking his equipment and obtaining additional supplies...'37. The point is that the revolving door can be used by civilians as a tactic to evade being targeted while taking part in direct hostilities. Corroborating this view Elliot observed that 'employing the protection offered by civilians is a tactic lying at the very center of insurgent operations. 38 Further he argued that 'not only do insurgents blend into the civilian population but they use civilian infrastructure and cultural and religious objects such as churches, mosques and schools to store weapons and plan operations.'39 This will definitely make it difficult and cumbersome to differentiate civilians who are to be protected and combatants to be targeted.

The principle of distinction is fundamental in law of armed conflict since there must be a clear-cut distinction between civilians and combatants. According to the rule 'combatants must not deliberately or indiscriminately or disproportionality harm civilians". Distinction protects civilians from the 'dangers and brutality of warfare, forcing belligerent parties to distinguish at all times between combatants and civilians, and to direct all military operations solely against the former.'40 The implication of this principle is that civilians enjoy protection during military activities. In law of armed conflict civilian do not have the right to directly take part in hostilities only combatants enjoy this right. That's why lawful combatants can directly and intentionally attack rival combatants as targets of military necessity but are not allowed to cause injury or death to civilians.The argument of this work is that the principle of revolving door undermines the principle of distinction and law of targeting in armed conflict. The principle of distinction 'imposes an obligation on commanders to distinguish between legitimate targets of military necessity (both combatants and military objectives) and civilians and their property. It is of primary importance when selecting targets. On the other hand the law of targeting 'requires the parties to an armed conflict to distinguish between targets of military necessity and civilians and civilian objects and to direct their attacks against only military objectives.'41 This principle balances the violence that usually occur in war time with humane considerations. This movement of civilians in and out involved in the 'revolving door' makes it difficult to differentiate a civilian from a combatant.

The revolving door of civilian protection creates a problem where it makes it difficult to know actually a civilian because one can engage in hostilities and the next second he opts out and becomes protected.There are transformations in modern warfare in recent times which makes the revolving door principle problematic and blurred the line between civilians and combatants.Schmitt observed that 'the number of civilians taking up arms and participating in hostilities is rising,accompanied by the outsourcing of traditional military tasks like maintenance and operation of military equipmentto civilian contractors.'42 This principle that allows alternation of status at will is problematic to the principle of distinction and military necessity. Under IHL military necessity allows the use of force and measures necessary to make the enemy submit promptly and military objectives incorporates both combatants and civilians who are involved in direct hostilities. It was clearly stated in The Roman Statute that to attack civilians or civilian objects intentionally is a war crime. The revolving door puts a heavy burden of proof on commanders to distinguish legitimate targets of military necessity and civilians and their properties. It can further endanger one into committing war crime though unintentionally because of the difficulty that could be encountered in distinguishing combatants and civilians occasioned by the revolving door. In this context will the military be punished when it did not intentionally attack a civilian but mistakenly did that due to the liberty of the revolving door?

Furthermore, it makes the law of targeting difficult to apply because civilians can freely and consistently opt in and out in direct hostilities. According to law of targeting targets of military necessity can be attacked and they must be distinguished from protected persons, places and property to avoid heavy damage. In targeting you select the targets and follow up with the appropriate response and this must be honestly and reasonably done. No doubt there are civilians who take part in direct hostilities and those who do not. The implication is that it makes it difficult to separate the civilians who should be protected from attack and combatants who are lawful targets. In this connection Boothby observes that 'to interpret the time period during which a directly participating civilian is liable to be attacked too narrowly risks producing law that will be regarded by states armed forces as impractical or worse, and which may therefore be ignored.'43 Even Interpretive Guidance acknowledges that 'the notion of revolving door makes it more difficult for opposing armed forces to respond effectively to the direct participation of civilians in hostilities.'44 In law of armed conflict there is no middle status, either you are a civilian or a combatant. If one is a civilian he/sheis lawfully not permitted to take part in direct hostilities but the revolving door of civilian protections seems to ignore this. On this Schmitt observes that the 'revolving door may at the same time lead civilians to lose respect for the law and member of the armed forces to feel frustrated from the restraining application of the 'unless and for such times' provision.'45 It therefore can be argued that the revolving door protection of civilians makes the principle of distinction and law of targeting difficult tofunctionseamlessly because a civilian can be a fighter by night and a farmer by day while still enjoying protection under the revolving door of civilian protection.The work also noted that it is a challenge on the principle of 'equal application principle' in war law. Under war laws equal opportunity principle is a 'concomitant obligation on the part of civilians not to use their protected status in a treacherous way to participate in hostilities.'46 This puts the civilians in a risk because the civilian who engage in direct hostilitiesand returns back to the civilian status puts the whole civilian population at risk. This is because he definitely uses civilian objects which are not objects of military targets but may be targeted because of the activities of the civilian who has become unlawful combatant. Such a civilian becomes a threat and should be targeted. The revolving door status makes a caricature of this principle.

Conclusion

It is evident that the revolving door of civilian protection is not as easy as some conceive it to be. Rather its problematic and complex nature triggered this work to conceive it as amalfunction of IHL.The idea of a civilian continually and consistently benefiting from the revolving door protection is a malfunction of the IHL since it can lead to aslippery slope, abuses, puts pressure on the principle of distinction, and undermine the law of targeting. It is therefore imperative to argue that the revolving door of civilian protection needs to be reviewed because the increasing and consistent engagements of civilians in various forms in battle field has raised a lot of worries on the revolving door of civilians protection. Until this is done the revolving door remains a controversial principle that will continue to create a lot of confusion and problems in law of armed conflicts. The work concludes that a civilian who engages in hostilities ceases to enjoy this status until holistic assessment certifies that he/she has unambiguously renounced direct participation in hostilities and it has been reasonably established within a sufficient time.

Footnote

1 № Melzer, 'International Humanitarian law: A comprehensive Introduction, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2016.

2 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 8 june 1977, 1125 UNTS 3(entered into force 7 December 1978), art.51, no.3.

3 B. Boothby, 'And for Such Time as: The Time Dimension to Direct Participation in hostilities', 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, 2010, p.741.

4 E. Blusi, 'Closing the Revolving Door of Civilian Protection: Direct Participation in Hostilities by Civilians and Organized Armed Groups', OREBRO UNIVERSTITET JURIDICUM, 2022.

5 K. Watkin, 'Opportunity Lost: Organized Armed Groups and the ICRC Direct Participation in Hostilities Interpretive Guidance', 42 Journal of International Law and Politics, 2010, р. 641.

6 Е. Blusi, op. cit., p.11.

7 Ibid.

8 Tbid.

9 E.K. Iwuagwu, 'Kant's Absolute Good Will and Its Implications for Some Current Ethical Issues like Suicide, War and Abortion." Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, vol. 7, по.8, 2019, р.9

19 А, Fagothey, Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, St. Louis, С.М. Mosby Company, 1976, p. 405

u Twuagwu, loc.cit.

2 Е.К. Iwuagwu, 'Nigeria's Ethno-Religious Crises and its Socio-Political and Economic Underdevelopment', Cogito Multidisciplinary Research Journal, vol.14, no.1, 2022, p. 128

13 Е.К. Iwuagwu, Op.cit., p.10

14 St. Augustine, Contra FaustumManichaeum Bk. XXII ch 74-75, Quaestiones in Heptateuchum, Bk.VI q.10, Aquinas, Summa Theologia, П-П, q.40, a.1

15 K. Ipsen, Combatants and Non-combatants: The Handbook of International Humanitarian law, 314 Ed., OSAIL, 2013, p.79.

16 Ibid.

17 ICRC, J. Henckaerts and L.D. Beck (eds), Customary International Humanitarian Law Vol.1 Rules Customary IHL study volume 1, Cambridge University Press, 2005, p.20.

18 Е. Blusi, Loc.cit.

19 М. Schmitt, 'Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: Critical Analysis' Harvard National Security Journal, vol. 6, no.1, 2010, p.43.

20 Ibid, p.51.

21 Ibid, p.44.

22 Ibid, p.46.

23 Ibid, p.52.

24 Ibid

25 E. Blusi, Loc.cit.

26 M. Schmitt, Loc.cit.

27 Ibid, p.70.

28 ICRC, 'Fifth Meeting on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: Summary Report', 2008, p.34.

29 J.H. Francoise, Direct Participation in Hostilities and the Interoperability of the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law', 87 International Law Studies, 2011, p.187.

30 T. Van der Toorn, Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Legal and Practical Road to Test of the International Committee of the Red cross's Guidance through Afghanistan', Australian International Law Journal, vol.17, no.7, 2010, p.26.

31 Boothby, Op.cit., p.768.

32 Ibid.

33 Ibid.

34 C.K. Ariche and E.K. Iwuagwu, 'Robert Hall on Physician-Assisted Suicide and its Implication for Medical Ethics', Social Sciences, Humanities and Education Journal (SHE Journal) vol. 3, no.3, 2022, pp.395-405.

35 Е. Volokh, The Mechanism of Slippery Slope' Harvard Law Review, vol. 116, no.4, 2002, p. 1026.

36 Е.К. Iwuagwu, В.В. Etta and С.А. Agabi, The Overbearing Influence of Non-State Actors in the Nigerian Socio-Political Space and its effects on National Security." Cogito Multidisciplinary Research Journal vol. 16, no.1, 2024, р.94.

37 R.J.L. Colonel, 'Civilians Taking Direct Part in Hostilities: Why the Revolving Door Must Become a One Way Turnstile', Canadian Forces College, National Defence, 2013.

38 M. Elliott, 'Where Precision is the Aim: Locating the Targeted Killing Policies of the United States and Israel, within International Humanitarian Law', The Canadian Yearbook of International Law, 2009, p.137.

39 Ibid.

40 International Committee of the Red Cross, The Principle of Distinction Between Civilians and Combatants. <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs

41 Schmitt, Loc.cit.

42 Ibid

43 Boothby, Loc.cit.

44 Interpretive Guidance.

45 M. Schmitt, 'Humanitarian Law and DirectParticipation in Hostilities by Private Contractors or Civilian Employees', Chicago Journal of International Law, vol.5, no.2, 2005, p.511.

46 R. Adam, 'The Equal Application of the Laws of War: A Principle under Pressure, International Review of the Red Cross, vol.90, 2008, p.931

References

References:

Adam, R., (2008), "The Equal Application of the laws of war: A Principle under Pressure", International Review of the Red Cross, vol.90, р. 931

Aquinas, T., (2000), Summa Theologiae. Online Complete American Edition, Translated By Fathers of the English Dominican Province.

Ariche, ChrisantusK and Iwuagwu, Emmanuel K., (2022), "Robert Hall on Physician-Assisted Suicide and its Implication for Medical Ethics,' Social Sciences, Humanities and Education Journal (SHE Journal) vol. 3, no.3, pp. 395-405.

Augustine, (1990), Contra FaustumManichaeum. Translated in Works of St. Augustine: ATranslation for the 21st Century, vol. 1. New City Press.

Blusi, E., (2022), "Closing the Revolving Door of Civilian Protection: Direct Participation in Hostilities by Civilians and Organized Armed Groups", Orebro UniverstitetJuridicum.

Boothby, B., (2010), "And for Such Time as: The Time Dimension to Direct Participation in Hostilities, New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, vol.42, p. 741.

Colonel, R.J.L., (2013), 'Civilians Taking Direct Part in Hostilities: Why the Revolving Door Must Become A One Way Turnstile Canadian Forces College, National Defense.

Elliott, M., (2009), 'Where Precision is the Aim: Locating the Targeted Killing Policies of the United States and Israel, within International Humanitarian Law, The Canadian Year Book of International Law, 137.

Fagothey, A., (1976), Right and Reason: Ethics in Theory and Practice, St. Louis, C.V. Mosby Company.

Francoise, J.H., (2011), "Direct Participation in Hostilities and the Interoperability of the Law of Armed Conflict and Human Rights Law, International Law Studies, vol. 87, p.187.

ICRC, (2008), Fifth Meeting on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: Summary Report', p. 34.

ICRC, "The principle of Distinction between civilians and combatants'. <https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs

ICRC 2005), Jean-Marie, H., Louis-Doswald, B., (eds) Customary International Humanitarian Law, vol. 1, Rules, Customary IHL Study volume 1, Cambridge University Press, p. 20.

Ipsen, K., (2013), Combatants and Non-combatants: The Handbook of International Humanitarian law 341 ed., OSAIL.

Iwuagwu, Emmanuel K., (2019), 'Kant's Absolute Good Will and Its Implications for Some Current Ethical Issues like Suicide, War and Abortion." Journal of Research in Humanities and Social Science, vol. 7, no.8, pp.3-14.

Iwuagwu, Emmanuel K., (2022), 'Nigeria's Ethno-Religious Crises and its Socio-Political and Economic Underdevelopment', Cogito Multidisciplinary Research Journal, vol.14, no.1,

pp.115-134. Iwuagwu, Emmanuel K., Etta, R.B., and Agabi, G.A., (2024), 'The Overbearing Influence of Non-State Actors in the Nigerian Socio-Political Space and its effects on National Security. Cogito Multidisciplinary Research Journal, vol.16, no.1,

pp.82-101. Melzer, N., (2016), International Humanitarian law: A comprehensive Introduction, International Committee of the Red

Cross. Protocol Additional to the Geneva Convention of 12 August 1949 and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, opened for signature 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978) art. 51,

no.3. Schmitt, M., (2005), "Humanitarian Law and Direct Participation in Hostilities by Private Contractors or Civilian Employees", Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 5,

no.2. Schmitt, M., (2010), 'Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: Critical Analysis', Harvard National Security Journal, vol.6,

no.1. Van der Toorn, (2010), 'Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Legal and Practical Road to Test of the International Committee of the Red Cross's Guidance through Afghanistan', Australian International Law Journal, vol.17,

no.7. Volokh, E., (2002), 'The Mechanism of Slippery Slope', Harvard Law Review, vol. 116,

no.4. Watkins, К., (2010), 'Opportunity Lost: Organized Armed Groups and the ICRC

Direct Participation in Hostilities Interpretive Guidance', Journal of International Law and Politics, vol.