Distribution by Region

Distribution by Organisation Type, Document Type, Region and Year

Civilian occurs mostly in documents published in Europe, followed by MENA, North America, Asia and Oceania with comparatively smaller contributions. Overall, the top five contributors in terms of occurrences are NGO, RC, IGO, C/B and Found organisations.

NGO documents provide the greatest number of occurrences, primarily from activity reports published in MENA. Occurrences from RC, IGO were mostly obtained from activity reports published in Europe.

C/B documents only generated occurrences in general documents published in Europe. Occurrences from Found were mostly found in activity reports published in Europe.

Civilian(s)...

• is/are a

  • population group

  • stakeholders, beneficiaries, actors

  • victims, war victims, casualties

  • protected persons

  • non-combatants

    • people not taking part in conflict

    • persons not or no longer participating in hostilities or violence

    • individuals taking no active part in hostilities

  • ex-combatants

    • prisoners of war

• include groups according to

  • profession

• • health status

• • immigration status

• • community/state

• • demographic

• are supported by humanitarians with

  • monitoring, advocacy, aid, empowerment, protection

• is found in

  • groups & bodies

• • programme areas

• programmes & initiatives

• labels & positions

• evades a precise definition (see Debates and Controversies)

• have conflicting opinions regarding civilian disarmament

• whose safety should be an inherent military priority

• are becoming more vulnerable with increasing disregard for IHL

• may have a controversial relationship with the military while coordinating humanitarian response

• may be synonymous with non-combatant

The ICRC distinguishes between three different groups of people: civilians: all people who do not or no longer take a direct part in hostilities or violence but whose physical or mental integrity and dignity are either threatened or affected during an armed conflict or another situation of violence .

Civilians: this population group includes residents, IDPs, returnees and, when relevant, refugees

The Office conducted routine monitoring of court martial proceedings, inspected military detention facilities and undertook advocacy with both the UPDF and the Uganda Police Force for the transfer of cases of civilians being held in military detention to civilian courts.

Protection activities for the civilian population involve:

• engaging in dialogue with the relevant parties at all levels to discuss humanitarian issues, to remind them of their legal obligations and to support their compliance efforts

• monitoring individuals and communities who are particularly vulnerable and/or exposed to serious risks of abuse, and helping them reduce their exposure to those risks and reinforce their protection mechanisms

One of the biggest challenges is that 'protection' and 'mainstreaming' are two of the most over-used and imprecisely defined words in the humanitarian lexicon.

In practice, [protection] means trying to reduce the threats of violence, coercion and deliberate deprivation to civilians, and reducing their vulnerability to these threats.

The chart below represents the distribution of civilian between 2005 and 2019 in terms of the number of occurrences and relative frequency of occurrences. It also allows you to view the distribution across Regions, Organisations and Document types.

The word ''victim'' is not always used prevalently. It is replaced by the term ''civilian'', which brings up questions and doubts: do victims play a role in the conflicts? Are they responsible for what happens to them? Conflict situations are less sudden and certainly more complex.

The Peoples' Perspective: Civilian Involvement in Armed Conflict Under international law, it is forbidden to target civilians , "unless and for such a time as they take direct part in hostilities. " The legal concept, and how it should be implemented, has been debated for decades by military commanders, government officials, humanitarians, lawyers, and academics. They have often focused on definitions, legality, criteria for targeting, and key questions as to who is legally immune from direct attacks and what activities qualify as participation. These discussions have consistently lacked the voices of actual civilians in conflict-afflicted countries.

"As a Peshmerga (Kurdish freedom fighter), I respect the rules, I can defend myself. But if I find support from civilians, the enemy attacks the environment, poisons wells, takes revenge - is this allowed? " "If four Peshmerga are in a civilian house, and attacked by the enemy, is it better to surrender to protect the civilians? " "Could a politician be a legitimate target (if he backs the war)? " "A target needs to be 100% military, not used for any civilian purpose. Even a tractor pulling a tank, or a civilian house that becomes a military base. " "A military hospital is difficult to judge. They are serving the military AND providing services to civilians. "* Geneva Call realized that the types of question called for a rapid adjustment in the programme's sequence, and the meetings quickly took on a more round-table approach. "Is a spy a civilian or a military person? " "In no circumstances we arrest children under 18, even if they are soldiers. Everyone under 18 is regarded a child. " "Even if a commander orders wrong, a Peshmerga can reject/refuse. They are trained in this. " In some cases, Peshmerga concepts about human rights law exceed international standards, as in their treatment of children, for example.

As Hugo Slim observed in his thoughtful book Killing Civilians, even the word ' civilian ' is contentious. International humanitarian law makes a critical distinction between civilians who participate 'directly' in hostilities (and who may be attacked in a situation of armed conflict) and those who do not (and who must accordingly be respected and protected). Yet international humanitarian lawyers are far from agreement on precisely what acts constitute direct participation in hostilities. Accordingly, given the controversies and intricacies of the law, we can hardly be surprised that armed non-state actors have a variety of interpretations as to who is a legitimate target. Those calling for global jihad are especially broad in their definition of targets of military operations. In a May 2012 statement, for example, al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP) invited Muslims in Yemen to 'target Americans everywhere'. to the UN Assistance Mission in Afghanistan (UNAMA)'s 2012 annual report on the protection of civilians,3 the Taliban provided a detailed definition of who they consider to be civilians: According to us civilians are those who are in no way involved in fighting.

With regard to the perpetrator's profile, the distinction between 'known' and 'unknown' is much more relevant than that between 'civilian' or 'non-civilian' for programme monitoring. Desertion from the army is extensive; attempts to reintegrate combatants into civilian life have been numerous; 'self-defence' groups organised by local leaders arming rural young men are commonplace. In this context, what does ' civilian ' mean? The distinction can vary according to the interpretation of the victim or the staff member: some will identify a 'non-civilian' by the fact that he was wearing a uniform or carrying a weapon or because of his alleged links with a particular armed group.

The link between security and development has prompted UNDP to support efforts to address the issue of armed violence. Civilians own approximately 650 million of the known 875 million firearms in the world today. The proliferation of cheap weapons leads to an increased risk of civil unrest, and the more effective a country's regulatory capacity, the higher weapons prices will be.

Although politicians and military officials we interviewed in Bujumbura claimed to recognise the need for civilian disarmament, many Burundians regard arms as necessary to protect their homes, and for self-defence. There is widespread distrust of the political situation, and tensions from the civil war persist. Many of the women we spoke to were opposed to civilian disarmament because they felt that arms were essential to domestic security: an insurance policy for the family.

We have for years pressed militaries in Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, and Mali to do something new–to track, analyze, and respond to civilian harm. Called "civilian harm tracking" for short, the process is internal to a military force and enables the gathering of data on civilian harm caused by its operations, full investigations into incidents of potential civilian harm, and a method for analyzing the results to spot trends and needed improvements. By tracking and analyzing civilian harm, a military can better understand its impact on civilians. They can learn lessons that may save lives over time, and find ways to dignify civilians suffering losses.

The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) works with regional military commanders to improve troop control and curb civilian abuses, but concedes its impact is minimal. Military discipline is unlikely to be maintained when the authorities fail to provide soldiers with salaries or benefits.

Violations of International Humanitarian Law Armed conflicts remain the major cause of man-made humanitarian disaster. Civilian populations are increasingly exposed to violence and suffering. The international humanitarian law and its principles are often not respected. As in previous years, humanitarian organisations faced growing problems in gaining access to those in most need.

The role of military forces in providing assistance is most controversial in armed conflicts, where they are or may become parties to the conflict. In these circumstances, humanitarian agencies recommend that assistance should primarily be left to civilians, to avoid blurring the line between humanitarian actors and armed actors, eroding humanitarian principles and exposing humanitarian agencies to greater security risks.

 The phrase 'relief action of an exclusively humanitarian and impartial nature', however, means that the military must not disguise itself as a civilian humanitarian actor in order to deceive the population and collect intelligence for future military action. To do so would pervert the intention of the law, and lead to uncertainty as to the respective roles of civilian humanitarian actors and the military. Generally, military personnel have combatant status and, as such, constitute legitimate military targets; civilian humanitarian actors do not. If the military engages in relief activities in a non-transparent manner, warring parties may no longer be able to make this distinction.

Similarly in Aceh, the rapid deployment of military helicopters from the region was vital: waiting for civilian planes would have resulted in severe delays and additional loss of life. A more difficult question concerns when to revert to civilian capacity after the initial surge period has passed, particularly as military assets are usually perceived as a 'free good'. While this holds true from the perspective of an aid agency, costs are always borne by the state. Ultimately, using military assets may have implications for the overall humanitarian aid budget, and it is generally accepted that military assets are usually more expensive than civilian ones.

NGOs have struggled to develop a unified response to the growing scope and pace of US military involvement in areas normally reserved for civilian leadership and action. Although regular dialogue has been established, much greater collective effort is needed on the part of US humanitarian and development NGOs to shape this engagement. The Guidelines Following the 9/11 attacks on the United States, NGOs abruptly found themselves operating alongside US soldiers who were simultaneously fighting enemies and acting like NGO workers in the name of 'winning hearts and minds'.

the obligation to distinguish at all times between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objectives

Its mandated strength was around 25,000 personnel, mainly military but also including a civilian component

The status of non-combatant, for example, is fully recognised, and combatants have to obey a set of mandatory rules in war, including injunctions prohibiting the destruction of civilian objects and the appropriation of civilian property.

The ANSA entered a reservation in accordance with the Deed of Commitment that a new " non-combatant category" would be created by HPG, and that children between 16 and 18 would only be allowed to join this category, and on a voluntary basis. Following signature, HPG created this new category, formalizing the prohibition for children to participate in hostilities. The 16-18 year olds have been reportedly separated from adults and assigned to non-military tasks away from combat zones.