The responsible authorities shall ensure that [fixed establishments and mobile medical units] are, as far as possible, situated in such a manner that attacks against military objectives cannot imperil their safety.
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 19, second para.
Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 28.
Under no circumstances shall medical units be used in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack. Whenever possible, the Parties to the conflict shall ensure that medical units are so sited that attacks against military objectives do not imperil their safety.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 12(4). Article 12 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.37, 24 May 1977, p. 69.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 51(7). Article 51 was adopted by 77 votes in favour, one against and 16 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 163.
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, "[u]tilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations" constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii).
Parties to the conflict are prohibited from placing or keeping members of the civilian population subject to their authority in or near military objectives, with the idea of inducing the enemy to refrain from attacking those objectives.
Draft Rules for the Limitation of the Dangers Incurred by the Civilian Population in Time of War, drafted by the International Committee of the Red Cross, September 1956, submitted to governments for their consideration on behalf of the 19th International Conference of the Red Cross, New Delhi, 28 October–7 November, Res. XIII, Article 13.
Paragraph 6 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia requires that hostilities be conducted in accordance with Article 51(7) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xxiii), "[u]tilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations" constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(xxiii).
Australia's Commanders' Guide (1994) provides that civilians in enemy territory "are not to be used as a shield for combat operations or as a means of obtaining protection for military facilities".
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders' Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 609.
[The] requirement [to distinguish between military objects and civilian objects] imposes obligations on all parties to a conflict to establish and maintain this distinction. Inherent in this requirement, and to make it effective, is the obligation not to use civilians to protect military objectives. Civilians may not be used as shields … Any party who uses civilians in this manner violates international law including its obligations to protect its own civilian population.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 504.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 922.
5.4 … Inherent in this requirement [the principle of distinction], and to make it effective, is the obligation not to use civilians to protect military objectives. Civilians may not be used as shields … Any party who uses civilians in this manner violates international law including its obligations to protect its own civilian population.
9.23 … The civilian population shall not be used to attempt to render military objectives immune from attack or to shield, favour or impede military operations.
10.26 PW [prisoner-of-war] camps must not be located near military objectives with the intention of securing exemption from attack for those objectives.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 5.4, 9.23 and 10.26.
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet "Moralisation" (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 2; see also Part I bis, p. 53.
Cameroon's Instructor's Manual (1992) prohibits the use of human shields as a method of warfare.
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l'instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 30, § 131.
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l'instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 222, § 222; see also p. 103, § 371.
The manual, under the heading "Responsibility for Acts or Omissions of which Subordinates Are Accused", further states that a commander may be held responsible for the "use of [human] shields" by his subordinates.
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l'instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 99, § 361; see also p. 141, § 421 and p. 147, § 431.
Canada's Code of Conduct (2001) provides that prisoners of war or detainees "will not be used as 'human shields' to protect military objectives or cover military operations".
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 6, § 12.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 615.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1222.3.
Canada's Code of Conduct (2005) states that prisoners of war or detainees "will not be used as 'human shields' to protect military objectives or cover military operations".
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 6, § 12.
Chad's Instructor's Manual (2006) states that "using protected persons to protect military objectives (human shields)" is prohibited and that to do so is a war crime.
Colombia's Basic Military Manual (1995) states that parties in conflict shall "abstain from using [the civilian population] as shields or barricades in order to obtain a military advantage". It further states that it is prohibited "to use the civilian population as human shields".
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, pp. 22 and 30.
If the civilians do not leave the town under siege, this does not signify that the commander who directs the attack is dispensed from his duties to take all the usual precautions listed above. For all these reasons, a ceasefire allowing for evacuation seems to constitute a logical solution. Sure, violators could consider that it is in their interest to hold back the civilian population, or parts of that population, to serve as human shields, or to elicit the sympathy of international opinion regarding the humanitarian situation of the population and thereby to discredit the enemy. Nevertheless, the force leading the attack can easily thwart these proceedings by respecting the law, giving warnings, giving time for an evacuation in the form of a ceasefire, and by ensuring that the civilians are granted passage in safe conditions towards a protected zone or place.
Côte d'Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d'instruction, Livre III, Tome 1: Instruction de l'élève officier d'active de 1ère année, Manuel de l'élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 50–51.
Côte d'Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d'instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l'élève officier d'active de 2ème année, Manuel de l'instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 21.
No prisoner of war may be used to render, by his presence, certain points or areas immune from military operations.
The use of protected persons, such as civilians or prisoners of war, to shield legitimate objectives from attack is prohibited.
Côte d'Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d'instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l'élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 31, 40 and 45, 50.
Croatia's Commanders' Manual (1992) forbids the use of civilians or populated areas as shields for the protection of military units, movements or positions.
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders' Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, Article 47, p. 7.
According to the Dominican Republic's Military Manual (1980), soldiers "cannot use prisoners as shields to defend against attacks by enemy forces".
Dominican Republic, La Conducta en Combate según las Leyes de la Guerra, Escuela Superior de las FF. AA. "General de Brigada Pablo Duarte", Secretaría de Estado de las Fuerzas Armadas, May 1980, p. 9.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 11-2.
France's LOAC Summary Note (1992) prohibits the use of individual civilians or inhabited areas in order to protect military formations, movements or positions.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d'Armée Voinot (pour l'Amiral Lanxade, Chef d'Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 4.3.
France's LOAC Teaching Note (2000) provides that protected persons "cannot be used in any case as human shields". The prohibition is also stated regarding prisoners of war.
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, pp. 3 and 5.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, pp. 33–34 and 101.
Germany's Military Manual (1992) provides: "None of the parties to the conflict shall use civilians as a shield to render certain points or areas immune from military operations." It also provides that POWs "shall not be used to render certain points or areas immune from military operations".
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, §§ 506 and 714.
Civilians may not be used to render certain points or areas immune from combat operations.
The detaining power is obligated to protect prisoners of war. They may not be abused as "human shields".
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, pp. 4 and 7.
Israel's Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states that it is prohibited to exploit the presence of prisoners to render military objectives immune from attack and it is obligatory to provide the prisoners with bomb shelters as well as other means of defence.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, pp. 52 and 57.
In the rules of war, there is a serious prohibition on the use of civilians as human shields, that is to say, it is prohibited to scatter military targets among civilian installations in an attempt to prevent an attack on them.
The manual further states that "[t]he presence of prisoners of war must not be used for the 'protection' of military targets from attack".
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 41(c).
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 2.
It is prohibited to force civilians to shield military operations or take advantage of the movement of civilians to shield military operations. This rule must be interpreted with common sense. For example, it does not prevent a military commander from defending a city, and the difficulties faced by a commander operating in a populated area, particularly in a siege situation, when room for manoeuvre is limited, should be taken into account.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 26.f; see also § 26.g.(3).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 60.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.e.(10).
The manual provides that war crimes include "subjecting the civilian population to attack (human shield)".
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.a.(5).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 27(f), p. 236.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 61, p. 264.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(e)(3), p. 239.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 32(a)(5), p. 248.
It is prohibited by resorting to perfidy to use the movement of medical units and transports, civilians and prisoners of war or use their presence to shield the movement (manoeuvre) of military units or protect any areas (military objectives) when conducting combat operations.
Sierra Leone's Instructor Manual (2007) prohibits the use of civilians and prisoners of war as human shields.
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, pp. 36 and 43.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 2.3.b.(4).
The manual further states that civilians and civilian goods or protected persons and goods may suffer from the effects of an attack against a proper military object due to their proximity to it and when their presence shields the latter from attacks.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 4.4.e.
The manual also states that combatants must position their weapons in the field in order to avoid the use of the civilian population as a shield.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 7.3.a.(1).
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(4); see also § 4.4.e.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 3.3.b.(4); see also § 5.3.c.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 7.3.a.(1).
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 151(1).
In the past prominent inhabitants were placed on engines of trains running on the lines of communication in occupied territories to ensure the safety of the trains. Such a measure exposed innocent inhabitants to the illegitimate acts of train wrecking by private enemy individuals, and also to the lawful operations of raiding parties of the armed forces of the belligerent. It now comes within the prohibition of the [1949 Geneva Convention IV].
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, §§ 548 and 651.
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states that civilians "may not be used to shield military operations".
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Annex A, p. 48, § 20.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.22; see also § 9.24.
Recent armed conflicts have been blighted by the use of "human shields" to protect military installations from attack and by the practice known as "ethnic cleansing" when people of a certain racial origin or religious beliefs have been murdered or expelled from their homes, which have been destroyed. These practices violate the basic law of armed conflict principles of targeting, discrimination and humane treatment of those hors de combat as well as the basic human rights law principles of non discrimination on racial or ethnic grounds and in freedom of thought, conscience, and religion. They are likely to be war crimes. Depending on the circumstances, these practices may also amount to crimes against humanity or even genocide.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.14.2.
Penalty: (a) if the conduct results in the death of any of the persons referred to in paragraph (a)—imprisonment for life; or (b) otherwise—imprisonment for 17 years.
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.65, p. 344.
Australia's ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including "using protected persons as shields" in international armed conflicts.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.65.
Azerbaijan's Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that in international and non-international armed conflicts, using prisoners of war "as a shield in the hostilities" is prohibited.
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 21(3).
Azerbaijan's Criminal Code (1999) provides that using protected persons "for the protection of one's own Armed Forces or military objectives from military actions" is a violation of the laws and customs of war.
Belarus's Criminal Code (1999) provides that using persons who have laid down their arms or who are defenceless, the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, medical and religious personnel, prisoners of war, the civilian population in an occupied territory or in the conflict zone or other persons enjoying international protection as a cover for one's own troops and objects against the effects of hostilities is a violation of the laws and customs of war.
v) utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(v).
23°. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(23°).
Croatia's Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that it is a war crime to "order civilians and other protected persons to be used to shield certain places, areas or military forces from military operations".
Under the Democratic Republic of the Congo's Code of Military Justice (1972), as amended, the use of prisoners of war or of civilians as a method of protection is an offence.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Code of Military Justice as amended, 1972, Article 524.
The use of prisoners of war or civilians for purposes of protection against the enemy is punished with fifteen to twenty years of penal servitude.
In time of war or during exceptional circumstances the perpetrator is punished by death.
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 172.
Finland's Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who "uses civilians or other protected persons in order to protect military targets … or uses other means of warfare prohibited in international law" shall be "sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life".
Using a person protected by the international law of armed conflict with the aim of deterring certain points, zones or military forces from being targeted by military operations, is punishable by 20 years' imprisonment.
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-19.
Germany's Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) provides for the punishment of anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, "uses a person who is to be protected under international humanitarian law as a shield to restrain a hostile party from undertaking operations of war against certain targets".
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 11(1)(4).
Under Georgia's Criminal Code (1999), the "use of civilians to cover the troops or objects from the hostilities" is a crime.
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(b).
Iraq's Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in international armed conflicts: "Utilizing the presence of civilians or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations".
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(W).
Ireland's Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any "minor breach" of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including violations of Article 19 of the Geneva Convention I, Article 23 of the Geneva Convention III and Article 28 of the Geneva Convention IV, and of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Articles 12(4) and 51(7), are punishable offences.
Under Lithuania's Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the "use of civilians or prisoners of war as a living shield in military operations" is an offence.
Mali's Penal Code (2001) provides that "using the presence of a civilian person or other protected person in order to avoid that certain zones, points or military forces become a target for military operations" constitutes a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(23).
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 106(d).
Under Peru's Code of Military Justice (1980), the "use of prisoners of war as … human shields" constitutes a violation of the law of nations.
Peru's Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement (2005) prohibits "the use of internally displaced persons or their property for the purpose of protecting military objectives".
Peru, Regulations to the Law on Internal Displacement, 2005, Article 6(h).
4. Uses persons protected by international humanitarian law as shields for the benefit of military operations against the enemy or to impede enemy operations against certain objectives.
Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 95(4).
4. Uses persons protected under International Humanitarian Law as shields for the benefit of belligerent operations against the adversary or in order to impede the adversary's acts against certain objects.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 91(4).
1. In an international armed conflict, the persons protected by the Geneva Conventions I, II, III and IV of 12 August 1949 [and] Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977.
2. In a non-international armed conflict, the persons who benefit from protection under Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and, where relevant, the Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977.
3. In international and non-international armed conflicts, members of the armed forces and persons who directly participate in hostilities who have laid down their arms or for any other reason find themselves defenceless.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 75.
Poland's Penal Code (1997) provides for the punishment of any person who, in violation of international law, uses persons hors de combat, protected persons and persons enjoying international protection to "shield with their presence an area or an object or his own troops from attack".
Poland, Penal Code, 1997, Article 123(2).
The Republic of Korea's ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who, in both international and non-international armed conflicts, commits the war crime of "[u]sing a person who is to be protected under international humanitarian law as a shield to restrain a hostile party from undertaking operations of war against certain targets".
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(1)(4).
20. utilizing the presence of a civilian or [other] protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations.
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(20).
South Africa's ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations".
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(xxiii).
4. … [U]sing protected persons to shield points, zones or military forces from enemy attacks.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 611(4).
b. uses a person protected by international humanitarian law as a human shield in order to influence combat operations.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 112c (1)(b).
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264g (1)(b).
Tajikistan's Criminal Code (1998) punishes the "use of [protected persons] to cover the troops or objects from hostilities".
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xxiii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Under Yemen's Military Criminal Code (1998), the "use of civilians as human shields during war operations" constitutes a war crime.
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Article 21(4).
 Ribic appeals his convictions. … I would dismiss the appeal.
[T]here was no evidence at trial capable of leaving the jury with a reasonable doubt that using unarmed peacekeeping observers as human shields in the hope of averting or stopping an air strike was a reasonable response to NATO's action. On the evidence, all that was required to avoid the bombings, in accordance with UN Security Council Resolution 836, was the return of the heavy weapons that had been removed by the Serbian army from the UN weapons collection areas by the designated deadline and the honouring of the safe zones. That the Serbian forces elected to reject this option did not render the use of human shields a justified and reasonable response to the NATO bombing.
Canada, Court of Appeal for Ontario, Ribic case, Judgment, 24 November 2008, § 57, per Cronk J.A.
Canada, Immigration and Refugee Board, Peters case, Record of an Admissibility Hearing under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, 29 January 2013, pp. 4 and 13–14.
Taking into account … the development of customary international humanitarian law applicable in internal armed conflicts, the Constitutional Court notes that the fundamental guarantees stemming from the principle of humanity, some of which have attained ius cogens status, … [include] the prohibition of using human shields.
- the 49-year-old Rwandese national Straton M.
The accused Dr. Ignace M. has been president of the FDLR since December 2001. The accused Straton M. has been its first vice president since June 2004. Until their arrest in Germany on 17 November 2009, both accused steered the FDLR's conduct, strategies and tactics from Germany together with Calixte M., who is residing in France and who has since been detained by the International Criminal Court in The Hague. Thus, they could have prevented the systematic commission of violent acts against the civilian population by the FDLR's militiamen, which were part of the organisation's strategy. Specifically, the accused are responsible for 26 crimes against humanity and 39 war crimes, which the militiamen under their control committed in the Democratic Republic of Congo between January 2009 and 17 November 2009. These crimes inter alia include … using civilians as human shields against attacks by military opponents.
Germany, Federal Prosecutor General, Democratic Forces for the Liberation of Rwanda case, Press release, 17 December 2010.
[I]t is clear that an army … is not permitted to use local residents as a "human shield" (see article 28 of IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War 1949 (hereinafter – the Fourth Geneva Convention); article 51(7) of The First Protocol [1977 Additional Protocol I]; see also Fleck, at p. 218)). Pictet correctly noted that the use of people as a "human shield" is a "cruel and barbaric" act (see J. Pictet Commentary IV Geneva Convention (1958) 208; rule 97 of International Humanitarian Law).
Israel, High Court of Justice, Adalah (Early Warning Procedure) case, Judgment, 6 October 2005, § 21.
What is the law regarding civilians serving as a "human shield" for terrorists taking a direct part in the hostilities? Certainly, if they are doing so because they were forced to do so by terrorists, those innocent civilians are not to be seen as taking a direct part in the hostilities. They themselves are victims of terrorism. However, if they do so of their own free will, out of support for the terrorist organization, they should be seen as persons taking a direct part in the hostilities (see Schmitt, at p. 521 and Michael N. Schmitt, Humanitarian Law and Direct Participation in Hostilities by Private Contractors or Civilian Employees, 5 CHICAGO JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL LAW 511, 541 (2004)).
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 36.
In its judgment in the Student case in 1946, the UK Military Court at Lüneberg found the accused guilty of using six British prisoners of war as a screen for the advance of German troops, which resulted in the deaths of some of the prisoners.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Lüneberg, In re Student, Judgment, 10 May 1946.
31. Utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected person to render certain points, areas or military forces or combatants immune from military operations or armed combat.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.31.
In 1996, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the situation in Liberia, the representative of Chile said that he especially regretted the "unfortunate recurrence, in a United Nations peacekeeping operation, of the use of human shields, as a result of the fighting in Tubmanburg and Kle".
Chile, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.3621, 25 January 1996, p. 18.
The Report on the Practice of Croatia refers to a communiqué of the Ministry of Defence in 1995 which stated that the Croatian authorities had taken into custody and prosecuted the commander of a small Croatian military unit because of his alleged use of seven Danish UN peacekeepers as human shields during the August 1995 military operations.
Report on the Practice of Croatia, 1997, Chapter 1.7, referring to Communiqué of the Ministry of Defence, 10 August 1995.
In 2011, in the History and Geography Textbook for 9th Grade, Djibouti's Ministry of National Education and Vocational Training, under the heading "[O]ffences related to violations of humanitarian law", listed "utilizing the presence of a civilian or other protected persons to render certain points, areas or military forces immune from military operations".
In a communiqué issued in August 1990, El Salvador vigorously condemned Iraq's actions on the basis of IHL, in particular Iraq's violation of the rule prohibiting the taking and use of hostages and the denial of an individual's basic rights to liberty and freedom of transit.
El Salvador, Communiqué concerning the situation between Iraq and Kuwait, annexed to Letter dated 30 August 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21708, 5 September 1990.
The Report on the Practice of France refers to various statements in which the French President, Prime Minister and Minister of Foreign Affairs have condemned the use of civilians, prisoners of war and members of peacekeeping operations as human shields.
Report on the Practice of France, 1999, Chapter 1.7, referring to Message of the President to Parliament, 27 August 1990, Politique étrangère de la France, August 1990, p. 105; Communiqué of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 21 January 1991, Annuaire français de droit international, Vol. 37, 1991, p. 1019; Prime Minister, Answer to questions in Parliament regarding Bosnia and Herzegovina, 31 May 1995, Politique étrangère de la France, May 1995, pp. 81–82; Minister of Foreign Affairs, Declaration before Parliament, 6 June 1995, Politique étrangère de la France, June 1995, p. 99; and Minister of Foreign Affairs, Declaration before the Senate, 7 June 1995, Politique étrangère de la France, June 1995, p. 106.
In an address to Parliament in 1990, the German Minister of Foreign Affairs stated with respect to EU nationals detained in Kuwait and Iraq that "it is particularly abominable that they will be placed around military defence objects" and that such practice constituted a "breach of international law and rules governing civilized behaviour".
Germany, Statement of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, 23 August 1990, Bulletin, No. 102, Presse- und Informationsamt der Bundesregierung, Bonn, 25 August 1990, p. 858.
10. Which information does the Federal Government have concerning the question of whether armed Palestinian groups in Gaza intentionally abused civilians as human shields, thereby risking their death?
The Federal Government does not have reliable information on the use of civilians as human shields by Palestinian groups. The Gaza Strip is one of the most densely populated areas on earth. Qassam rockets are regularly fired from the vicinity of residential areas.
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Jürgen Trittin, other Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 16/12673, 20 April 2009, p. 5.
I believe that an independent review should consider the allegations of serious breaches of international humanitarian law in the course of the conflict, including … the use of civilians as human shields by the LTTE [Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam].
Ireland, Dáil Eireann (House of Deputies), Minister for Foreign Affairs, Written Answers – Foreign Conflicts (3), Dáil Eireann debate Vol. 690 No. 1, 23 September 2009.
The Report on the Practice of the Islamic Republic of Iran notes that no instances were found in which the civilian population or objects were used as human shields by the Iranian authorities.
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) strictly prohibit the use of civilians to render certain points, areas or personnel immune from military operations. The report expresses regret that Israel's opponents do not always respect this obligation.
Should civilian casualties ensue from an attempt to shield combatants or a military objective, the ultimate responsibility lies with the belligerent placing innocent civilians at risk.
But callous disregard of those who hide behind civilians does not absolve the state seeking to respond to such attacks of the responsibility to avoid or at least minimize injury to civilians and their property in the course of its operations.
In the course of the conflict that it had initiated, Hizbullah's operations entailed fundamental violations of international humanitarian law. Most specifically, it wilfully violated the principle of distinction, which obliges parties to a conflict to direct their attacks only against military objectives and prohibits the use of civilians as "human shields" in the arena of combat. Throughout the conflict, Hizbullah demonstrated cynical disregard for the lives of civilians, both on the Israeli side, where it targeted them, and on the Lebanese side, where it used them as "cover".
However, it is the IDF's [Israel Defense Forces'] position that the callous disregard of those who hide behind civilians does not absolve the state seeking to respond to such attacks of the responsibility to avoid or at least minimize injury to civilians and their property in the course of its operations.
Israel, Israel's War with Hizbullah. Preserving Humanitarian Principles While Combating Terrorism, Diplomatic Notes No. 1, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, April 2007, pp. 4 and 10–11.
118. Violation of this obligation, which is a core principle of customary international law binding on both States and non-State actors, constitutes a "war crime".
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, §§ 117–118.
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 226; see also § 227.
In July 2010, in a second update of its July 2009 report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009, Israel's Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated that "the standing orders of the Gaza Operation explicitly prohibited the use of civilians as human shields … in accordance with the Law of Armed Conflict and a Supreme Court ruling on the matter".
The Ministry further stated: "The MAG [Military Advocate General] has directly referred for criminal investigation all allegations that civilians were used by IDF [Israel Defense Forces] forces as human shields".
In January 1991, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, Italy warned Iraq in the strongest terms against carrying out its alleged intention to move prisoners of war to strategic sites, and recalled Article 23 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III.
Italy, Letter dated 23 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22137, 23 January 1991.
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, Jordan has never used civilians as shields to protect areas or installations from enemy attacks.
In January 1991, in a letter to the President of the UN Security Council, Kuwait denounced Iraq's announcement that prisoners of war were to be sent to various economic and scientific installations to serve as human shields. The letter stated that such inhuman practices were in violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions III and IV.
Kuwait, Letter dated 22 January 1991 to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22128, 22 January 1991.
The Report on the Practice of Kuwait notes that the use of human shields by Iraq to protect certain strategic sites was condemned by Kuwait.
On the basis of interviews with members of the armed forces, the Report on the Practice of Malaysia states that during the communist insurgency, civilians were never used as human shields.
Report on the Practice of Malaysia, 1997, Interviews with members of the armed forces, Chapter 1.7.
According to the records published by the Directorate of Legal Services of the Nigerian army, cited in the Report on the Practice of Nigeria, Nigerian practice does not allow the use of human shields.
Report on the Practice of Nigeria, 1997, Chapter 1.7, referring to Records of the Directorate of Legal Services of the Nigerian army.
The Report on the Practice of Rwanda includes several examples of the use of civilians as human shields by combatants of the former government during the hostilities in Kigali in 1994. On the basis of a statement of the Rwandan Minister of Justice at the 53rd Session of the UN Commission on Human Rights condemning the use of the civilian population as human shields during hostilities, the report considers that it is the opinio juris of Rwanda that the use of human shields in combat is prohibited.
Report on the Practice of Rwanda, 1997, Chapter 1.7.
20. … In 1996 the country … moved to liberate innocent refugees who the Ex-FAR/Interahamwe cynically exploited as human shields.
Rwanda, Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Cooperation, Official Government of Rwanda Comments on the Draft UN Mapping Report on the DRC, 30 November 2010, §§ 19 and 20.
In the Great Lakes region … we unfortunately still have armed conflicts and roaming predators against the civilian population. The negative forces and other military groups, such as the Rwanda Defence Force, a genocidal force that consists of perpetrators of the 1994 genocide of Tutsi in Rwanda, continues to spread its genocidal ideological poison, not just in our neighbourhood but also through a worldwide network. Other groups, such as the Lord's Resistance Army and uncontrolled Séléka Coalition elements, continue to traumatize the population in the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Central African Republic.
Those forces use civilians as human shields, abduct and maim, forcefully recruit children and continue to carry out sexual and gender-based violence against women and girls. Such genocidal ideologies and inhuman acts should not be accommodated anywhere in the world.
Rwanda, Statement by the Political Coordinator of Rwanda before the UN Security Council during a meeting on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, UN Doc. S/PV.7019, 19 August 2013, p. 20.
Iraq has … used prisoners of war as human shields, in violation of the Geneva Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war. Deeply shocked and angered, the Government of Senegal has condemned this inhumane policy which runs counter to law.
Senegal, Statement by the President, annexed to Letter dated 29 January 1991 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/22181, 31 January 1991, §§ 5–6.
The Report on the Practice of Spain cites several occasions in 1990 and 1991 when the Spanish Government condemned Iraq for its use of human shields.
Report on the Practice of Spain, 1998, Chapter 1.7, referring to Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs before Congress, 28 August 1990 and Press Conference by the Prime Minister on the Gulf War, 15 February 1991, Interview with the Minister of Foreign Affairs in a magazine, January/February 1991.
Switzerland's Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Strategy (2009) states that "the weaker of the adversaries frequently resort to practices that are prohibited under international law, e.g. … the use of human shields".
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Strategy, 2009, p. 3.
In 2010, in its Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, Switzerland's Federal Council stated: "The use of human shields also constitutes a grave violation of international humanitarian lawˮ.
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Section 3.3, p. 12; see also Section 3.4, pp. 13–14.
In a statement in February 1996, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Tajikistan denounced the opposition's use of prisoners as human shields. According to the statement, opposition forces hid behind a "living shield" of members of government forces, compelling the command of the armed forces of Tajikistan to abandon positions in order to avoid unjustified loss of life among military personnel. Such practice was qualified as a flagrant violation of the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Tajikistan, Statement of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, annexed to Letter dated 9 January 1996 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/1996/95, 8 February 1996.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 6 September 1990, Vol. 177, col. 739.
In an emergency debate in the House of Lords at the time of the Gulf crisis in 1990, the UK Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, declared that he was shocked by the Iraqi Government's decision to use human shields, such practice being "abhorrent and a further breach of humanitarian law".
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 6 September 1990, Vol. 521, col. 1798.
In 1990, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the United Kingdom described Iraq's illegal practices of using human shields as "acts which outrage international law and international opinion".
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.2937, 18 August 1990, p. 21.
United Kingdom, Letter to the President of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/22117, 21 January 1991.
had raised press reports concerning the detention of POWs at strategic sites [and] had made it clear that if Iraq did this it would be an outrageous breach of the Geneva Conventions. The British Government would take the gravest view of any such breach. He also reminded the Iraqi Ambassador of the personal liability of those individuals who broke the Convention in this way.
United Kingdom, Statement by Foreign and Commonwealth Office spokesperson, 21 January 1991, BYIL, Vol. 62, 1991, p. 680.
There has been a reported threat to use captured airmen as human shields. Such action would be inhuman, illegal and totally contrary to the third Geneva convention. The convention expressly … prohibits the sending of a prisoner of war to an area where he may be exposed to fire, or his detention there, and forbids the use of the presence of prisoners of war to render points or areas immune from military operations. There is no doubt about Iraq's obligations under the Geneva convention.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 21 January 1991, Vol. 184, col. 27.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 18 December 2008, Vol. 485, Debates, cols. 1349–1350.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written Answer by a Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 19 October 2010, Vol. 504, Written Answers, col. WA157.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Ministry of Defence, Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia, 10 July 1991, § 1(iv).
8. Condemns all acts of exploitation of unaccompanied refugee minors, including their use as soldiers or human shields in armed conflict and their forced recruitment into military forces, and any other acts that endanger their safety and personal security.
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/150, 22 December 2003, §§ 7–8, adopted without a vote.
In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN Commission on Human Rights condemned the use of human shields by Iraq as an extremely serious violation of international law.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1992/71, 5 March 1992, § 2(d), voting record: 35-1-16.
In a resolution adopted in 1995, the UN Commission on Human Rights vigorously condemned the use of civilians as human shields on the front line in the conflict in the former Yugoslavia.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/89, 8 March 1995, § 3, voting record: 44-0-7.
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights strongly condemned "the use of Palestinian citizens as human shields during Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas".
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/6, 15 April 2003, § 9, voting record: 33-5-15.
9. Strongly condemns once more … the use of Palestinian citizens as human shields during Israeli incursions into Palestinian areas.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/10, 15 April 2004, preamble and § 9, voting record: 31-7-15.
In 1996, the UN Secretary-General reported that during the conflict in Liberia, UNOMIL was charged with carrying out investigations of major violations of human rights. In this context, UNOMIL confirmed that, during fighting in Tubmanburg on 30 December 1995, ULIMO-J fighters forced civilians out of the government hospital, where they had taken refuge, and used them as human shields to protect their position in the town. In addition, fighters generally prevented civilians from fleeing the town.
UN Secretary-General, Fifteenth progress report on UNOMIL, UN Doc. S/1996/47, 23 January 1996, § 24.
UN Secretary-General, First progress report on the UNOMSIL, UN Doc. S/1998/750, 12 August 1998, §§ 33 and 36.
No principle is more central to the humanitarian law of war than the obligation to respect the distinction between combatants and non-combatants. That principle is violated and criminal responsibility thereby incurred when organizations deliberately target civilians or when they use civilians as shields or otherwise demonstrate a wanton indifference to the protection of non-combatants.
The report went on to say that central principles such as this one were clearly a part of contemporary customary international law and were applicable as soon as "political ends are sought through military means".
Report pursuant to paragraph 5 of Security Council resolution 837 (1993) on the investigation into the 5 June 1993 attack on United Nations forces in Somalia conducted on behalf of the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/26351, 24 August 1993, Annex, §§ 8–9.
In 1993, in a report on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights described how civilian detainees were used as human shields to protect the army's advance. According to the report, these civilian detainees were arrested and drafted into the army and forced to dig shelters on the front line. On 14 August 1993, the Special Rapporteur wrote to the government to express his abhorrence of this practice. The Special Rapporteur also reported that the Bosnian Serbs used civilian detainees as human shields, forcing them to stand as a "living wall" on the front.
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in the Former Yugoslavia, Fifth periodic report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1994/47, 17 November 1993, §§ 36, 37, 39 and 84.
In a resolution adopted in 1991 in the context of the Gulf War, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly warned Iraq against the criminal use of prisoners of war as human shields in strategic sites, flagrantly violating the 1949 Geneva Convention III.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 954, 29 January 1991, § 5.
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the situation of women and children in the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly urged governments of the member and non-member States grouped together in the Council of Europe "to undertake to protect children from the scourge of war and to condemn the barbaric practice in recent armed conflicts of using women and children as … human shields".
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1011, 28 September 1993, § 7(iii).
In 1993, in a report on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia, the Rapporteur of the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly considered "prisoners being ferried to the front line, for example for use as a human shield" as a war crime.
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Report on the situation of refugees and displaced persons in the former Yugoslavia, Doc. 6740, 19 January 1993, p. 19.
In a declaration issued in August 1990, the 12 EC member States stated that the use of civilians as human shields was "particularly heinous as well as taken in contempt of the law of basic humanitarian principles".
European Community, Declaration on the situation of foreigners in Iraq and Kuwait, Paris, 21 August 1990, annexed to Letter dated 22 August 1990 from Italy to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/433-S/21590, 22 August 1990, § 2.
In 1990, during a debate in the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, Italy stated on behalf of the EC that Iraq's "decision to use certain foreign nationals as a human shield was illegal and morally repugnant".
European Community, Statement by Italy on behalf of the EC before the Third Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.3/45/SR.3, 8 October 1990, § 42.
their deep concern at the unscrupulous use of prisoners of war and at the intention announced by Iraq to concentrate them near military bases and targets. They consider these actions particularly odious because they are contrary to elementary respect for international law and humanitarian principles. They condemn these actions unreservedly.
European Community, Statement on the situation of prisoners of war, annexed to Letter dated 23 January 1991 from Luxembourg to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/940-S/22140, 23 January 1991, p. 2.
In a declaration on the Gulf crisis adopted in November 1990, the European Council denounced "the practice of holding foreign nationals as hostages and keeping some of them in strategic sites".
European Community, Declaration on the Gulf crisis, annexed to Letter dated 30 October 1990 from Italy to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. A/45/700-S/21920, 1 November 1990, § 3.
the Iraqi authorities to meet their established international obligations towards third-country nationals by providing them with appropriate protection, ensuring the safety of their lives and property and safeguarding them from the dangers of exposure to military operations.
Gulf Cooperation Council, Ministerial Council, 36th Session, Jeddah, 5–6 September 1990, Final Communiqué, annexed to Letter dated 6 September 1990 from Oman to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21719, 6 September 1990, p. 4.
In a resolution adopted in August 1990, the League of Arab States Council urged the Iraqi authorities to preserve foreign civilians from the dangers of exposure to military operations.
League of Arab States, Council, Res. 5039, The detention by Iraq of nationals of third countries, 31 August 1990, § 2.
Nordic Foreign Ministers, Declaration on the Iraq-Kuwait conflict, Molde, 12 September 1990, annexed to Letter dated 12 September 1990 from Norway to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21751, 13 September 1990, § 6.
The Final Declaration adopted by the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993 stated that the participants refused to accept that "civilian populations should become more and more frequently the principal victims of hostilities and acts of violence perpetrated in the course of armed conflicts, for example where they are … used as human shields".
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § I (3), ILM, Vol. 33, 1994, p. 298.
In the Karadžić and Mladić case before the ICTY in 1995, the accused were charged with grave breaches and violations of the laws and customs of war for having seized UN peacekeepers in the Pale area, having selected some of these hostages to use as "human shields" and having physically secured or otherwise held the peacekeepers against their will at potential NATO air targets, including ammunition bunkers, a radar site and a nearby communications centre in order to render these locations immune from further NATO air strikes.
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, First Indictment, 24 July 1995, Counts 15–16.
In its review of the indictment in 1996, the ICTY Trial Chamber upheld the charges and stated that these acts could "be characterised as war crimes (taking UNPROFOR soldiers as hostages and using them as human shields)". The Trial Chamber noted that civilians were used as human shields against other troops.
ICTY, Karadžić and Mladić case, Review of the Indictments, 11 July 1996, §§ 13 and 89.
[A]t great risk to their lives, [they were forced] to perform various dangerous military support tasks benefiting the HV and HVO; including: digging trenches, building defences with sandbags, carrying wounded or killed HV or HVO soldiers, carrying ammunition and explosives across the confrontation line, and placing them in front of ABiH positions. These tasks were often performed by detainees, under conditions which exposed them directly to hostile fire, and thereby served the purpose of protecting HVO soldiers. Consequently, the detainees were turned into human shields.
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Second Amended Indictment, 16 October 2001, § 37, Counts 2, 3 and 4.
The Trial Chamber subsequently found the second defendant, Vinko Martinović, guilty of inhumane acts, inhuman treatment and cruel treatment under Articles 2(b), 3, 5(i) and 7(1) of the 1993 ICTY Statute.
ICTY, Naletilić and Martinović case, Judgment, 31 March 2003, §334.
Naletilić and Martinović were sentenced to 20 years' and 18 years' imprisonment respectively.
The Appeals Chamber subsequently affirmed the sentences of both Naletilić and Martinović.
653. The use of prisoners of war or civilian detainees as human shields is therefore prohibited by the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, and it may constitute inhuman or cruel treatment under Articles 2 and 3 of the [1993 ICTY] Statute respectively where the other elements of these crimes are met.
654. … [A] factual finding that the Hotel Vitez was actually being shelled at all on 20 April is not required in order to establish that detainees were unlawfully being used as human shields in anticipation of such shelling, contrary to the submission of the Appellant. Using protected detainees as human shields constitutes a violation of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions regardless of whether those human shields were actually attacked or harmed. Indeed, the prohibition is designed to protect detainees from being exposed to the risk of harm, and not only to the harm itself. To the extent that the Trial Chamber considered the intensity of the shelling of Vitez on 20 April 1993, that consideration was superfluous to an analysis of a breach of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, but may be relevant to whether the use of the protected detainees as human shields amounts to inhuman treatment for the purposes of Article 2 of the Statute.
ICTY, Blaškić case, Judgment on Appeal, 29 July 2004, §§ 652–654.
The Committee has noted that the right to life has been too often narrowly interpreted. The expression 'inherent right to life' cannot properly be understood in a restrictive manner, and the protection of this right requires that States adopt positive measures.
Human Rights Committee, General Comment No. 6 (Article 6 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), 30 July 1982, § 5.
The Committee is concerned about the IDF [Israel Defense Forces'] practice in the Occupied Territories of using local residents as "volunteers" or shields during military operations, especially in order to search houses and to help secure the surrender of those identified by the State party as terrorist suspects.
The State party should discontinue this practice, which often results in the arbitrary deprivation of life (art. 6 [of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights]).
Human Rights Committee, Concluding observations on the second periodic report of Israel, UN Doc. CCPR/CO/78/ISR, 21 August 2003, § 17.
The national armed forces are participants in the civil war and there have been several instances in which the Government has failed to intervene to prevent the assassination and killing of specific individuals. Even where it cannot be proved that violations were committed by government agents, the government had a responsibility to secure the safety and the liberty of its citizens, and to conduct investigations into murders. Chad therefore is responsible for the violations of the [1981 African Charter on Human and Peoples' Rights].
African Commission for Human and Peoples' Rights, Commission Nationale des Droits de l'Homme et des Libertés v. Chad, Judgment, 2 October 1995, § 22.
The text of Article 2 [of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights], read as a whole, demonstrates that it covers not only intentional killing, but also the situations where it is permitted to use force which may result, as an unintended outcome, in the deprivation of life. Article 2 may also imply in certain well-defined circumstances a positive obligation on the authorities to take preventive operational measures to protect an individual for whom they are responsible.
European Court of Human Rights, Demiray v. Turkey, Judgment, 21 November 2000, § 41.
In a communication to the press in 1993, the ICRC enjoined the parties to the conflict in Somalia not "to misuse civilians for military operations".


text:
Sono Motors launches crowdfunding push for Sion family EV production
By Paul Ridden
Sono Motors launches crowdfund...
The founders of Sono Motors are trying to raise €50 million from current and future supporters by the end of 2019
The community fund will be used to secure production facilities for Sion prototypes
The PV-packed Sion family EV is due to go into series production mid-2020
Germany's Sono Motors has given us a taste of what we can expect the production Sion to look like inside and out, and is now looking to future buyers to help raise €50 million to secure production facilities and more.
We first got wind of plans to release a family electric car packing photovoltaic panels all over its body when renders appeared in late 2016, and pre-orders were opened up the following year. The panels on the roof, doors, hood and rear of the Sion won't be enough to keep the EV away from the charging stations completely – far from it – but should be enough for up 5,800 km (3,604 mi) of extra range per year.
Inside, a natural air filtration system built around a special moss will be integrated into the dashboard, and there'll be a roomy feel for all five occupants. The last time we checked in with the German mobility startup, production of the Sion was being penciled in for the second half of next year, with the rollout version pegged at €25,500 (just over US$28k). But to get things rolling, Sono Motors is taking its own route towards production funding.
"We realized again and again over the past few months that we have entirely different goals to traditional financial investors," said co-founder Laurin Hahn. "Aggressive growth and quick profits are difficult to reconcile with a sustainable corporate and vehicle concept which is designed to give access to affordable and eco-friendly electromobility throughout. In addition, providing start-ups that have a capital-intensive business model with venture capital does not work in Germany, neither in the initial stages nor at the growth stage. Had we relied solely on funding measures or the German market environment, Sono Motors would probably not exist in its current form."
To get enough cash in the coffers to secure facilities for the first production prototypes, the company is hoping its potential customers will help raise €50 million over the next few weeks.
"We were torn between our pledge to the community and the investors' demands and were increasingly moving away from who we really are, which is something we absolutely had to correct," added co-founder Jona Christians. "Social responsibility and climate protection would otherwise have fallen by the wayside, and so would all that we stepped up for. We are now focusing on continuing to fund our innovative vehicle concept together with people who want to see the Sion on the road. Together with a community that asks for a company which acts responsibly, critically questions itself and can be judged honestly on the basis of the statements it makes."
The founders have also opted to transfer their share of any profits to a Community Pool so that "the company's objectives continue to be realized and that the Sion can be produced sustainably without any changes to the concept."
More than 10,000 people have so far stumped up pre-order money for the chance to drive a Sion. They can opt to voluntarily increase their reservation pledge, new buyers can pre-order or folks can choose to donate to the cause. The community funding campaign ends on December 30.
Source: Sono Motors
AutomotivePhotovoltaicElectric Vehiclescity carSolar PowerNew Atlas Audio
Paul Ridden
While Paul is loath to reveal his age, he will admit to cutting his IT teeth on a TRS-80 (although he won't say which version). An obsessive fascination with computer technology blossomed from hobby into career before hopping over to France for 10 years, where he started work for New Atlas in 2009. Now back in his native Blighty, he serves as Managing Editor in Europe.
Mercedes-Benz EQA adds a compact, entry level electric SUV to the range
Nissan electric camper van concept is a backcountry ski hut on wheels
Microsoft teams up with Cruise on development of self-driving cars
Nissan concept van supports digital nomads with open-air office pod

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaCommonCrawl


text:
Akodon boliviensis är en däggdjursart som beskrevs av Meyen 1833. Akodon boliviensis ingår i släktet fältmöss, och familjen hamsterartade gnagare. IUCN kategoriserar arten globalt som livskraftig. Inga underarter finns listade i Catalogue of Life.

Denna fältmus förekommer i Anderna i södra Peru och i Bolivia samt i angränsande områden av Argentina och Chile. Arten vistas mellan 3000 och 5000 meter över havet. Habitatet utgörs av gräsmarker, buskskogar och odlad mark. Individerna vilar i jordhålor.

Källor

Fältmöss
boliviensis
Däggdjur i neotropiska regionen

redpajama_set_name: RedPajamaWikipedia


text:
Warning: Undefined array key 0 in /home/domains/dev.landreport.com/public/wp-content/plugins/elementor-pro/modules/dynamic-tags/acf/tags/acf-url.php on line 34
Ranchland
Sporting Properties
Landmarks, Landowners, Ranchland, Timberland
Sold! Forbes Trinchera Ranch
By Land Report News Team
The Forbes family has sold the ranch. In the largest transaction involving the Land Report 100 in 2007, the four sons and one daughter of Malcolm Forbes signed off on the sale of their 171,400-acre Trinchera Ranch in Southern Colorado to hedge fund manager Louis Bacon of Moore Capital for $175 million on November 15, 2007. Bacon, who runs Moore Capital Management and was estimated to be worth $1.8 billion by Forbes, ranked No. 262 on the magazine's list of the wealthiest Americans this year.
So what did Bacon get for $175 million? For starters, the largest remaining undeveloped tract within the historic Sangre de Cristo land grant, an enormous swath of snow-capped peaks, grassland valleys, and vast expanses of conifer forest. The original 1843 land grant encompassed more than 1 million acres and extended from Northern New Mexico above Taos into Colorado's San Luis Valley. The Sangre de Cristo was subsequently carved up, parceled off, and the subject of countless legal shenanigans.
More than a century later, Malcolm Forbes bought the Trinchera Ranch, which is located in Costilla County 160 miles southwest of Denver near Fort Garland. Forbes later acquired an adjacent parcel called the Blanca Ranch to create the present property.
What didn't Bacon get for $175 million? For one thing, he doesn't have the right to develop the 267-square-mile tract. Those rights were given away in 2004 when the Forbes family donated the largest conservation easement in the state's history to Colorado Open Lands, a non-profit land trust. In return for this gift, the family received a substantial tax break.
According to The Pueblo Chieftain, Bacon has long been a proponent of groups that support conservation and set up the Moore Charitable Foundation in 1992 to aid their efforts. He himself has given conservation easements on two Long Island properties. I asked Dan Pike, the president of Colorado Open Lands, about Louis Bacon, and he said, "He's probably as good a buyer as we could have hoped for."
A closing note. Most published reports indicate that Malcolm Forbes paid $50 an acre to purchase the ranch in 1969. In 2007, his heirs sold it for more than $1,000 an acre. And that was after they had donated their record-setting conservation easement. As anyone familiar with easements knows, they limit land use and therefore lower land value. Yet the Forbes family was still able to sell the Trinchera Ranch for more than 20 times what Malcolm Forbes paid almost 40 years earlier.
Land Report Editor Eric O'Keefe discusses this sale HERE.
Where Landowners Get Their News
Please sign me up to receive breaking news and updates from The Land Report:
Print & Gift
Subscriptions Available
Florida Renegotiates Everglades Purchase
The $1.75 billion purchase by the State of Florida of 187,000 acres in the Everglades …
In Focus: The Forest Landowners Association
Created in 1941, the Forest Landowners Association (FLA) is a proactive, progressive, grassroots organization of …
Clint Eastwood Presents a Master Class on Stewardship at Tehama
By Eric O'Keefe Clint Eastwood Photography by Gustav Schmiege III Tehama Photography by Jason Speth …
Elk Creek Ranch Acquires Seven Lakes
For those who are passionate about outdoor pursuits, the next great adventure can't come soon enough.
Facebook Instagram Linkedin Twitter Pinterest
Copyright © Land Report LLC. All rights reserved.


text:
Vice Provost for Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and Chief Diversity Officer
Institutional & Business Affairs, Diversity & Inclusion
Four-Year Institution
Carnegie Mellon University (CMU or Carnegie Mellon) invites inquiries, nominations, and applications for the inaugural position of vice provost for diversity, equity, and inclusion and chief diversity officer (VP-DEI).
Carnegie Mellon University, a member of the Association of American Universities, is a global, research-intensive university with nearly 14,800 students, more than 105,000 living alumni, and approximately 6,300 faculty and staff. In 2019, U.S. News & World Report ranked CMU #25 among national universities, and many of its programs are among the top ranked in the world. Carnegie Mellon boasts academic strength across a broad range of fields spanning humanities, fine arts, social sciences, business, public policy, physical sciences, and engineering, and, indicative of this breadth, is home to the #1 ranked programs in computer science and drama. CMU's annual budget exceeds $1.3 billion, with total research expenditures of $400 million. In addition to its main campus in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, Carnegie Mellon has campuses in California's Silicon Valley and Qatar, and programs in Africa, Asia, Australia, Europe, and Mexico.
Carnegie Mellon currently has diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) resources and structures for students, faculty, and staff, but there is no senior administrator with the responsibility for driving the institutional and cultural change necessary to realize CMU's aspirations. This is the role of this position.
Reporting to the provost and serving as a member of his senior leadership team, the VP-DEI will have the opportunity to:
work collaboratively with Carnegie Mellon's leadership, including the president, vice presidents, deans, and other vice provosts, to shape the university's DEI strategies;
be a member of the University Leadership Council which meets regularly and is chaired by the president; and
serve as a strategic leader, adviser, and catalyst for institutional and cultural change to build greater diversity among CMU's student body, faculty, and staff, and to create an antiracist, equitable, and inclusive community.
The initial work will involve understanding Carnegie Mellon, its current work, and the opportunities and challenges facing the institution. The role will then shift to working across the university to determine areas of focus, articulate specific goals, and marshal the resources needed to achieve them. The inaugural VP-DEI must be able to lead from the middle, acting as a central anchoring point, unifying stakeholders across campus around a core DEI mission. The position is multidimensional with a focus on leading strategic change, building capacity for training and providing expertise, coordinating and convening community members, serving as an advocate and ambassador, establishing metrics and systems of accountability, and communicating regularly about DEI to internal and external stakeholders.
The inaugural VP-DEI must be someone who not only demonstrates deep passion for the work of diversity, equity, and inclusion, but also demonstrates intellectual and ethical leadership as a strategist, innovator, and change agent who can capture the hearts and minds of the campus community and get them excited about the possibilities of this moment. The ideal candidate will be an accomplished administrator, convener, and community builder who has significant experience and a track record of successfully advancing DEI in higher education or mission-driven organizations. This individual will be comfortable with the many dimensions of identity and will be adept at fostering dialogue with multiple constituencies, building coalitions, and achieving results through influence and collaboration.
The successful candidate will be known for partnering well in complex environments and will have demonstrated an ability to utilize data and analytics as important tools in measuring success. This person must work toward institutional change by proactively approaching challenges with systems-level thinking rather than simply reacting to challenges or fixing problems. The VP-DEI must be able to mobilize a network of enlivened stakeholders across campus to support and claim shared ownership in this effort, and not take on the mantle of driving change alone.
An earned doctorate or other terminal degree is strongly preferred, though truly outstanding candidates with a master's degree and substantial experience will be considered.
A complete position specification is available at https://www.spelmanandjohnson.com/position/vice-provost-for-diversity-equity-and-inclusion/
Carnegie Mellon has retained Spelman Johnson to assist with this search. Review of applications will continue until the position is filled; complete applications received by October 9, 2020 will be assured full consideration. A resume or curriculum vitae with a cover letter that addresses the responsibilities and requirements described in the position specification may be submitted via the Spelman Johnson website at www.spelmanjohnson.com/open-positions. Confidential inquiries and nominations should be directed to Jim Norfleet at [email protected] or Michel Frendian at [email protected]. Applicants needing reasonable accommodation to participate in the application process should contact Spelman Johnson at 413-529-2895.
Visit the Carnegie Mellon University website at www.cmu.edu
Carnegie Mellon University considers applicants for employment without regard to, and does not discriminate on the basis of, gender, race, protected veteran status, disability, or any other legally protected status.
We are sensitive to how the COVID-19 pandemic is impacting work and personal lives, and will offer the utmost flexibility throughout the interview process. The search advisory committee expects to conduct initial interviews via Zoom for the safety and well-being of all involved.
Assistant Director for Interfaith Cooperation and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Chatham University
Save Assistant Director for Interfaith Cooperation and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion
Lead Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer (Reg FT)
Save Lead Diversity, Equity and Inclusion Officer (Reg FT)


text:
Family & More
Giving Events
Omaha Magazine
B2B Magazine
Faces of Omaha
OmahaHome
The Old Market Directory
Best of Omaha
Best of B2B
Best Lawyers® in America
Best Doctors® in America
topDENTISTS™
Weekend E-blast
Tag Archives: Jeff Lacey
July 2, 2018 by Jeff Lacey
Stories for Kids
Here are two campfire tales guaranteed to captivate those peering into the night sky or glancing over shoulders into the shadows…
The Fisher Stars
Constellations have fascinating histories, and different cultures have their own takes on the figures that can be seen in the stars. One of the more famous constellations is commonly known as the Big Dipper, but the Big Dipper wasn't always known as such. In the early 1900s, a family might have called it the plough (a cultural remnant from England and Ireland). One of the more interesting explanations of the Big Dipper is this sacred story from the Ojibwa (also known as Chippewa):
Once there was a great man named Gitchi Odjig, and Gitchi Odjig was a great hunter. This was a good thing, because at one time on Earth, there was only winter. The world wasn't completely unpleasant—if you worked hard, you could get enough; but all the days were cold, and all the days were icy. Your life was basically the freezing and thawing of your fingers. Gitchi Odjig's skills served him well in this cold world.
Gitchi Odjig and his family had heard a story that explained that the sky they looked to every day wasn't only a roof, it was a floor as well: a floor to a world in which winter was not present. The water in that world was free of ice. The trees wore green glossy things called leaves. You could walk during the day without a coat or hat. It was a beautiful story to hang on to, but even if people believed it, they didn't think there was much anyone could do about the cold. Things were the way they were.
Gitchi Odjig's son, however, didn't think that way. He wanted to do something to make things better. He thought it would be wonderful if the warm world above somehow opened to this one. He held on to the idea.
Then, one day, Gitchi Odjig's son was hunting, and he got a good bead on a squirrel. The squirrel stood up and spoke: "Please put away your arrows. There is something I think you'd like to know."
Gitchi Odjig's son was surprised, but he dropped his weapon and listened.
"You know and I know the constant cold we both live in is no picnic," began the squirrel. "This frozen ground doesn't yield much and is incredibly unforgiving. But there is something called summer, and it exists in the world above us. There is a weather that is warm and abundant. Instead of killing me, let's work together to see how we can somehow bring that world here."
The son took this information to his father, who felt that this was a sign and that it was time to hold a feast and discuss the matter. He invited all the animals he knew, and together they decided that they would travel to the highest mountain peak, and break through to the summer world.
They found the peak, and cracked through the top of the sky into the world above. They all climbed through. Gitchi Odjig couldn't believe what he was feeling—the wind wasn't bitterly cold; the trees rustled with beautiful drifts of leaves instead of clattering and whistling their bare branches; the ground was lush and green, and hummed with the music of insects; the water in the streams and rivers wasn't cluttered and scabbed with ice. He was standing in the middle of summer.
But the people of that world did not appreciate these intruders, and they did not appreciate that the edges of the hole these intruders had climbed through had cracked and crumbled, and now summer (and spring, and fall) gushed down onto the earth in a giant torrent of colors, and life, and change.
They fixed the hole and started to chase Gitchi Odjig. In order to go faster, he turned himself into a fisher (which is a like a badger, or wolverine) and he was almost caught when he recognized that the people of this world were some of his distant relatives. He called on this connection, and convinced them to let him go.
Although he had gotten free, he could not break again through to the Earth. This saddened him, but beneath his sadness was a deep peace and satisfaction. He had brought the seasons to the Earth. He laid himself down at the scar where he had entered the sky, and was happy.
You can still see him laying there in the night sky, with the four points of the Dipper as the four points of his body, and the handle of the dipper his lithe tail.
The Cornfield Spider
You might have heard of the Jersey Devil, a beast that haunts the woods of New Jersey. That story involves a woman who was in league with evil spirits. She gave birth to a child which appeared normal at first, but then began to grow and change at awful speed, its head transforming into a goat's head, its body becoming long and winnowed and serpent-like, and its back sprouting great leathery wings.
This area also has a legend like that. At the heart of this story is a beast that makes the Jersey Devil seem tame. This story involves a 12-year-old boy in league with shadowy forces:
One July night, a farmer who tended 500 acres west of Omaha saw his son at the edge of a field talking to a strange figure. The farmer called to his son, and the boy and the figure turned. The figure dissipated into thin air, but the boy ran, setting off up a slope into the knee-high corn. The father gave chase.
He again called to his son. The boy reached the top of the ridge and turned to look at his father. Then he disappeared down the other side. The father ascended. When the farmer was nearly at the top of the wide hill, something rose up from the other side—but it wasn't his son.
It was a terrible thing with a long thin torso, great long arms, and wild long fingers that ended in thorny claws. It bent over long thin legs. According to the farmer, it was covered in wiry brown hair, and had an almost spiderlike body, with a small long head, like a human's head that had been pulled in a taffy puller, then given sharp long teeth and wide lidless eyes. The farmer turned and ran. He could hear the thing loping after him. He made it back to the farmhouse, slammed and locked the door, and heard the wild scratching. Then, nothing.
He never saw his son again. However, a handful of people have seen a similar creature on summer nights, sometimes standing still and watching, sometimes giving desperate chase.
This article was originally printed in the Spring/Summer 2018 edition of Family Guide.
Posted in: Family, FamilyGuide
Topics: adventure, campfire, camping, constellations, corn, family, Family Guide, Jeff Lacey, nature, Omaha, Omaha Magazine, outdoors, spring, stargazing, storytelling, summer
Rollin' Through the Weekend
Freedom and the Fourth
Rainbows and Flags Throwdown
Omaha Caught the Train
July/August 2019 Instagram
Omaha Entertainment & Art Awards
Cantoring the Praises of Omaha
Planting Native Gardens for Pollinators
A Villa of a Different Color
Studious Artists
Archives Select Month July 2019 (2) June 2019 (49) May 2019 (63) April 2019 (53) March 2019 (43) February 2019 (51) January 2019 (44) December 2018 (42) November 2018 (27) October 2018 (73) September 2018 (47) August 2018 (82) July 2018 (46) June 2018 (32) May 2018 (64) April 2018 (137) March 2018 (51) February 2018 (41) January 2018 (35) December 2017 (63) November 2017 (67) October 2017 (46) September 2017 (41) August 2017 (47) July 2017 (26) June 2017 (43) May 2017 (56) April 2017 (110) March 2017 (35) February 2017 (42) January 2017 (36) December 2016 (32) November 2016 (4) October 2016 (52) September 2016 (1) August 2016 (88) July 2016 (31) June 2016 (31) May 2016 (29) April 2016 (30) March 2016 (28) February 2016 (9) January 2016 (26) December 2015 (33) November 2015 (31) October 2015 (39) September 2015 (28) August 2015 (26) July 2015 (32) June 2015 (47) May 2015 (27) April 2015 (56) March 2015 (21) February 2015 (39) January 2015 (46) December 2014 (53) November 2014 (26) October 2014 (41) September 2014 (39) August 2014 (43) July 2014 (39) June 2014 (26) May 2014 (34) April 2014 (27) March 2014 (30) February 2014 (36) January 2014 (44) December 2013 (38) November 2013 (37) October 2013 (33) September 2013 (29) August 2013 (73) July 2013 (19) June 2013 (73) May 2013 (38) April 2013 (36) March 2013 (14) February 2013 (46) January 2013 (15) December 2012 (41) November 2012 (24) October 2012 (24) August 2012 (9) April 2012 (1) June 2000 (2) April 2000 (1)
Footer Menu1
People On the Rise
Teen Voices
Young Hero
Beer, Cocktails & Wine
60 Plus in Omaha
Old Market Directory
Physician's Bulletin
Omaha Visitors Guide
Sarpy County Visitors Guide
Omaha Performing Arts Programs
GET THE MAG
© Omaha Magazine 2013. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.


the historic St Thomas' Anglican Church Cemetery of North Sydney.
We have to talk about some really extraordinary history, so that the context of the ghost stories make sense . ( This won't be the dry, stuffy history as you remember from school. This stuff is gritty, real and fascinating!) . About 70% of what we talk about is taken from peoples letters, diaries and public records. 10% of the tour will be my own opinion and "connecting the dots" from years of dedicated research. The 20% Paranormal part of the tour is a completely "make your own mind up" exercise....!
The new Australian Eastern Time for registration for this tour is 8.15pm, and the tour starts at 8.30pm AEST sharp - with a second tour later in the evening starting at 11.15 pm for an 11.30 am start ( minimum group size of 15 required for this group to run. ) Our tours start on time.
Please select the appropriate choice , then hit the blue "add to cart" button below! It will take you through to a menu that will allow you to choose the number of people you want to buy tickets for. You will receive a confirmation email first for your tickets, then one for you to confirm your preferred time.


This entry was posted	on Tuesday, July 8th, 2014 at 05:28	and is filed under Fees, access and admissions. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.


This is a placeholder page for Clint Bkack, which means this person is not currently on this site. We do suggest using the tools below to find Clint Bkack.
You are visiting the placeholder page for Clint Bkack. This page is here because someone used our placeholder utility to look for Clint Bkack. We created this page automatically in hopes Clint Bkack would find it. If you are not Clint Bkack, but are an alumni of Samuel Clemens High School, register on this site for free now.


text:
Beat is powered by Vocal creators. You support Aaron Kerper by reading, sharing and tipping stories... more
Greta Van Fleet, Zeppelin, and Stealing
by Aaron Kerper a year ago in bands
Is Greta Van Fleet a "Rip-Off" or are they really just following in the footsteps of one of Rock and Roll's greatest "Rip-Off" bands?
Greta Van Fleet have been making the rounds on the internet and the music industry recently, blowing up mostly this year. The band has gotten pretty good coverage, being called the "Rebirth of Rock and Roll" and other fun things like that, but, like most artists, they've got some criticism too. "Led Zeppelin Rip-Offs" are usually the most used term thrown around for them and at first listen you can see why. The riffs are similar, the vibe, the chord progressions, and of course the vocals, but is it really fair to put all of this against them? No. It's not.
Greta Van Fleet obviously wears their influences on their sleeves, which is totally okay. The band members all follow under the ages of 23, considering that you have to give them the benefit of the doubt if they sound a little too similar to any band, however, I think the band has a lot of creativity that most of the media is missing. Part of the research for this article made me turn to their 2017 record "From The Fires" and I have to say, I was pretty mesmerized. Despite three of the singles, I haven't heard any of these songs and they were amazing and contained a lot of material that didn't sound like the typical Led Zep song. I feel like everyone who has ever dived even a little bit into this debacle needs to listen to this record, it really captures how much potential this band has. They're young, even younger than Led Zeppelin when they started, and they have a lot of time to grow artistically and evolved, keeping this in mind, it makes me excited for their upcoming album!
Getting The Led Out
Let me preface by saying, I love Led Zeppelin. Zep has been one of my favorite bands for basically all of my life, and I'm convinced they're one of the few groups who has produced not one, but two flawless albums (First album and Houses of the Holy), but that's just my opinion. However what's not opinion, if you wanna talk rip-offs, Led Zeppelin has stolen so many musical ideas and straight up full lyrics, you can't really sit there and point fingers at just GVF. If the only reason you hate Greta for is the fact they "steal," but you're a Zep fan, you're kind of a hypocrite.
If you don't believe me, well for one, you should dig into the history of Delta Blues music because it's fantastic and was a huge inspiration to the band, especially songwriting-wise. However, it should be noted that rock, in general, was heavily inspired by the genre, even back to its roots in the 50s. There's plenty of other specific moments of the Zep boys taking some liberties: "Dazed and Confused" was also a song written by Jake Holmes with similar lyrics and motifs, a song Jimmy Page "didn't know about." Yeah, okay. "Whole Lotta Love," arguably one of their most popular songs, takes lyrics directly from Muddy Waters' "You Need Love". The list goes on, but I think the point is proven, but to be honest, who really cares?
Led Zeppelin rules. Just because they ripped-off stuff doesn't mean they're a bad band, but the same principles should apply to Greta Van Fleet as well. Copyright and the issues related are always sparked up in the news and courtrooms frequently, it's always the same situation: You can't copyright chords, drum beats, etc. All you can really copyright is Melody, and with that, it should just be a given that when it comes to these two great rock bands, no one is in the wrong. If you like Led Zeppelin, get excited for Greta, and especially their upcoming album!
Read next: Finding Your Own Music History
Aaron Kerper
Musician and Listener
All posts by Aaron →
An Open Letter from an Agent
NewVMusic Virtuosity Memphis
Being an agent in the music industry is one of the most difficult jobs. You are a behind the scenes cog in the machine, and your entire position is directly correlated with the success of your clients...
Digable Planets: Peace Be the Greeting of the Insect Tribe
Darryl Richie
Digable Planets is a Hip-Hop group from Brooklyn, NY consisting of members Ismael "Butterfly" Butler, Mary Ann "Ladybug Mecca" Vieira, and Craig "Doodlebug" Irving. All three members are fans of Jazz ...
15 Songs About Rain
Renée Wood
Welcome to April, a month filled with study sessions, weed jokes, high school dances, and rain. Or, at least, it should be full of rain. Unfortunately, the weather (at least where I live) seems to dis...
England's Amazing Underground Music Scene
Umairah Iqbal
OK. So when I talk about British music I'm not talking your average Ed Sheeran, The 1975, and Sam Smith. I'm talking about the real, juicy, good stuff, which you will come to understand as you read on...
Cereal Dating With Alison Wonderland
It is a rare occasion that one gets to sit down and really pick the brain of an artist whose style and sound they truly admire, so when I was offered the chance to interview Alison Wonderland, I must ...
Create a Certain Kind of Beautiful
I've never really understood how to start writing something like this, something that the whole world could potentially see. It's a thought I'd never really had, not until this moment of me actually p...
Finding Your Own Music History


Are you exhausted and lost from being harassed on the phone? Do you feel scared when you see the same phone number again? Is Thomas Landis rude to you trying collect the debts that you do not owe?
Often, criminals can steal your personal identity and run the charges on your name. Unluckily, you can become a victim of false debts.
Dealing with awful debt collectors is not easy. However, you are not alone. Francis & Mailman is here to protect and explain your legal rights and laws.
We have a dedicated team of lawyers who will take your side and fight against an abusive debt collector. Call us at 877-735-8600 for a free case review immediately.