Civilian Self-Protection and Civilian Targeting in Armed Conflicts: Who Protects Civilians?

Abstract

Studies have shown that civilians are often intentionally targeted in civil wars and that civilian protection efforts launched by the international community have not always been successful, if they occur at all. Civilians, therefore, have had to rely on themselves for protection in most conflicts. However, despite the pervasiveness of civilian self-protection (CSP) and its success at protecting civilians from violence in some cases, it is rarely discussed in the civilian protection literature, and its impact on civilian targeting is inadequately explored. Addressing this gap in the study and practice of civilian protection by carefully conceptualizing CSP and appreciating its role in civil war dynamics can further scholarly and practitioner discussions on civilian protection. CSP is defined as (a) actions taken to protect against immediate, direct threats to physical integrity imposed by belligerents or traditional protection actors; (b) primarily selected and employed by civilians; and (c) employed during an armed conflict. CSP strategies can be organized into three categories. The first, non-engagement, describes strategies in which civilians do not interact with belligerents or traditional protection actors who pose a threat to them. The second, nonviolent engagement, entails some interaction with one or more actors who may harm civilians. The third, violent engagement, includes CSP strategies that incorporate physical violence. These CSP strategies may actually render civilians more vulnerable to threats. First, some CSP strategies might lock civilians into unpredictable relationships with belligerents, which can become dangerous. Second, allying with one set of belligerents might lead to targeting by opposition forces, who view these CSP strategies as crucial support for their enemies. Third, civilians may overestimate how successful their CSP strategies can be, exposing them to harm. Fourth, civilian use of violence may cause belligerents to view them as threats, leading to intentional targeting. Appreciation of the reasons why civilians engage in CSP and understanding when and how this may endanger them can inspire more effective protection policies, as well as advance our understanding of civil war dynamics. For instance, further study on these issues can provide some insights into the conditions under which CSP is effective in protecting civilians and how the international community can support CSP. This information could be particularly useful in the design and execution of peacekeeping strategies that are sensitive to the efforts and needs of conflict-affected communities. Additionally, studying CSP can advance the vast literature on civilian targeting by shedding additional light on why belligerents kill civilians.

Motivation and opportunity for conflict-induced migration: An analysis of Syrian migration timing

“…They can be personal stories about an individual’s experiences, or they can be broader stories about how one side in a dispute understands the events that have taken place (Olsen, 2014). Jose & Medie (2016) categorize the options to respond to perceived threat into violent engagement, nonviolent engagement, and non-engagement strategies. Violent engagement involves fighting.…”

“…Explaining migration timing will highlight civilian agency amidst the difficult circumstances of armed conflict and clarify how civilians respond to violence. Rather than migration timing being the outcome of binary choices of whether to fight or whether to flee – fight or flight – people select from large repertoires of protection strategies such as daily movement, bribery, or protest (Baines & Paddon, 2012; Jose & Medie, 2016; Kaplan, 2017). These choices may lead civilians to stay in violent areas as they find alternative protection strategies to migration.…”

Staying Power: Strategies for Weathering Criminal Violence in Marginal Neighborhoods of Medellín and Monterrey

“…In this context, what explains the choice to use one self-protection strategy over another? Scholars posit that the type of violence wielded against a population shapes civilian responses (Kalyvas 2006; Justino 2012; Jose and Medie 2016; Steele 2017; Berens and Dallendörfer 2019). We likewise argue that the type of violence urban residents face informs the self-protection strategy they pursue.…”

Introduction: Enacting Peace Amid Violence: Nonviolent Civilian Agency in Violent Conflict

“…For instance, the establishment of zones of peace was pioneered by local activists on the southern coast of El Salvador, 'where a Local Zone of Peace (lzp) was formed by 43 communities in 1995 in response to increasing civil violence following the repatriation of Salvadoran youth who had become gang members while living in the US' (Hancock, 2017: 261). Studies started to take more systematic notice of the wealth of community self-protection practices (Jose and Medie, 2016).…”