Human rights activists are calling for an independent investigation into the deadly detonations of electronic devices – such as beepers and walkie-talkies – in Lebanon and Syria, suggesting the explosions could have violated international law if the devices were made to be booby traps.
The blasts generally attributed to Israel killed at least 37 people and wounded more than 3,000, including many members of the political military group Hezbollah. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied involvement.
The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights and some activist groups have criticized the attacks, which they described as indiscriminate because it was almost impossible to know who had the devices in their hand, or where they were, when they were detonated. Still, some academics insist that the explosions were precisely targeted because the devices had been distributed among members of Hezbollah.
The International Committee of the Red Cross focused on helping protect civilians and other non-combatants during conflicts, and which seeks to remain neutral, said it was a unique operation, and it will take time to have all the facts in order to establish an opinion. legal
The ICRC declined to comment publicly on whether the operation violated international humanitarian laws, which some countries sometimes fail to comply with.
International law has never addressed attacks on communication devices that people carry on their bodies. The Geneva Conventions, which provide a rule book for the protection of civilians during conflicts, were adopted 75 years ago, long before beepers, cell phones and walkie-talkies were widely used by the public. The legal situation is further complicated by the fact that Hezbollah is a non-state armed group operating within Lebanon, a sovereign UN member state.
There must be an independent, thorough and transparent investigation into the circumstances of these mass explosions, and those who ordered and carried out such an attack must be held accountable, UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Trk said in a statement. .
Are the devices equivalent to booby traps?
The question of how to apply international standards to the attack appears to center largely on whether a secret explosive inserted into a personal electronic device could be considered a booby trap. Israel has been blamed for attacks and assassinations before, but a large-scale attack using mobile communication devices has been virtually unheard of.
The definition of a booby trap is any device designed or adapted to kill or injure, and which operates unexpectedly when a person moves or approaches an apparently harmless object, according to Article 7 of a 1996 adaptation of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, to which Israel has adhered.
The protocol prohibits booby traps or other devices in the form of seemingly innocuous portable objects that are designed and constructed specifically to contain explosive material.
Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa director at Human Rights Watch, said the rules were designed to protect civilians and prevent the devastating scenes that continue to unfold across Lebanon today. She also requested an impartial investigation.
The two series of beeper explosions left 32 dead and 3,200 injured.
The convention also establishes rules for the use of landmines, cluster bomb remnants and other explosives. Prohibits the use of other manually placed munitions, such as improvised explosive devices that are designed to kill or injure, and that are activated manually, by remote control, or automatically after a certain time.
The beepers were used by members of Hezbollah, but it could not be guaranteed that only they would have the devices in their hands when they were detonated. Many of the victims were members of Hezbollah’s civilian operations, which primarily serve Lebanon’s Shiite community.
Laurie Blank, a professor at Emory Law School in Atlanta who specializes in international humanitarian law and the right to protection during armed conflict, said the laws of war do not completely prohibit the use of booby traps, but they do set limits. He said he believes the attack most likely was legal under international law.
He stated that booby traps can be used to attack enemy forces that are on or near a military target, including communications systems used by Hezbollah fighters.
That said, it’s not clear that this is a booby-trapped scenario. For example, if the attack is against the beepers themselves, then it is not a question of booby traps, Blank wrote in an email.
Does the indiscriminate nature of the attack make it illegal?
Some experts said the detonation of the beepers hints at a long-planned and carefully carried out operation, possibly by infiltrating the supply chain and tampering with the devices to insert explosives before they were distributed in Lebanon.
There is no world in which the explosion of hundreds, if not thousands, of beepers is not an indiscriminate attack prohibited by international law, Mai El-Sadany, who heads the Tahrir Institute for Politics, wrote on the social network X. Middle East, a Washington-based research center.
A surveillance camera captured the moment of the bloody explosion in a supermarket. To see more from Telemundo, visit
Those with the devices were scattered in civilian areas, from shopping malls to crowded streets, apartment buildings and hospitals, surrounded by women, children and men, he told The Associated Press. An attack like this cannot predict which innocent bystander is in the impact area or which carefree child grabs the beeper when it rings.
British lawyer Geoffrey Nice, who brought legal action against former Yugoslav and Serbian president Slobodan Milosevic, said in an interview that it is quite obvious here that this is a war crime. And we should call it what it is.
The rules require countries to minimize damage
Amos Guiora, a professor at the SJ Quinney College of Law at the University of Utah, believes the attacks would be justified in the context of self-defense, but acknowledged the risks of collateral damage against civilians.
International law does not express a figure regarding what is legitimate or illegitimate collateral damage; It’s just to keep it to a minimum. The tragic reality of collateral damage is that innocent people will be killed and hurt,” he said. In this I have the feeling that there was an attempt to reduce it to a minimum, with the understanding that it will never be perfect.
“This particular attack strikes me as being aimed at its targets with the greatest precision that can be achieved,” said Guiora, who spent 20 years in the Israeli military and advised its commanders in Gaza in the 1990s.
Authorities in Lebanon said nine people were killed and at least 2,700, including Hezbollah fighters and medics, were injured Tuesday when pagers they use to communicate exploded across the country.
Israel has already faced intense international criticism for its military response in Gaza and, more recently, in the West Bank following the October 7 Hamas attacks.
In May, the prosecutor of the International Criminal Court requested arrest warrants for senior Israeli officials, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, as well as Hamas leaders for their actions in the war.
The Israeli government ignored an order from the International Court of Justice to stop its military offensive in southern Gaza after South Africa accused Israel of committing genocide.
Hamas has also been investigated. Human Rights Watch released a report in July that concluded that armed groups led by Hamas committed numerous war crimes during attacks in Israel.
Hezbollah has been linked to many indiscriminate attacks over the years against civilians in several countries, including Argentina, Bulgaria and Israel.
___
Chehayeb reported from Beirut. Associated Press writers Danica Kirka and Jill Lawless in London contributed to this report.