Israel has been on a witchhunt against Hezbollah in Lebanon amidst the Israel-Hezbollah armed conflict post-October 2023. On 17th and 18th September, in an Israeli attack, thousands of handheld pagers and walkie-talkies exploded all over Lebanon and Syria. The explosions from these devices, intended for use by Hezbollah, killed around 37 people and injured more than 3000. The military strategy of using hidden explosives in conventionally harmless communication devices is drawing attention to these past couple of attacks.
Pagers and walkie-talkies are used to communicate or receive messages from several people. These devices also make tracing difficult, which is why the military and civilian wings of Hezbollah use them. Under international law, these devices are called booby traps, which are not strictly illegal unless used to harm persons or objects protected by international humanitarian law (IHL) or customary international law.
The attacks are governed by international humanitarian law (IHL), which activates during armed conflicts and warfare. Multiple treaties and conventions shape IHL, such as the Hague Convention and the Geneva Conventions. These conventions advocate some basic principles of IHL, which are at play in armed conflicts or warfare.
Broadly, these principles are distinction, proportionality, and necessity. Each of them focuses on three different aspects of an armed attack. An attack is only legal under IHL if all three are satisfied. If that is not the case, the attack constitutes a war crime, in which case it can be prosecuted in the International Criminal Court (ICC) under the Rome Statute.
In this op-ed, I do not intend to suggest that the pager detonations or the walkie-talkie blasts, if proven a war crime, will be persecuted after all, but only highlight how it constitutes a violation of international law.
Distinction
In an armed conflict, two kinds of people are harmed, combatants and civilians. The principle of distinction, defined in Article 51 of the Aditional Protocol (1) of the Geneva Conventions 1977, requires that these two be distinguished, and attacks must only be executed against combatants. Under IHL, combatants can participate in military action against the enemy and simultaneously become legitimate military targets.
By contrast, civilians cannot be attributed to military action, and must not be treated the same as combatants. In this case, civilians would be all those who work for Hezbollah but are not associated with its military wing, as well as those civilians who happened to be there, going about their lives, and had no association with the group whatsoever.
This implies that Israel, at the time of planting explosives, or at the time of the attack, must have reasonable certainty that the majority of these devices will be used by Hezbollah combatants or the members of its military wing. If only there was reasonable certainty via specific and reliable intelligence that the number of combatants carrying pagers would exceed the number of civilians carrying pagers, the attack would meet the principle. However, I highly doubt that once the pagers were off the supply chain and up for distribution, there was any way of knowing who held the pager at any given time.
Moreover, those with pagers (or walkie-talkies) could carry them anywhere. A combatant could still be targeted despite his mobility in a civilian area, however, it is alarming since civilians possessed these devices too. A couple of these devices exploded in grocery stores and funerals, which strengthens the argument for the indiscriminate nature of the attacks.
Necessity
The principle of necessity requires that the way the attack was designed to be carried out, with the weapons used, was the only way to achieve a military object. As mentioned above, booby trap devices are not unlawful unless used against protected persons. Under IHL, civilians are protected persons. Subsequently, if the military objective was to affect the devices, there are ways to do it other than exploding them, e.g., jamming them electronically.
Necessity requires opting for less destructive means. Even if I agree that the devices had to be destroyed the way they were, the pagers, and walkie-talkies were not used by combatants only but also by civilians. In this case, it is difficult to say that these attacks meet the principle of necessity.
Proportionality
Codified in Articles 51(5)(b) and 57 of the Additional Protocol (1) of the Geneva Conventions 1977, proportionality refers to the ratio of military advantage to civilian casualties. The attack resulting in civilian casualties will only be legal if the intended military advantage supersedes the civilian suffering, and precautions to mitigate civilian casualties are taken. It is unclear if Israel took any precautions. Considering its hostilities in Gaza, and its notorious ways of killing its enemies, I highly doubt civilian casualties were considered.
Israel could argue that the objective of this attack was to terrorize the group by carrying out curated attacks like these and weaken their operational strength. However, that depends on whether Hezbollah felt the blow of this attack. As it seems, Hezbollah does not intend to stop its hostilities and has been retaliating since the pager detonations. Moreover, while the number of affected combatants is unknown, they are most likely among the 37 dead. But that number also includes children and likely a few more civilians.
Compared to the more than 3,000 affected civilians, including Iran’s ambassador to Lebanon, who was there in a civilian capacity, the attacks’ proportionality is dubious. Notwithstanding that, there are no reports of any of those combatants being an important part of the Hezbollah military wing to add to Israel’s military advantage.
From the analysis mentioned above, it is apparent that while the specific intent behind the Israeli pager attacks may be debatable, the indiscriminate nature of the bombings and the high civilian casualty count suggest a potential violation of the principles of distinction, necessity, and proportionality. The use of booby traps against protected persons, including civilians, is a grave concern and calls for a thorough investigation and accountability.
If you want to submit your articles, research papers, and book reviews, please check the Submissions page.
The views and opinions expressed in this article/paper are the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect the editorial position of Paradigm Shift.
Noorulain Shaikh graduated with an LLB (Hons.) degree from the University of London. She is keen on geographical, sociopolitical, and legal aspects of world affairs. She is a published author of articles concerning international law and regional policy affairs.