What are indiscriminate attacks?

Yesterday, March 9 2022, Russia bombed a children's hospital in Mariupol City, Ukraine. The Red Cross has called conditions in the city apocalyptic. People have to go seek shelter underground because the bombardment has been unceasing. They have barely any access to essentials like food, water, or power. And it's winter time. This was despite Russia's agreement to a ceasefire so civilians could get out of the city. 

If true, then this would be an egregious violation of international humanitarian law (IHL). 

I understand that most people know of IHL and of war crimes, but not the specifics. For people who know even some IHL (like me, emphasis on the "some"), the violation there is really clear. For people who are unfamiliar with IHL, they would still know that bombing a hospital is generally fucked up. That being said, just because it's fucked up doesn't necessarily mean it's illegal. That's why people often ask me at times like these "is this legal?" to which I of course reply "well, I'm not a lawyer, buuuut..."

So here's what IHL says about attacks like the bombing of a hospital.

IHL is based on the notion that, considering how shitty war can be, we have to make sure to minimize its costs on innocent lives. That's why IHL has something known as the principle of distinction. Under the principle of distinction, all who participate in armed conflicts must distinguish between military objects and civilian objects. Combatants have an obligation not to target civilians and civilian objects. Moreover, if you have doubts as to whether an object is military or civilian in nature, you have to err on the side of civilian character. 

The principle of distinction makes it so that you're only allowed to attack military objectives. You aren't allowed to attack civilian objects. 

What are military objectives? Military objects are those that make an effective contribution to military action, whether by their nature, location, purpose, or use. Their partial or complete destruction or capture should also offer a military advantage. If the object is equipment or transport used by the enemy military, that's clearly a military objective because by their nature, they contribute to military action and destroying or capturing them offers a definite military advantage. If the object is used for military purposes, then it is a valid military objective. So, if the object is usually just a school, but during times of war it is used to hide weapons of war, then it is a military objective.

Now, let's say that the school is being used to make and store weapons. But, there are innocent children taking classes and whatever in the same building. Is it still a military objective? You can argue that it still is (as I did in class once), but you have to make sure to limit your attack on the parts of the school that are used for military purposes and AVOID the parts that are still civilian in character.

This is because under the same principle of distinction, you also cannot launch attacks that tend to hurt combatants and civilians indiscriminately. These indiscriminate attacks are prohibited by Article 51(4) of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions. Indiscriminate attacks may be (a) those not directed at a specific military objective (b) those attacks that employ a means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective or (c) those attacks that employ a means of combat whose effects can't be limited to just combatants.

The first seems to be self-explanatory. The second and third regulate the kinds of weapons that can be used and how they can be used. For example, long-range missiles, which can't be as exact as the Geneva Conventions needs it to be, are prohibited for being a weapon that "cannot be directed at a specific military objective." There are some weapons that theoretically could be directed at a specific military objective, but the way they're used makes it so that their effects aren't limited to military objectives. For example, you can probably set fire to a certain military objective. But if you set fire to a military objective that is in the middle of a town, that fire could probably spread to said town. Or, for our example above, if you use a fire to burn the weapons room in the school, while innocent schoolchildren are in the adjacent rooms, the effect of the fire will likely spread to the civilian children. In such a case, it's an indiscriminate attack.

So, in the case of a hospital, even if we're unduly generous to Putin and assume that some parts of the hospital were used for military purposes (and, to be clear, Russia has not even claimed that the hospital was a legitimate objective), that does not justify an indiscriminate bombing of the whole building. We've seen the results-- women in labor have been injured, children have been buried in the rubble. 

There is also a special rule relating to medical personnel and medical establishments like hospitals. Under Article 19 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, fixed medical establishments like hospitals may not be attacked in any circumstance, except if they're used to commit acts harmful to the enemy. 

Again, Russia has not claimed that the hospital was used for such purposes. But even if they had, under Article 21, they can only proceed with the attack after giving due warning and a reasonable time limit, which Russia decidedly did not do. 

The same protections extend to those specialized hospitals or medical facilities that give care to the wounded, the sick, and maternity cases. Other clinics, like those for cosmetic surgery or rehab centers for addicts, are not considered 'hospitals' under this definition, but are still protected as civilian objects.

Likewise, under the ICC Statute, intentional attacks against these medical establishments, when they are not military objectives, may be prosecuted as war crimes.