Pagers and International Law

Pagers and International Law: A Complex Case

The recent explosions of thousands of pagers in Lebanon, targeting Hezbollah personnel, raise serious questions about its implications for international law. While the exact details of the incident remain under investigation, the potential legal implications are significant.

Attribution of Responsibility

The primary question is who is responsible for the attack. If a state, such as Israel, was involved, it could be held accountable for violations of international humanitarian law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL). However, if the attack was carried out by private individuals, state responsibility would depend on whether the state failed to prevent it despite having the means to do so.

Lawfulness of Weapons and Methods of Warfare

When assessing the lawfulness of a new weapon or method of warfare, the following criteria should be applied: Is the weapon or method of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering?

The use of explosive devices in warfare is generally permissible. However, the specific design and use of the pagers must comply with international law, particularly the Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) and its Protocols. The pagers could be considered booby-traps, which are prohibited under the CCW.

Targeting Law

The principle of distinction requires parties to a conflict to distinguish between civilians and combatants. If the pagers were issued to Hezbollah members, they could be considered military objectives. However, the attack must be proportionate and not cause excessive civilian harm. The use of pagers with concealed explosives could pose risks to civilians, especially if they are not issued exclusively to combatants.

Potential Violations of IHL

• Violation of the CCW: If the pagers were considered booby-traps, their use could violate the CCW.
• Violation of the Principle of Proportionality: If the attack caused excessive civilian harm, it could violate the principle of proportionality.
• Violation of the Principle of Distinction: If the attack targeted civilians or civilian objects, it could violate the principle of distinction.

Potential Violations of IHRL

Beyond IHL, the attacks may also have violated international human rights law (IHRL). States have a duty to respect, protect, and fulfill human rights, even during armed conflicts. The explosions may have violated several human rights, including:

• Right to Life: The deaths and injuries caused by the explosions constitute potential violations of the right to life, as protected under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR).  
• Right to Physical Integrity: The injuries caused by the explosions violate the right to physical integrity, protected under the UDHR and ICCPR.
• Right to Security of Person: The indiscriminate nature of the attacks may have violated the right to security of person, protected under the UDHR and ICCPR.

A thorough investigation and analysis of the facts are necessary to determine the exact nature and extent of the international law violations and to hold those responsible accountable.