Protection of civilians in theory - a comparison of UN and Nato approaches

Protection of civilians has emerged as a primary objective in contemporary peace and stabilisation operations, but civilians appear to be neither safer nor better protected. The UN and Nato differ in their respective focuses on ‘how to protect’ and ‘how not to kill’, whilst they both struggle to successfully protect civilians on the ground despite the unprecedented strategic importance attached to the issue. Protection of civilians entails a number of seemingly insuperable challenges, especially with regard to the use of armed force. In this report, the degree of threat to civilian security, the dedication of the enemy, the primacy of physical protection, and the absence of sufficient troop numbers are discerned as factors that particularly complicate the search for ‘utility of force to protect’. However, to improve protection of civilians a genuine reconciliation of aims and means is needed. From the outset, planning must be based on a theoretical understanding of protection of civilians that accounts for the comprehensive scope of protection, the challenges it entails and the operational consequences for the armed forces that follow. This report argues that the obvious starting point lies in addressing the gap in existing doctrines, directives, practices and training on protection that presently provide little guidance on how to actually go about protecting civilians.