Human Rights Advocates Question Legality of West Asia Device Attack Amid Calls for Investigation

Human rights advocates are urging an independent probe into the deadly explosions of pagers and walkie-talkies in Lebanon and Syria. These blasts, which have been largely attributed to Israel, resulted in at least 37 deaths and over 3,000 injuries, including many Hezbollah members. Israel has neither confirmed nor denied its involvement in these incidents.

The United Nations human rights office and several advocacy groups have criticised the strikes as "indiscriminate." They argue that it is nearly impossible to determine who was holding the devices or where they were located when they exploded. However, some academics argue that the explosions were targeted since the devices were distributed to Hezbollah members.

Legal Implications of Targeting Communication Devices

The International Committee of the Red Cross has stated that this operation was unique, requiring time to gather all facts for a legal opinion. The committee refrained from publicly commenting on whether the operation breached international humanitarian law, which is often difficult to enforce. International law has not specifically addressed targeting communication devices carried by individuals.

The Geneva Conventions, established 75 years ago, do not cover modern communication tools like pagers and walkie-talkies. The legal complexity increases because Hezbollah operates as an armed nonstate group within Lebanon, a UN member state. Volker Turk, the UN human rights chief, emphasised the need for an independent investigation into these mass explosions.

Booby Traps or Targeted Strikes?

The debate over applying international rules focuses on whether embedding explosives in personal devices constitutes a booby trap. Israel has been accused of targeted strikes before, but using mobile communication devices in such a manner is rare. According to Article 7 of a 1996 adaptation of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, a booby trap is any device designed to kill or injure unexpectedly when disturbed.

Lama Fakih from Human Rights Watch highlighted that these rules aim to protect civilians and prevent devastating scenes like those in Lebanon today. She also called for an impartial investigation. The convention outlines rules for using land mines and other explosives, prohibiting manually emplaced munitions designed to kill or injure.

Indiscriminate Nature of Attacks

Experts suggest that the pager explosions indicate a long-planned operation, possibly involving infiltrating the supply chain to rig devices with explosives before delivery. Mai El-Sadany from the Tahrir Institute for Middle East Policy stated that such widespread explosions are indiscriminate attacks prohibited by international law.

She noted that pager holders were scattered across civilian areas like malls and hospitals, surrounded by civilians. British lawyer Geoffrey Nice described it as a war crime, highlighting criminal conduct on both sides of the Israel-Hamas conflict.

Minimising Harm Under International Law

Amos Guiora from the University of Utah argued that the strikes were justified as self-defence but acknowledged civilian collateral damage risks. He explained that international law requires minimising harm without specifying acceptable collateral damage levels.

Guiora suggested there was an effort to minimise collateral damage despite its inevitability. He described the attack as highly targeted, noting his experience advising Israeli military commanders in Gaza during the 1990s.

Israel has faced international criticism for its military actions in Gaza and the West Bank since Hamas's October 7 attacks. In May, the International Criminal Court issued arrest warrants for Israeli officials and Hamas leaders over their wartime actions. Despite this, Israel ignored a UN court order to halt its offensive in southern Gaza after South Africa accused it of genocide.