This article originally appeared in the National Post.
By Sarah Teich and Shuvaloy Majumdar, August 12, 2022
Last week, as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine passed its 160th day, Amnesty International published a report accusing Ukrainian forces of unlawfully endangering the lives of their civilians. Yes, you read that right.
The Amnesty report — which is only 1,791-words long — was deservedly condemned by politicians, academics, lawyers and other experts around the world. It is not just that the reporting is substantively flawed, which of course it is. It’s that Amnesty ends up doing the very thing it condemns in the report: endangering civilian lives.
Amnesty researchers purportedly found evidence that Ukrainian forces launched military strikes “from within populated residential areas”; that Ukraine used hospitals as military bases; and that Ukrainian troops set up bases in old school facilities. Putting aside deeply troubling reports that these findings may have been tainted by interviews conducted at Russian filtration camps, where interviewees may have been coerced to give certain answers, each section is short on facts and even shorter on law.
International humanitarian law (IHL) is a vast body of law, much of which is designed to protect civilians. But the law has nuance, and context matters. For instance, it may be a breach of IHL to have soldiers operating out of a hospital, but it may not be a breach if, for example, the soldiers are there to protect the wounded. It may similarly not be a breach of IHL for military forces to launch attacks from within civilian areas when those civilian areas are under attack by an opposing army.
Ukrainian forces may be launching attacks from within civilian areas, but that is precisely because Russian forces are attacking those areas and generally engaging in an aggressive war characterized by the indiscriminate targeting of Ukrainian civilians.
Those civilian areas may be the precise areas that are most in need of protection by Ukrainian forces. This context would render Ukrainian actions as valid under any fair interpretation of IHL. For instance, old school facilities, temporarily closed and unoccupied since the start of Russia’s invasion, might make ideal bases from which to defend nearby civilian areas. This is not a violation of IHL.
Ukrainian officials might have provided Amnesty with these explanations if they had been given more than four business days to respond to the organization’s request for comment. Amnesty’s Ukraine office might have similarly been able to shed some light on the situation if it had not been inexplicably sidelined from the research and publication process.
Instead, the chief of Amnesty’s Ukraine office felt the report was so out-of-line with reality that she resigned from her post upon its publication. Indeed, the Swedish co-founder of Amnesty, Per Wästberg, also left the organization due to this report.
Beyond the deep substantive flaws, the publication of this piece by Amnesty itself endangers civilian lives by supporting Russian propaganda efforts and emboldening the Kremlin in its unprovoked and aggressive war. This report is already being weaponized by Russian propaganda outlets, where it is used as a justification for Russian bombings of civilian homes. Russia’s aggressive actions, not Ukraine’s defence against them, are the clear violations of IHL.
Amidst the outrage, Amnesty stands by its report. Amnesty’s secretary general, Agnès Callamard, dismissed initial critics as “trolls” and apologized only for the “distress” caused by the report. Amnesty has clarified that it does not intend to justify indiscriminate attacks or other international legal violations by Russian forces.
But in practice, this report does just that by saying that Russia’s attacks on civilian areas are legitimate military targets. The Amnesty report has already been weaponized and used by Russian outfits to assert exactly that. And it is very possible that more Ukrainian civilians will be killed as a result.
The impact and substance of this report are both unacceptable. This failing by Amnesty should be a lesson for all human rights organizations moving forward. Publications must be factually and legally sound and publishers must ensure they do not produce material that could be unwittingly used to embolden dictators or justify the killing of innocents.
On both counts, Amnesty has failed in spectacular fashion. It is beyond tragic this once proud institution has been revealed to be such a sham. It is unworthy of its legacy.
Sarah Teich is an international human rights lawyer and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Shuvaloy Majumdar is a Munk senior fellow and heads the foreign policy and national security program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
International humanitarian law (IHL) is a vast body of law, much of which is designed to protect civilians. But the law has nuance, and context matters. For instance, it may be a breach of IHL to have soldiers operating out of a hospital, but it may not be a breach if, for example, the soldiers are there to protect the wounded. It may similarly not be a breach of IHL for military forces to launch attacks from within civilian areas when those civilian areas are under attack by an opposing army.
Ukrainian forces may be launching attacks from within civilian areas, but that is precisely because Russian forces are attacking those areas and generally engaging in an aggressive war characterized by the indiscriminate targeting of Ukrainian civilians.
Those civilian areas may be the precise areas that are most in need of protection by Ukrainian forces. This context would render Ukrainian actions as valid under any fair interpretation of IHL. For instance, old school facilities, temporarily closed and unoccupied since the start of Russia’s invasion, might make ideal bases from which to defend nearby civilian areas. This is not a violation of IHL.
Ukrainian officials might have provided Amnesty with these explanations if they had been given more than four business days to respond to the organization’s request for comment. Amnesty’s Ukraine office might have similarly been able to shed some light on the situation if it had not been inexplicably sidelined from the research and publication process.
Instead, the chief of Amnesty’s Ukraine office felt the report was so out-of-line with reality that she resigned from her post upon its publication. Indeed, the Swedish co-founder of Amnesty, Per Wästberg, also left the organization due to this report.
Beyond the deep substantive flaws, the publication of this piece by Amnesty itself endangers civilian lives by supporting Russian propaganda efforts and emboldening the Kremlin in its unprovoked and aggressive war. This report is already being weaponized by Russian propaganda outlets, where it is used as a justification for Russian bombings of civilian homes. Russia’s aggressive actions, not Ukraine’s defence against them, are the clear violations of IHL.
Amidst the outrage, Amnesty stands by its report. Amnesty’s secretary general, Agnès Callamard, dismissed initial critics as “trolls” and apologized only for the “distress” caused by the report. Amnesty has clarified that it does not intend to justify indiscriminate attacks or other international legal violations by Russian forces.
But in practice, this report does just that by saying that Russia’s attacks on civilian areas are legitimate military targets. The Amnesty report has already been weaponized and used by Russian outfits to assert exactly that. And it is very possible that more Ukrainian civilians will be killed as a result.
The impact and substance of this report are both unacceptable. This failing by Amnesty should be a lesson for all human rights organizations moving forward. Publications must be factually and legally sound and publishers must ensure they do not produce material that could be unwittingly used to embolden dictators or justify the killing of innocents.
On both counts, Amnesty has failed in spectacular fashion. It is beyond tragic this once proud institution has been revealed to be such a sham. It is unworthy of its legacy.
Sarah Teich is an international human rights lawyer and a senior fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute. Shuvaloy Majumdar is a Munk senior fellow and heads the foreign policy and national security program at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
