Imposing Risks on Civilians

Abstract

Abstract Chapter 5 argues that the risks of harm that combatants typically impose on civilians in war exceed those that may be non-consensually imposed for the sake of protecting tangible heritage. The imposition of such risks can be justified only if the civilians consent to bear them and, as we argue, this means univocal consent. Civilians do not typically give univocal consent to bear those risks. This means that it is typically unjustified for combatants to impose such risks. It also argues that there are limits to the total harm that may be imposed on civilians for the sake of protecting heritage even if they univocally consent. Consent is necessary, but not sufficient, to justify harming. Our account thus secures a stringent prohibition on risking harm to civilians for the sake of protecting heritage.