Most legal systems deny civilians a right to compensation for losses they sustain during belligerent activities. Arguments for recognising such a right are usually divorced, to various degrees, from the moral and legal underpinnings of the notion of inflicting a wrongful loss under either international humanitarian law or domestic tort law. My aim in this article is to advance a novel account of states’ tortious liability for belligerent wrongdoing, drawing on both international humanitarian law and corrective justice approaches to domestic tort law. Structuring my account on both frameworks, I argue that some of the losses that states inflict during war are private law wrongs that establish a claim of compensation in tort. Only in cases where the in bello principles are observed can losses to person and property be justified and non-wrongful. Otherwise, they constitute wrongs, which those who inflict them have duties of corrective justice to repair.

No abstract

Immunity from tort liability for losses that are inflicted during warfare is often justified by a supposedly intuitive concern: without immunity, states and combatants will be over-deterred from engaging in combat. In this article, I test this common perception using three frameworks. First, I theoretically analyze the impact of tort liability on relevant state actors’ incentives to engage in warfare. This analysis suggests that tort law is likely to under-deter state actors in relation to their decisions on whether and how to conduct hostilities. Second, I test this conclusion through an original mixed-methods exploratory research, using Israel as a test case. My findings reveal that while tort liability under-deters state actors from engaging in warfare, it can prompt them to implement regulatory measures to minimize the state’s liability. Third, I offer a legal history analysis, exploring why Israel established an immunity from tort liability for losses it inflicts during combat in 1951, and why and how this immunity has expanded since. I show that as the Israel-Palestine conflict prolonged and intensified, state actors began viewing Palestinians’ tort claims as a civilian means of warfare and immunity from liability as the weapon needed for defending Israel’s interests.