[citation needed] Under the current terms of the Rome Statute, the use of human shields is defined as a war crime only in the context of an international armed conflict.
Indiscriminate bombing was considered an acceptable method to achieve the military advantage of defeating enemy morale and eroding popular support for the war effort.
[16] Risk to civilians does not bar military action, but the principle of proportionality requires that precautions be taken to minimize the harm to these protected persons.
This analysis includes considerations like whether circumstances permit the attacker to time a military action to minimize the presence of civilians at the location.
[18] There is currently debate amongst legal scholars about whether traditional proportionality analysis should be modified to take into account the culpability of actors who use human shields to gain a strategic advantage.
Some scholars, including Amnon Rubinstein and Yaniv Roznai, argue that the use of human shields should be a factor in determining whether the use of force was justifiable under the guiding principles of distinction and proportionality.
[21] Rubinstein and Roznai argue that an attack that would be disproportionate ought to be considered proportionate, if the presence of civilians is due to the wrongful actions of the enemy.
[26][27] The use of involuntary human shields does not release the other party from legal obligations to not target protected civilians or inflict excessive collateral damage.
[29] Also in 2003, American peace activist Rachel Corrie was crushed to death by an Israeli army bulldozer in Rafah while volunteering with the International Solidarity Movement as a human shield to prevent the demolition of homes in Palestine.
Francis Lieber articulated an early version of the principle of proportionality: that civilians were not to be targeted, but were also not immune in all circumstances.
[33] If the belligerent attacks in areas where human shields are used, this can weaken international and domestic support by exploiting harmed protected civilians.
There have been numerous documented incidents where this tactic has not been successful in deterring attacks, including the Amiriyah shelter bombing during the First Gulf War.
[36] According to NATO research, the strategic use of human shields by groups like Hamas hinges on exploiting Israel's aim to minimize civilian casualties and the sensitivity of Western public opinion.