1949. aastast on rahvusvahelise õiguse suhtumine juhtumitesse, milles oli ette nähtav sõjalise kasuga võrreldest selgelt ebaproportsionaalne kahju tsiviilisikutele, erinevalt kaasaegsest õigusest ja Nürnbergi protsessist, selgelt eitav:Kuigi neid on otsesõnu nimetatud ka «terrorirünnakuteks» tsiviilelanikkonna vastu, oli põhieesmärk ikkagi sõjaliselt olulise taristu (raudtee, lennuväljad, sadamad, strateegilise tähtsusega tööstusettevõtted) hävitamine ja seeläbi rinde varustamise häirimine. Nagu juba öeldud, polnud kauglennuvägi täppisrelv ja pihta said peamiselt tsiviilkvartalid.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collateral_damageLuis Moreno-Ocampo, Chief Prosecutor at the International Criminal Court, investigated allegations of war crimes during the 2003 invasion of Iraq and published an open letter containing his findings. A section titled "Allegations concerning War Crimes" elucidates this usage of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality:
Under international humanitarian law and the Rome Statute, the death of civilians during an armed conflict, no matter how grave and regrettable, does not in itself constitute a war crime. International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives,[17] even when it is known that some civilian deaths or injuries will occur. A crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians (principle of distinction) (Article 8(2)(b)(i)) or an attack is launched on a military objective in the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage (principle of proportionality) (Article 8(2)(b)(iv).
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) criminalizes intentionally launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated.
Article 8(2)(b)(iv) draws on the principles in Article 51(5)(b) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, but restricts the criminal prohibition to cases that are "clearly" excessive. The application of Article 8(2)(b)(iv) requires, inter alia, an assessment of:
the anticipated civilian damage or injury
the anticipated military advantage
whether (a) was "clearly excessive" in relation to (b).[18]
Mistõttu on minu arvates põhjendatud tänapäevases kõnekeeles märtsipommitamist kuritegelikuks nimetada samamoodi, nagu kogu NSVL kohta kasutatakse väljendit "kuritegelik süsteem". "Terrorirünnak" on aga kehvem väljend, sest see vihjab tõesti eesmärgile tsiviilelanikkonda terroriseerida.
