An injured person is carried on a stretcher outside the American University of Beirut Medical Center (AUBMC) on Sept. 17, 2024, following the Hezbollah pager explosions. (Credit: Mohamed Azakir/Reuters)
The series of pager and walkie-talkie explosions linked to Hezbollah on Tuesday and Wednesday across Lebanon have killed 37 and injured nearly 3,000 others, according to a preliminary count as of Thursday afternoon. It marks the deadliest toll within 48 hours since the start of the clashes between Israel and Hezbollah on Oct. 8, 2023, following the Gaza war between Israel and Hamas.
The unprecedented operation targeting the telecommunications devices of the party has been widely attributed to Israel, though it has not claimed responsibility. It struck equipment used by Hezbollah members to replace smartphones considered unsafe. However, the explosions also occurred in public spaces, within crowds, and inside homes, where children were present — two of whom are among the civilian casualties claimed by these attacks.
This prompted U.N. Secretary-General António Guterres to remind all parties that "civilian objects" must not be turned into weapons. The U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights, Volker Türk, also stated that those responsible for these attacks "must be held accountable," emphasizing that such acts constitute "a violation of international human rights law and, where applicable, international humanitarian law."
*L’Orient-Le Jour* consulted two experts on this matter: Marco Longobardo, a senior lecturer in international law at the University of Westminster and editor-in-chief of the Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, and Janina Dill, holder of the Dame Louise Richardson Chair in Global Security at Oxford University and co-director of the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict (ELAC).
The explosions took place in civilian areas, affecting both Hezbollah members and civilians. What does international law say about the responsibility for such an operation?
J.D.: A military operation involving several hundred simultaneous attacks raises serious concerns regarding compliance with international humanitarian law. International humanitarian law, applicable during armed conflict, requires that every attack must be directed at a person the attacker knows — or after feasible verification, has reason to believe — is a legitimate target.
The first question is whether the attacker behind the rigged pagers had the means to ensure that they would fall into the hands of Hezbollah combatants rather than civilians. Additionally, international law requires that for each explosion, the expected civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
The second question is whether such a proportionality assessment for each explosion would have been feasible or meaningful, given that we are talking about hundreds of simultaneous explosions. Pagers are devices people typically carry with them to their homes, the market, or the doctor. I do not see how the attacking party could have limited the effects of these attacks under international law requirements.
M.L.: Several rules of international law need to be considered. Under the rules on weapons, the attacks are illegal because international law prohibits the use of booby traps that resemble seemingly harmless portable objects, such as pagers and walkie-talkies.
Under targeting rules, if pagers and walkie-talkies were used for military purposes and the attackers reasonably believed they were likely to be used by combatants, the attacks would not violate the principle of distinction. However, the principle of proportionality would have been violated if the civilian casualties and damage were excessive in relation to the expected military advantage.
Does this mean that what happened is a violation of international law?
M.L.: We do not yet know what precautions the attacker took to spare civilians or minimize civilian casualties and damage. If the attacker could reasonably expect that both combatants and civilians would use the pagers and walkie-talkies, the attacks would have been illegal due to being indiscriminate.
Based on the currently available reports, and pending further investigation, it seems likely that the attacks carried out with pagers and walkie-talkies may also be illegal under the principle of proportionality, given that the numerous civilian casualties and damages appear excessive compared to the military advantage of injuring some Hezbollah combatants.
J.D.: Based on the facts available to me, I don't see how it would have been possible for the attacking party to limit the effects of these attacks following the requirements of international law. It is also difficult to imagine a factual scenario where a meaningful proportionality assessment for each explosion would have been feasible, but a definitive conclusion of a violation depends on a better understanding of the facts.
What could be the legal consequences of such operations?
J.D.: I think it is too early to determine, and too many facts are contested to establish consequences. I would consider that a call from Lebanon to the U.N. Security Council would be appropriate, but whether this would lead to tangible consequences is, of course, more of a political question than a legal one.
M.L.: Unfortunately, the consequences are quite limited. Lebanon could invoke the responsibility of the attacking state (assuming it is Israel) before the U.N. Security Council. Lebanon could request reparations and assurances of non-repetition.
As far as I know, there is no jurisdictional basis to bring the case before the International Court of Justice (which handles disputes between states).
And since neither Lebanon nor Israel are parties to the International Criminal Court (ICC), the ICC cannot investigate individual criminal responsibility related to the attacks. The Lebanese judiciary could pursue it, but I don't think that would lead to anything in practice.
