Allhoff Fritz, Potts K
Department of Philosophy, Western Michigan University, Kalamazoo, Michigan, USA.
University of Michigan Law School, Ann Arbor, Michigan, USA.
J R Army Med Corps. 2019 Aug;165(4):256-265. doi: 10.1136/jramc-2018-001020. Epub 2018 Oct 16.
Under customary international law, the First Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, medical personnel are protected against intentional attack. In § 1 of this paper, we survey these legal norms and situate them within the broader international humanitarian law framework. In § 2, we explore the historical and philosophical basis of medical immunity, both of which have been underexplored in the academic literature. In § 3, we analyse these norms as applied to an attack in Afghanistan (2015) by the United States; the United States was attempting to target a Taliban command-and-control centre but inadvertently destroyed a Médecins Sans Frontières hospital instead, killing 42 people. In § 4, we consider forfeiture of medical immunity and, more sceptically, whether supreme emergency could justify infringement of non-forfeited protected status.
根据习惯国际法、《日内瓦第一公约》和《第一附加议定书》,医务人员受到保护,免受故意攻击。在本文第1节中,我们审视这些法律规范,并将其置于更广泛的国际人道法框架内。在第2节中,我们探讨医疗豁免的历史和哲学基础,而这两者在学术文献中都未得到充分探讨。在第3节中,我们分析这些规范如何适用于美国2015年在阿富汗发动的一次袭击;美国试图打击一个塔利班指挥控制中心,但却意外摧毁了一家无国界医生组织的医院,造成42人死亡。在第4节中,我们考虑医疗豁免的丧失,更具怀疑性的是,极端紧急情况是否能成为侵犯未丧失的受保护地位的正当理由。