Civilian population as an object and subject in wars

Introduction: Rethinking the role of civilians in military conflicts

In classical war theory, from Clausewitz to the beginning of the XX century, the civilian population was primarily considered as an object: a demographic and economic resource ("rear"), a source of replenishment for the army, and also as a passive victim ("collateral damage") or a tool of pressure on the enemy. However, historical practice, especially since the era of total wars and national liberation movements, has shown that civilians often become subjects - active participants in resistance, bearers of legitimacy, and a key factor in achieving political goals of the conflict. This evolution reflects the transition from wars of cabinets and regular armies to ideological, networked, and hybrid wars.

1. Historical evolution: from object to "total mobilization"

Antiquity and the Middle Ages: The civilian population (inhabitants of cities) was often the main object of violence (massacres, enslavement) after the capture of a fortress. This was a tactic of intimidation and a form of payment for the army. However, in peasant uprisings (Jacquerie, Hussite Wars), civilians themselves became subjects of armed resistance.

The era of "cabinet wars" (17th-18th centuries): With the development of regular armies and the law of treaties (beginning of codification in the treatises of Hugo Grotius), the civilian population began to be distinguished as a protected category, although this was rarely observed in practice. War was considered the business of professional armies.

Napoleonic and "total" wars (19th-20th centuries): A turning point. Napoleon introduced conscription - mass recruitment of civilians into the army, making them subjects in the form of soldiers. In the First and especially the Second World Wars, the blurring of the boundary between the front and the rear led to the concept of "total war," where the civilian population deliberately became the object of influence to undermine the will of the enemy to resist (bombing of Dresden, Hiroshima, blockade of Leningrad). Here it is both the object of terror and the subject of the labor front.

Interesting fact: During World War II, in occupied Europe and the Soviet Union, the civilian population mass became the subject of the partisan movement and resistance. This forced the Nazis to apply cruel punitive measures against civilians (for example, the destruction of villages in Katyn, Lidice), which, in turn, only strengthened the support for partisans. This paradox shows the duality of status: the attempt to suppress civilians as subjects of resistance turned them into the object of total destruction.

2. Theoretical approaches: from "just war" to humanitarian law

The theory of the just war (Jus ad bellum and Jus in bello): Within this framework, the civilian population is an object of protection. The principle of distinction requires a clear separation of combatants from non-combatants, and the principle of proportionality prohibits attacks where the death of civilians is disproportionate to military necessity.

Critical military theory and postcolonial studies: These approaches assert that Western humanitarian law often serves as an instrument that, while declaring the protection of civilians as objects, in fact legitimizes wars where they become the main victims. In anti-colonial wars (Algeria, Vietnam), the civilian population was a key subject of political struggle. The war was fought for "hearts and minds," and partisans ("fish in the sea of the people," according to Mao Zedong's metaphor) consciously erased the boundary between combatant and civilian, making the population an active participant.

3. Modern hybrid conflicts: blurring boundaries

In conflicts of the XXI century (Syria, Yemen, and others), the status of the civilian population has become even more ambiguous:

Object of informational and cognitive war: The population is deliberately subjected to propaganda, misinformation, psychological operations in order to demoralize or mobilize. Here, civilians are the object of manipulation, but their perception becomes the battlefield.

Object of humanitarian crises as a tactic: The creation of artificial hunger, blockades of humanitarian aid, destruction of hospitals and schools are used to achieve military and political goals (the "scorched earth" strategy). The population is the object of pressure on the enemy.

Subject of digital resistance and voluntarism: Civilians become active subjects of cyberwar (hacktivists), provide digital support to the army, engage in crowdfunding, production of drones and equipment, documenting war crimes. This erases the formal status of non-combatant.

4. International humanitarian law: an attempt to establish the status of an object of protection

The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977 represent an attempt to restore the status of the civilian population as a protected object. They prohibit:

• Attacks on civilians and civilian objects.
• Acts of violence intended to terrify the population.
• Use of hunger as a method of war.
• Collective punishment.

However, the effectiveness of these norms depends on political will, asymmetry of conflicts, and the emergence of new technologies (cyberweapons, autonomous systems), which once again raise questions about the applicability of old principles of distinction.

Conclusion: Ambivalence as a new norm

Thus, the civilian population in modern war is both an object and a subject at the same time, in hyperbolized forms. It is:

• The maximum object of vulnerability and suffering in conditions of totalizing violence.
• A key subject of political legitimacy, for which the struggle is going on.
• An active participant in resistance and war in its hybrid, networked manifestations.

History shows that attempts to reduce civilians to the status of a passive object of protection (as in ideal models of humanitarian law) often fail in the face of political reality, where war becomes a struggle for the survival of nations and identities. The future, perhaps, lies not in denying this duality, but in the development of new legal and ethical frameworks that recognize the active role of civilians in self-protection and resistance, while ensuring them maximum possible protection from arbitrary violence. War is no longer just the business of soldiers; it has become a test for the whole society, making the question of the status of the civilian population one of the central ones in understanding the nature of conflicts of the XXI century.

Permanent link to this publication: