In Attack on Titan: The Final Season’s (AoT) Episode 5 “Declaration of War,” Eren Yeager launches a pre-emptive attack on Marley to secure the Warhammer Titan for the Yeagerists. Eren was successful in both engaging and acquiring the Warhammer Titan, thus, dealing a critical blow to Marley’s overall strategy in ending the Eldian Empire. Although Eren was successful in achieving his group’s goal in the attack, Eren’s actions violated key principles of international humanitarian law.
The Principles
Both in AoT and in war movies, we are shown commanders making difficult decisions quickly in times of war. At first glance, it may seem pretty binary: the commander chooses to attack or they choose not to attack. However, actions taken by commanders within an international armed conflict (IAC) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC) are not committed senselessly or without careful review. Attacks are like onions, they have lots of layers and are more complicated than on first glance. Commanders and the like are required to consider four principles prior to taking military action: 1) Military Necessity; 2) Proportionality; 3) Distinction; and 4) prevention of unnecessary suffering. Each of these principles work together to help answer that binary question and each requires careful consideration.
- Military Necessity
The principle of necessity permits measures which are “actually necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not otherwise prohibited by international humanitarian law. In the case of an armed conflict the only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the other parties to the conflict.” Similarly, in non-international armed conflict we apply this principle as well. Although we want war and hostilities to end quickly, this principle prevents us from using illegitimate means or methods to reach this result.
- Proportionality
The principle of proportionality asks us to make a weighted judgment. It does NOT ask us to determine if our use of force upon an enemy is proportional to what the enemy used against us. Instead, this principle asks to evaluate that if we were to attack would the estimated value from the attack outweigh the harm that might be inflicted upon civilians? What we don’t want is to achieve a small military advantage at the large cost of harm to civilians.
- Distinction
The principle of distinction speaks to the idea of being able to readily determine in a conflict who is a combatant and who is a civilian. The former being a legal target and the latter being non-targetable. This principle is outlined in Article 48 of Additional Protocol I (AP I) international armed conflict and similar language can be found in Additional Protocol II Art. 13(2)-(3) with respect to non-international armed conflict.
Distinguishing targets is not an easy task, especially so in the middle of heated conflict. When we look to determine if an individual is a combatant or civilian we have four criteria that must be asked of those we are targeting. These are derived from Article 4(2)(a)-(d) of the Third Geneva Convention and are as follows:
(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;
(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;
(c) that of carrying arms openly; and
(d) conducting their operations in accordance with the law and customs of war.
The last distinction that has to be made is that of the target itself. Under Art. 52(2) of AP I, “military objectives are limited to those objects which by their nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.” Outside of those, codified in Art. 25 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, are civilian objects which are not to be targeted by any means by armed forces.
- Prevention of Unnecessary Suffering
War is by its very nature a violent enterprise. Loss is expected. It cannot be prevented. You might think that suffering too can’t be prevented too because it is war’s natural by product, which may be true, but we can limit it. And, we have been successful in limiting where we can in the past century and a half. But, when it comes to conflict both IAC and NIAC we have to ask ourselves two questions: First, will the tactic, weapon, or enhancement cause superfluous injury? Second, will the tactic, weapon, or enhancement cause unnecessary suffering? A “yes” to either disqualifies the tactic, weapon, or enhancements use from deployment to the combat zone. War is brutal enough. We don’t want to harm civilians or military members more than what is necessary to achieve the goal.
In the End, It Really Does Matter
Now, with all four elements laid out we can begin to see where Eren went wrong with his decision to attack.
First, when it comes to military necessity, Eren’s attack may be permitted. The attack was designed to eliminate Marleyan military forces and to acquire the Warhammer Titan. If both were accomplished it would help end the conflict between Marley, Eldian Empire, and the Yeagerists. Although this action would end the war sooner, the measures taken to secure it are violative of international law and thus should have stopped Eren from taking this course of action.
Second, is the issue of proportionality with Eren’s attack. It is true that the area Eren targeted had a large amount of high ranking Marleyan generals and there were many Marleyan military members surrounding the city square. However, the number of civilians present outweighed the number of military members, and the location was in the middle of a civilian sector. Inherently, the estimated loss of civilians and damage to civilian infrastructure far exceeded the value of the generals that were present. Throughout AoT, Eren has shown to have a track record of callous disregard to surrounding areas when he engages in combat, and this would not bode well for the area. With the completion of the attack, the entire square and surrounding sections of the city were demolished, hundreds were harmed and thousands were displaced. Eren should not have attacked this location regardless of its military concentration because the harm to civilians far exceeded any military advantage that could be gained.
Third, Eren did not have a hard time discerning who was targetable and who was not. The distinct uniforms of the opposing armies of Eldia, Marley, and the terrorists, the Yeagerists, allows us and Eren to not mistake civilians for combatants. Further, each organization wears their arms openly, responds to a clear chain of command, and attempts to adhere to the laws of armed conflict. There was no issue of commingling targets.
Additionally, Eren’s target did not qualify as a military objective. Eren understood that the host of the Warhammer Titan was present at the summit of world leaders in Marley. At this summit there also was a large Marleyan military presence with many high commanders present. However, neither Marleyan officials nor Eren had working knowledge on who amongst the Tybur family contained it. Compounding this issue is that none of the Tybur family were active military members and were classified as civilians. Eren should not have gone after the Tybur family at this event.
Fourth, Eren’s attack did not cause unnecessary suffering. This is because Eren has complete control over himself as a titan and that his actions did not have additional effects that would cause greater damage to victims beyond what would be expected from his initial attacks. Nor did his titan or its abilities cause superfluous injuries towards those he targeted.
Eren’s attack should never have been carried out. At face value, even after recognizing it could help end the conflict quicker, we can see that his targets were not military objects, that the result was grossly disproportionate, and that he did a poor job in distinguishing who he targeted. At least We can positively say that his actions didn’t cause unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury.
