On 17th September, Lebanon was struck by a series of explosions involving electronic devices, particularly pagers and two – way radios, causing significant casualties. At least 3,200 people were reported as wounded and over 32 people have died ever since. Reports indicate that fatalities extended to Syria as well. Lebanese Health Minister Firass Abiad has announced that at least 170 people are in a critical condition, though the nature of the injuries is unclear. Lebanon’s National News Agency (NNA) has reported explosions of rooftop solar systems as well. A statement issued by Hezbollah said that a number of pagers were owned by its members. The explosions occurred at various locations across Lebanon, including Beirut, the south of Lebanon and the Bekaa Valley.
The Office of the Israeli Prime Minister acknowledged that Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu authorized the September 2024 ‘pager’ attacks on Lebanon. It represents a pivotal moment with profound implications. These attacks, which claimed 37 lives and injured over 3,200 individuals, have reignited critical debates on accountability under international law and the mechanisms necessary to address violations of this magnitude.
Lama Fakih, Middle East and North Africa Director at Human Rights Watch, termed the recent attacks as a violation of customary international humanitarian law, specifically prohibition on the use of booby traps. While these attacks might have breached customary international humanitarian law, they can also be classified as Crimes Against Humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. This article analyses whether the electronic device attacks meet the threshold as outlined in Article 7 of the Rome Statute and therefore, constitutes a crime against humanity for which Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu can be prosecuted. This article first outlines the legal definition of crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, then applies this framework to the September 17 attacks, examining their classification based on scale, intent, and state policy.
What constitutes Crimes against Humanity
Article 7 of the Rome Statute outlines 11 specific acts that, when combined with material elements, constitute crimes against humanity. The material element for such crimes is a “widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population.” There are two independent elements here: (1) “widespread or systematic attack” which means that the act must not be isolated or sporadic and must be of a large – scale nature; and (2) “directed against any civilian population” which means that the civilian population must be the ‘primary’ object of the attack. This distinction ensures that attacks on lawful combatants do not automatically qualify as crimes against humanity (See Kunarac Appeal Judgment, para 90). The concept of “population,” as defined by Kunarac judgment, does not imply the entirety of a geographical entity’s inhabitants instead, it suffices that a substantial number of individuals must be targeted during an attack. If a significant number of the civilians were systematically or widely targeted, it constitutes sufficient grounds to fulfill the material elements.
In case of armed conflicts, determination of “civilian” status is based on the person’s role at the time of commission of the crime (See Blaskic Trial Judgement, para 214). If the person is not engaged in hostilities, the person will be protected as a civilian (See Kunarac Trial Judgment, para 425 and Katanga Trial Judgement, para 1102).
Article 7, which defines attack against a civilian population, also provides that the attack has to be pursuant to a State or organizational policy to attack. The Elements of Crime (An interpretative tool for the International Criminal Court which breakdown the essential ingredients of each crime under Article 6, 7 and 8 of the Rome Statute) defines what a “policy to commit such attack” is. It requires the State or organization to actively promote or encourage such an attack against a civilian population. This implies that a state policy can either explicitly endorse or tacitly allow such actions that are motivated by political, racial, ideological, or other discriminatory reasons. However, a state or organization might pursue a policy of committing atrocities for a variety of reasons, including military strategy, political power struggle, political control, economic advantage, maintaining power, or responding to perceived security threats. For example, in the Katanga case, Trial Chamber convicted the accused of crimes against humanity for carrying out a military operation or the conviction of Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo for targeting civilians served the purpose of weakening enemy resistance and solidifying the militia’s control.
Lastly, the mental element for crimes against humanity under international law is characterized by the perpetrator’s knowledge of the broader context in which their actions occur, rather than requiring them to have an exhaustive understanding of the full scope of the attack (Katanga Trial Judgement, para 1125). To fulfil this mental element, the perpetrator must first be aware that an attack against a civilian population is taking place. This means they need to understand that their actions are not occurring in a vacuum but are contributing to or are a part of a larger, organized campaign.
Having delineated the legal framework governing crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute, the following section undertakes a critical application of these legal standards to the electronic device attacks in Lebanon.
Israel’s Pager Attacks and the Legal Threshold of Crimes Against Humanity
For the past 11 months Hezbollah are engaged in cross – border fighting with Israel. Hezbollah has been pummeling northern Israeli communities almost daily with barrages of drones, rockets, and missiles from southern Lebanon since October 7, 2023 which has led to about 80,000 Israelis being forced to evacuate Israel’s north. One such attack killed 12 children in the small Druze town of Majdal Shams. The attacks on 17th September and subsequent attacks are a part of this larger armed conflict.
To incur criminal liability for crimes against humanity, the accused must perpetrate at least one of the 11 enumerated acts under Article 7(1), which includes: (a) Murder; (b) Extermination; (c) Enslavement; (d) Deportation or forcible transfer of population; (e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules of international law; (f) Torture; (g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence of comparable gravity; (h) Persecution against any identifiable group or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic, cultural, religious, gender as defined in paragraph 3, or other grounds that are universally recognized as impermissible under international law, in connection with any act referred to in this paragraph or any crime within the jurisdiction of the Court; (i) Enforced disappearance of persons; (j) The crime of apartheid; (k) Other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health. In the instant case, the pager attacks in Lebanon fall under Article 7(1)(k)-other inhumane acts that inflicted severe suffering on individuals.
The Tadić and Celebici cases provide useful insights into what constitutes “inhumane acts.” The Tadić case emphasized that acts must cause injury to human beings in terms of serious injury to body, or to mental or physical health. The Celebici case further expanded on this by including moral suffering, suggesting that suffering can be both physical and mental.
Within the context provided above, over 200 people in critical condition, 37 dead including 2 children. Hospitals were overwhelmed, with numerous cases involving facial lacerations, severe eye damage, and shrapnel injuries, forcing medical teams to cancel scheduled surgeries and prioritize mass casualty care. Many of the victims were civilians, including women and children, thus underscoring the indiscriminate nature of the attacks. These explosions resulted in widespread physical harm to civilians, particularly in non-combatant areas like hospitals and residential zones causing severe mental trauma. The severity of injuries, including cases of complete or partial disablement, meets the threshold for ‘serious injury to body or to mental or physical health.’
The electronic device attacks on Lebanon align with the material elements required to constitute crimes against humanity. The first material element, “widespread or systematic attack,” appears to be met. Since September 17, the attacks have overwhelmed hospitals treating severe injuries, such as the facial, eyes, and limbs wounds. The scale and persistence of these assaults suggest they are not isolated incidents but part of a systematic and large – scale campaign.
The second element requires proof that the attacks were “directed against any civilian population.” The evidence here shows that the primary victims have been civilians, including children and vulnerable individuals. It has already been established that non-combatants are civilians. These electronic attacks have caused death and widespread harm to non – combatants, disrupting civilian life, leading to severe physical suffering, and overwhelming medical facilities.
The third element involves proving that the attacks were conducted as part of a state or organizational policy. These attacks have been ongoing in the context of the larger conflict between Israel and Hezbollah. Under the Rome Statute, such a policy does not need to be motivated by political, racial, or ideological discrimination — it could serve broader strategic purposes. In this case, the specific aim was to disrupt communication channels, thereby delivering a significant blow to Hezbollah’s operational capabilities.
Finally, the mental element, or intent, also appears to be satisfied. Given Netanyahu’s authorization of the attack, it can be inferred that he was aware of all the attacks and their impact on civilians. As the Head of government, he would have had knowledge of these organized attacks and the strategic purpose of these attacks, thereby fulfilling the mental element. This indicates an awareness that the attack was part of a larger, coordinated assault on a civilian population, rather than an isolated event.
Conclusion
Experts have termed these series of attacks as violation of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. However, this article has demonstrated that the necessary elements to constitute crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute are fulfilled. The attacks appear to be both widespread and systematic, targeting a civilian population with significant casualties and widespread physical and mental suffering. The evidence demonstrates that the electronic device attacks in Lebanon meet the criteria for crimes against humanity under Article 7 of the Rome Statute. The widespread and systematic nature of the attacks is reflected in the coordinated explosions across civilian areas, resulting in 37 deaths and over 3,200 injuries. The attacks targeted civilian populations, with significant casualties among non-combatants, including women and children, and widespread harm to hospitals and residential areas. The Israeli Prime Minister’s authorization reflects the perpetrators’ intent, highlighting their awareness of the civilian impact. Meanwhile, the disruption of Hezbollah’s communication channels was a strategic decision and the existence of an armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah reflect state policy.
Considering these factors, the case for classifying these acts as crimes against humanity is strong. Given that neither Israel nor Lebanon has signed the Rome Statute, the International Criminal Court lacks jurisdiction to prosecute these alleged crimes. In the absence of ICC jurisdiction alternative accountability mechanisms must be explored to address these potential violations of international criminal law. One potential avenue for accountability is prosecution under universal jurisdiction, as demonstrated in cases such as Belgium’s trial of Hissène Habré. Alternatively, the establishment of an ad hoc tribunal, such as the one for Lebanon, presents another legal pathway. In addition, civil society organizations and UN mechanisms could pursue investigative mandates to gather and document evidence, laying the groundwork for future prosecutions.
Vedant Gupte is a final year undergraduate law student at Dharmashastra National Law University, Jabalpur.
Picture Credit: Aljazeera