This concept of targeting civilians in a “continuous combat function” is pretty complex. I started reading about it [1] and 20 minutes later feel like I’ve bar

This concept of targeting civilians in a “continuous combat function” is pretty complex. I started reading about it [1] and 20 minutes later feel like I’ve barely skimmed the surface of how hard it must be in modern combat modalities to actually enforce this. My brother is a JAG and worked on authorization of force issues in Afghanistan. Part of his job was ensuring that rules of engagement were being followed, but I’m looking forward to a more in-depth conversation — if he’s willing to have it — next time we see each other. People that are not in a regular armed force, do not wear a uniform, hold rank, or report to a superior, may still be taking an active role in combat. Can someone be a farmer by day, and a combatant by night? (a questioned posed by the footnoted article) How long can they be directly targeted as a combatant after a hostile act? What is a hostile act? Continuous combat function requires lasting integration into an organized armed group acting as the armed forces of a non-State party to an armed conflict. Thus, individuals whose continuous function involves the preparation, execution, or command of acts or operations amounting to direct participation in hostilities are assuming a continuous combat function. Turns out there are fairly complex guidelines for all of this, and with the amount of intelligence that is collected in the modern battlefield, there’s even a chance to track this down to the individual level. The continuous combat function designation seems quite narrowly tailored, for example it does not include military, political, or administrative personnel who do not directly participate in hostilities (how convenient for the politicians it is defined this way!). It does not include reservists who are not actively serving. A civilian who is not serving a continuous combat function in theory can only be subject to direct attack while they are directly participating in hostilities, which seems to include the planning, lead-up, execution, and return from a hostile operation. Apparently very little of this is explicitly defined under international law, but there is a history and case law which can be used to draw guidelines from. [1] - https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/icrc-interpretive-guidance-notion-direct-participation-hostilities https://casebook.icrc.org/case-study/icrc-interpretive-guida...