Fallujah: The Struggle for Accountability
Destroyed Schools and The Start of the Resistance
by Ahmed Wahbi / GICJ
Introduction
We are now in April 2025. Most of us move through daily life, living, working, studying without pause. But in Fallujah, April weighs heavy. 21 years ago, the city witnessed the first acts of resistance against occupation forces. That memory remains alive, not only in the minds of survivors, but carved into the broken paths of an entire generation. Justice remains absent.
Throughout this month, we have worked to remind the international community of the devastating consequences of the United States' invasion and occupation of Iraq. Through reports and statements delivered at the United Nations, Geneva International Centre for Justice has highlighted the widespread violations committed against the Iraqi population and the ongoing impact of these actions.
Our objective remains steadfast: to uphold the rights of the Iraqi people and to secure justice. We have consistently called for accountability and will continue to demand justice with firm resolve.
In this article, we focus specifically on the events in Fallujah — a city where the occupation’s violence reached one of its most devastating points, by a full-scale assault against the city itself.
The resistance in the city traces its origins to the events of 28 April 2003, when the American forces occupied the al-Qa’id Primary School, and responded with violence against civilian demonstrators who demanded the restoration of education in Fallujah.
On 23 April 2003, approximately 150 soldiers from the 82nd Airborne Division assumed control of al-Qa’id Primary School in Fallujah. They stated an intention to “engage with residents” and prevent arms forages, although they uncovered no weapons. By 28 April, about 400 civilians’ demonstrators, mainly students, teachers, and parents, arrived at the school to request its return for educational purposes. American forces opened fire and caused 20 fatalities, including children under the 10, as well as more than 85 injuries. The US military later claimed it had employed “precision fire” against gunmen in the crowd, but protesters denied that version of events. Observers found no bullet damage on the school itself, while buildings across the street displayed extensive multi-calibre impacts that far exceeded any claim of precision fire. These findings exposed the excessive and unjustified use of force by American troops against unarmed civilians.
The destruction of education in Fallujah remains a loss too often ignored. Schools collapsed or closed, teachers fled, and a generation lost its right to learn. No proper documentation has captured the full scale of the damage or addressed the legal and humanitarian consequences.
Direct United States Impact on Educational Facilities and Legal Obligations
Despite inconsistencies in available evidence, scattered reports confirm direct interference by United States forces with school facilities in Fallujah between 2003 and Operation Vigilant Resolve. These incidents reflect militarisation and likely destruction, both in violation of IHL and the law of occupation.
1. First Event: Al-Qa’id Primary School (April 2003)
As mentioned earlier this event marked the first lethal confrontation over civilian infrastructure in Fallujah and planted the foundations of local resistance. US forces occupied al-Qa’id Primary School despite finding no weapons. Days later, troops opened fire on unarmed civilians and children demanding its return. Observers found no bullet damage to the school.
US troops took over a primary school although Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention calls on an occupying power to facilitate the proper work of every institution for children with the cooperation of national and local authorities. Lethal fire on unarmed parents and pupils breached that duty and also breached the rule of non-discrimination in Articles 13 and 27 which bars any adverse distinction among protected persons. The force did not act to keep the school open or safe, so it violated the core obligation to make primary education available to every child free of charge. Legal redress must include an impartial investigation, prosecution of those responsible, reparation to families and rapid return of the school to civilian use.
2. Second Event: School Used as Base (April 2004)
On 12 April 2004, US Marines repurposed another school as a military base during ongoing fighting. An 81 mm mortar round, fired by the Marines themselves, struck the courtyard by mistake, killing two Marines and an Iraqi interpreter, and wounding twelve others. Initial claims blamed the resistance. It was later confirmed as friendly fire. No disciplinary action followed [6].
Marines converted another school into a mortar position. Occupation law treats educational buildings as private property that the occupant must respect. Article 50 does not permit a change of use that blocks lessons and places children at risk. Article 64 allows legal change only when the aim serves the population or meets obligations under the Convention; a combat role meets neither purpose. The friendly-fire deaths inside the school underline the failure to protect both pupils and soldiers. Command responsibility attaches to the officers who ordered the conversion. Corrective action requires withdrawal from all schools, repair of damage, disciplinary measures and funds for catch-up classes.
Besides this, this second event holds particular weight for two reasons. First, unlike the earlier case of the al-Qa’id Primary School, no documentation shows that the school ever underwent militarisation or have had any encounters with the United States. Second, the United States blamed the resistance at once, a charge later proved false, which shows a deliberate effort to control the narrative. This directly links to the US commander’s ban on Al Jazeera and the possible control of the narrative.
3. Possible Other Events: Alleged Bombing of Schools
A local resident, speaking to the only unembedded journalist present during the First Battle of Fallujah, stated that US forces carried out indiscriminate bombings which destroyed homes and schools. The resident described the assault as “haphazard bombing,” launched in retaliation to fire from a moving vehicle. Although independent verification remains limited due to restricted media access, the account indicates the destruction of multiple schools [7].
Eyewitnesses reported bombardment that levelled several schools together with nearby homes. The right to education obliges an occupier to keep enough schools open so every child receives compulsory free primary lessons. The destruction breached that duty and the principle of distinction, as no indication appeared that the schools served any military purpose. Article 50 directs the occupier to cooperate with national and local authorities so that education institutions remain in operation, and, when buildings collapse, the occupier must supply alternative premises and materials so that lessons can start again without delay. Necessary steps therefore include an impartial inquiry, emergency classrooms, distribution of books free from propaganda, and a reconstruction programme devised with municipal and national officials, in line with Article 50.
Across these events, the occupying power ignored its obligations under Article 50 and parallel human rights duties requiring availability, accessibility, acceptability and adaptability in education. These repeated breaches create state responsibility and possible individual criminal liability. Beside this, the absence of proper documentation shows how little information exists about the full extent of these violations.
The Resistance Legality
Under the status of occupying power according to the Hague Regulations 1907 and the Fourth Geneva Convention 1949, as they have exercised effective control over Iraq. Those treaties oblige an occupier to maintain public order, protect civilian life and preserve essential services. They forbid collective punishment and any indiscriminate attack and carry binding force. Those duties stood in direct contrast to the situation in Fallujah.
Faced with that assault, the people of Fallujah took up arms to shield their families and communities. IHL grants fighters who carry weapons openly and comply with the laws of war combatant status under Article 43 of the Hague Regulations and Article 4(A)(2) of the Third Geneva Convention. All other residents remain civilians entitled to protection.
US commanders treated entire districts as hostile territory. They bombed public infrastructure on mere presumption. That action breached the principle of distinction and violated Article 33 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, which forbids collective punishment.
The occupiers closed exit routes, barred relief convoys and fired white phosphorus rounds that burned bodies and poisoned the air. Those measures flouted the core IHL principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution.
The defence of Fallujah revealed necessity rather than disorder. When United States forces occupied the city and replaced legal order with warfare, they turned Operation Vigilant Resolve into a large-scale assault on protected persons. Civilian death tolls remain unclear. Some reports place the figure at a few hundred; others assign it to several thousand. United States authorities never published a full investigation, and Iraq never compiled unified statistics.
Clarifying the Death Toll: Civilian Harm and Legal Obligations
The United States prevented any independent efforts to record the true death toll in Fallujah. Many victims remained buried under the rubble of their homes or gardens, which explains the low number of documented casualties in hospital records. These figures do not reflect the actual scale of the losses. The Iraqi government also published misleading numbers to conceal the seriousness of the situation and to avoid acknowledging responsibility, a pattern that continues to this day. Fallujah, as one of the largest districts in Iraq, demands careful and honest consideration in any assessment of the events.
The First Battle of Fallujah left behind more than destruction. It left confusion, contradictions, and a blurred record of the human cost. Official figures remain inconsistent, but one fact cuts through the uncertainty: civilians suffered the highest toll.
This deliberate distortion becomes clear when examining official figures. Between 19 and 25 April 2004, the Iraqi Ministry of Health revised its fatality estimate from 750 to around 360, only to later reverse it back to 750, exposing contradictions and political pressure behind the numbers. Fallujah General Hospital recorded 518 confirmed deaths, including 157 women and 146 children, with at least 100 under the age of twelve. The hospital also documented around 1,200 injured civilians requiring urgent care. Dr Abed Al-Ilah, a representative on the Iraqi Governing Council, estimated 600 deaths, 350 of them women and children. Many perished from treatable injuries because blocked access to medical services sealed their fate. These facts confirm the scale of the human catastrophe and expose the efforts by both the United States and Iraqi authorities to suppress the full truth about the violence inflicted on Fallujah’s civilian population.
These figures come from hospitals, medics and residents on the ground. Their discrepancies expose a lack of formal documentation, yet all accounts agree: most victims had not taken part in resistance. Many were women, children and other civilians sheltering in residential areas; others were inhabitants who had taken up arms to defend their homes. International humanitarian law recognises such resistance as a lawful act of defence; civilians who do not directly participate must never be treated as combatants.
This slaughter did not happen by chance. It stemmed from an operation that blurred the line between military objectives and the civilian population, breaching the principle of distinction, which demands that every attack be directed only at valid military targets. Nor was it proportionate customary law forbids strikes where incidental harm to civilians would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. No advance warning reached the trapped civilians, no humanitarian corridors opened, and medical teams faced obstruction, failures to take all feasible precautions under the principle of precautions.
Moreover, as occupier, the intervening force had a duty under Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations to restore and ensure public order and safety, and under Articles 50 and 56 of the Fourth Geneva Convention to maintain essential services, hospitals, water, education, which in Fallujah collapsed under blockade and bombardment. The assault thus not only slaughtered civilians but shattered their means of survival.
Alongside the physical assault came an assault on truth. The United States restricted media access. Al Jazeera was banned. Reports were shaped by embedded journalists and official briefings [3]. Independent verification became nearly impossible. This deliberate suppression obstructed the documentation of events and denied the public its right to know. It also shielded potential breaches of IHL from scrutiny.
Justice must rest not on figures alone but on what they expose. In Fallujah those figures reveal clear violations: civilian neighbourhoods treated as battlefields; schools forced to close when children failed to return; hospitals paralysed by power cuts, medicine shortages and blocked access. The toll counts more than corpses, it records a collapse of law.
Those attacks still lie beyond scrutiny, their perpetrators unaccountable and shielded. Such neglect cannot erase the facts. Customary IHL applies in every conflict and binds every side, regardless of politics. The world must demand a transparent, impartial inquiry, not as an option but as a binding duty.
Now we will turn to one of the most overlooked consequences of the assault: the destruction of education and the erasure of schools, which remains highly undocumented.
The Silence Around Schools
An examination of reporting from the period reveals contradictions and gaps. Some sources referenced school closures or damage in passing. Others ignored them entirely. The April 2003 al-Qa’id Primary School protest, where US forces opened fire on unarmed civilians demanding the return of an occupied school, receives inconsistent treatment in reports. Some accounts omit the child deaths. Others reduce the event to a confrontation. The truth remains obscured.
This selective reporting reflects a broader failure. Western media largely echoed US military narratives and relied heavily on embedded journalists as independent access to the city was blocked. The chief US commander banned Al Jazeera and denied access to any outlet not aligned with official messaging. As a result, the press failed to document the scale of educational disruption. [4]
The targeting and deaths of journalists in Fallujah deepened this silence. With few independent witnesses and no international monitors in place, key aspects of the assault, including the impact on schools, escaped scrutiny.
The United Nations, too, said little. While later UN reports addressed humanitarian concerns in general terms, they offered no concrete information on school damage during the first battle. One post-conflict figure mentioned rehabilitation in six schools across Mosul and Fallujah but failed to specify how many stood in Fallujah, or how many had sustained damage [5].
Absence of records does not prove that schools stood unscathed. It reveals a clamp on independent observation and a broader effort to shape the narrative. IHL forbids any assault on civilian objects and demands all feasible precautions to shield them. Under the law of occupation (Hague Regs Art 43; GC IV Arts 50, 53), an occupier must preserve schools and may convert them for military use only if military necessity leaves no alternative and only under strict safeguards. In Fallujah, occupiers turned schools into military posts and battlefields, then left them in ruin. Their refusal to record that damage does more than omit facts. It signals an act of will.
Damage to education cannot appear in broken walls alone. It shows in empty classrooms, in families too afraid to send their children back, and in communities stripped of hope. Refusal to record that loss treats schools as though they never mattered.
The Humanitarian Consequences and its Legality
The United States offensive in Fallujah created siege conditions that brought more than destruction. Food vanished from shelves. Clean water ran out. Medical services collapsed. Gunfire and bombardment trapped civilians, who could neither flee nor receive aid. These were foreseeable outcomes of a strategy that ignored the civilian population. Between 12 and 18 April 2004, the United Nations Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI) reported severe shortages of food, water, and medical supplies. Water and sewage systems failed for at least a week. Humanitarian convoys struggled to enter the city, despite efforts by UN agencies [8]. The occupying forces had a legal duty to facilitate humanitarian aid. Blocking relief in a besieged city broke that obligation.
Under Article 55 of the Fourth Geneva Convention the occupying power must, to the fullest extent of its means, supply food and medical stores when local resources prove inadequate; Article 59 requires it to agree to relief schemes and facilitate their passage; Article 56 binds it to maintain medical services and public health. By obstructing aid during the siege, the forces in control breached each of those duties.
400.000 residents have no way but to leave their homes to villages with poor basic services. Humanitarian actors, including the Iraqi Red Crescent, provided some support. Still, the failure to coordinate sustained relief exposed a breakdown in lawful protection.
School life collapsed. Every school closed. One headmaster reported an attendance of only twenty pupils out of the usual five hundred because parents feared the streets. Article 50 of the Fourth Geneva Convention obliges the occupier, together with national and local authorities, to keep institutions for children in proper operation; Article 43 of the Hague Regulations adds a wider duty to restore civil life, which covers education. The forces in control neither reopened classrooms nor provided temporary facilities, so children lost access to their compulsory free primary lessons. Article 56, which also deals with public health, required urgent repair of water and sanitation, a pre-condition for safe schooling.
These omissions caused unlawful hardship. The record now calls for an impartial inquiry, unhindered entry of humanitarian convoys, rapid repair of water and sewage systems, reopening of schools or provision of interim classrooms, textbooks and teachers, and compensation for affected families
White Phosphorus Usage and its Legality
Besides the destruction of schools and the collapse of civilian life, the United States deepened the suffering in Fallujah by deploying white phosphorus, a substance known for its indiscriminate and inhumane effects. From early April through May 2004, during and after the launch of Operation Vigilant Resolve, United States forces fired white phosphorus across several areas of the city. This was not limited to open battlefields. It reached residential streets, family homes, and spaces where civilians sought refuge.
Reports from journalists, including Darrin Mortenson, described the use of so-called “shake and bake” tactics, a combination of high explosives followed by white phosphorus rounds. These attacks did not always involve identified military targets. Marines admitted to firing white phosphorus into urban zones without verifying threats [9]. The result set the air alight. Witnesses saw plumes of fire melt bodies and tear through homes. The United States later claimed the substance served only as an illumination or screening device. The evidence contradicts that claim. White phosphorus fragments, recovered in civilian neighbourhoods, tell a different story, one of disregard, of chemical violence, and of contempt for international law.
IHL demands distinction and proportionality. The rule bars weapons that cannot aim at a specific military objective or whose effects exceed the anticipated advantage, and it binds every belligerent as customary law. Protocol III to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons forbids air delivered incendiary munitions against targets inside a concentration of civilians, yet the United States has not ratified that protocol during the time of the operation. Even so, the ban on indiscriminate incendiary effects persists as custom and still governs United States forces.
However, the United States ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention; Article I outlaws any munition that depends on toxic properties to harm persons. A decision that exploits the corrosive fumes of white phosphorus would breach that treaty. Article 43 of the 1907 Hague Regulations, in force for the United States, obliges the power in occupation to preserve public order and civil life, which includes restraint in weapon choice. Orders that release white phosphorus within a populated city, without prior separation of civilians and without regard for toxic effects, violate the customary rules on distinction and proportionality, breach the Chemical Weapons Convention, and defy the duties set by Hague law. Such conduct amounts to a grave breach and places personal criminal responsibility on commanders who authorise or execute it.
Depleted Uranium Long Term Harm
The United States military used depleted uranium (DU) by loading it into ammunition and firing it during combat operations in Fallujah. This practice exposed the civilian population to toxic substances. Researchers, including Dr Chris Busby, documented a sharp rise in birth defects and elevated cancer rates, particularly childhood leukaemia, linked to the deployment of DU and other military pollutants during the battle. Dr Busby worked with the GICJ to collect samples from the hair of children, fathers, and mothers, as well as from the soil and the environment. These samples underwent laboratory testing, which confirmed severe contamination. Fallujah’s already weakened healthcare system, battered by conflict and the collapse of infrastructure, could not address the scale of the health emergency. Children bore the heaviest burden, both in life and in death.
Customary IHL limits belligerents in the choice of weapons. Core rules oblige parties to distinguish civilians from combatants and forbid attacks that bring excessive civilian loss in relation to concrete military advantage. Also, customary IHL sets a duty to adopt every feasible precaution to spare civilians, and forbids weapons that inflict superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The same corpus bars methods expected to cause widespread, long-term and severe environmental damage. Depleted-uranium penetrators fracture on impact, send toxic dust across roughly four hundred metres and leave soil contamination that persists for decades
United States forces employed depleted-uranium ammunition inside Fallujah, a densely populated area. Commanders knew the dust hazard and had tungsten alternatives at hand, so they failed the precaution duty and breached the obligation to reduce civilian harm. The predictable long-term health impact together with permanent soil pollution outweighed any concrete military gain, thus the attack broke the proportionality rule and amounted to an indiscriminate strike.
Can the United States Face Legal Accountability for Fallujah Before the ICC?
The occupation of al-Qa’id Primary School, where United States forces opened fire on unarmed civilian demonstrators, marked an early violation of international humanitarian law in Fallujah. Later, during Operation Vigilant Resolve, further breaches occurred through indiscriminate artillery, the ruin of civilian buildings, the deployment of white phosphorus, the use of depleted uranium, the conversion of schools into military bases, and the bombing of residential areas. These acts together showed a consistent pattern of grave violations, although prosecution before the International Criminal Court remains unlikely due to the absence of jurisdiction over both the United States and Iraq.
Article 12 sets three jurisdiction links: (1) the suspect must hold nationality of a State Party; (2) the conduct must occur on State-Party territory; or (3) the Security Council must refer the situation. None of these links exists today. United States troops do not hold a State-Party nationality, and Iraq has never joined the Statute.
Iraq may still unlock territorial jurisdiction. Article 12 (3) lets a non-party lodge a one-off declaration that hands the Court authority from a date the declaration states. Iraq has never filed such an instrument, so the option lies unused. A declaration would not reach events that pre-date the date Iraq selects.
Article 13 (b) offers a second gate. The Security Council, acting under Chapter VII, may refer a non-party situation. The Council has deployed that power only twice, Darfur in 2005 and Libya in 2011. Any draft that names Fallujah would face a probable veto from the United States, a permanent member.
If either gate opened, the Prosecutor and the Chambers would still test admissibility and gravity under articles 17 and 53. They would ask whether national courts prove unwilling or unable and whether the scale of harm meets the gravity threshold. The Court attends to those questions only after it confirms jurisdiction.
Until Iraq files a declaration or the Council adopts a referral, the Court lacks competence, and the Fallujah file remains outside its reach.
Alternative Accountability Mechanisms
While prosecution before the ICC appears improbable, other avenues may exist in theory. Some national courts hold the authority to prosecute grave breaches of IHL under the principle of universal jurisdiction, regardless of where the acts occurred or the nationality of those responsible. This legal principle affirms that war crimes concern all humanity and must not escape judgment based on borders or political influence. However, such proceedings remain rare and tend to face legal and political resistance, particularly in cases involving powerful states. The willingness to prosecute often stops where power begins.
Victims may also attempt to pursue civil litigation in third countries, though courts often dismiss these claims on grounds of sovereign immunity or national security. In addition, the United States retains the legal capacity to investigate and prosecute its own personnel. However, past examples suggest little political will to initiate such processes, especially where high-level decision-making forms the basis of the alleged conduct. The absence of political will reflects not a gap in law, but a failure of leadership. Legal frameworks exist. What is missing is the determination to apply them when they implicate those in command.
In practice, however, after 21 years none of these alternative mechanisms has provided a comprehensive path to justice for the events in Fallujah. This failure stems not from a shortage of evidence, but from the absence of accountability. Continued inaction reduces the international legal order to a tool of political convenience, stripped of its purpose to protect those most at risk.
Takeaway
The First Battle of Fallujah serves as a signal, not a footnote. Official reports crumbled once facts emerged. Commanders misrepresented school seizures, local defence, white phosphorus strikes, and depleted uranium, then altered their story only after relentless public pressure.
The episode proves that we must contest state statements at once. War-time communiqués protect power, not truth. Journalists, lawyers, and civic groups carry a duty to ask, verify, and preserve evidence. Silence buries lives; trust demands challenge.
Fallujah sets one rule: guard truth in the present and enforce the law without exception, even when a dominant state stand accused.
Summary
Operation Vigilant Resolve left behind more than destruction. It brought clear violations of international humanitarian law, inflicted lasting harm on civilian life, and crushed the voices of those who resisted not as insurgents, but as residents defending their homes, their families, and their basic rights. The resistance in Fallujah did not grow from ideology or foreign influence. It rose from the ground, shaped by direct suffering: the occupation of schools, the killing of unarmed civilians, and the seizure of daily life.
When the people of Fallujah stood to protect their homes, they acted under the rights recognised by the law of occupation and international humanitarian law. Their defence reflected necessity, not rebellion. The United States answered this lawful resistance not with dialogue or restraint, but with overwhelming force. Entire districts faced indiscriminate bombardment. Schools became military posts or rubble. Hospitals collapsed. Civilians trapped inside the city found no safe exit and no access to humanitarian relief.
On top of all this stands the cruelty of the United States and the cowardice of Iraq, both refusing to record or reveal the true statistics. No proper documentation ever came. Survivors, local doctors, and rare independent observers provide the only testimony, and all of them agree: civilians carried the highest burden.
Among the weapons unleashed stood white phosphorus and depleted uranium, used not as a last resort, but as part of tactical bombardments across civilian areas, a breach of every legal principle of distinction, proportionality and precaution. Their use left a toxic legacy: widespread environmental contamination, a sharp rise in cancer rates, and a surge in birth deformities among the surviving population. Children suffered most. They died in attacks, and those who survived lost access to education, healthcare, and any chance for stability. Fallujah did not just lose buildings; it lost its future.
Despite the gravity of these violations, justice remains out of reach. The United States' refusal to join the International Criminal Court, Iraq’s failure to ratify the Rome Statute, and the absence of a Security Council referral have shielded the perpetrators from accountability. Mechanisms such as universal jurisdiction exist, but political protection for the powerful has kept them dormant.
The events in US grave violations against the civilians in Fallujah show what happens when law is displaced by force, when resistance is rebranded as threat, and when education becomes collateral rather than protected. The legal framework was in place. The obligation to protect civilians, ensure public services, and respect the distinction between military and civilian objects was clear. What failed was the will to uphold those obligations.
Fallujah cannot remain a footnote. The destruction was not accidental. The consequences were not temporary. The silence that followed was not neutral. The assault on Fallujah must be treated as a turning point, a test of whether international law holds any weight when the violator is powerful, and the victims are silenced.
GICJ Position
Geneva International Centre for Justice (GICJ) firmly condemns the grave violations of international humanitarian law committed by United States forces against the people of Fallujah, beginning with the occupation of al-Qa’id Primary School and the violent attack on unarmed civilian demonstrators on 28 April 2003. The occupation of a civilian educational facility, the use of lethal force against peaceful protesters, and the killing of civilians, including children, represent serious breaches of the laws of occupation and the fundamental principles of the Geneva Conventions. This act of aggression ignited lawful resistance and exposed the true nature of the occupation from its earliest stages. One year later, this unlawful conduct escalated into full-scale military operations against the city during Operation Vigilant Resolve, where further grave breaches were committed against the civilian population.
GICJ stands by the legitimacy of the resistance that arose in Fallujah, recognised under the law of occupation and international humanitarian law. Residents who defended their homes and rights, when doing so openly and in accordance with the laws of war, held lawful protections that the occupying forces systematically denied. Attempts to portray the Fallujah resistance as unlawful served only to justify indiscriminate violence and conceal war crimes. GICJ also firmly stands against Operation Vigilant Resolve, which escalated the violations already committed, targeted the civilian population, destroyed civilian infrastructure, and resulted in grave breaches of international humanitarian law.
GICJ emphasises that the use of schools for military purposes, the obstruction of humanitarian relief, the bombardment of civilian areas with white phosphorus, and the deployment of depleted uranium munitions violate the principles of distinction, proportionality, and precaution as enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and customary international law. The environmental contamination and generational health damage caused by depleted uranium represent further grave breaches of the obligations to protect civilian life and preserve public health and safety during occupation.
The lack of accountability and the failure to investigate or address these violations by the United States raise serious concerns about the erosion of the international legal order and the protection of civilians in armed conflict.
While the United States is not a party to the Rome Statute and Iraq has not ratified it, making prosecution before the ICC unlikely, GICJ stresses that the absence of ICC jurisdiction does not erase legal responsibility. Violations of international humanitarian law remain actionable through other mechanisms, such as independent international investigations, the application of universal jurisdiction in national courts, and formal international fact-finding commissions.
GICJ urges the international community to pursue truth and accountability for the victims of Fallujah through legal, diplomatic, and investigative means. Upholding the protection of civilians, public health, and essential civilian infrastructure in conflict is not optional, it is a binding legal and moral obligation. Silence or inaction in the face of such harm only entrenches impunity.
Fallujah cannot remain an unspoken crime. The law must apply equally to all parties, regardless of power. Justice delayed does not merely deny victims their rights; it threatens the credibility of the international system itself. GICJ reaffirms its commitment to exposing these violations, supporting the victims and survivors, and pressing for international accountability without exception or excuse.
#Fallujah2004 #WarCrimes #EducationUnderFire #WhitePhosphorus #geneva4justice #GICJ #GenevaInternationalCentreForJustice #Justice
References:
[1] NPR, ‘A Fatal Mistake: The Truth Behind a Marine Corps Lie and Broken Promises’ (7 April 2023) https://www.npr.org/2023/04/07/1166936838/fallujah-iraq-pentagon-marines-investigation
[2] Zollmann F, Bad News from Fallujah (Vimeo, 2015) https://vimeo.com/39464134
[3] ibid.
[4] Iraq: Situation Report, Week Review: 27 Sep–03 Oct 2004 (ReliefWeb, 3 October 2004) https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-situation-report-week-review-27-sep-03-oct-2004
[5] UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), ‘Iraq – Situation Report: Week in Review, 12–18 Apr 2004’ (ReliefWeb, 2004) https://reliefweb.int/report/iraq/iraq-situation-report-week-review-12-18-apr-2004
[6] James T Cobb, Christopher A LaCour and William H Hight, ‘TF 2–2 in FSE AAR: Indirect Fires in the Battle of Fallujah’ (2005) Field Artillery 23.
