## Facts

- Eritrea and Ethiopia fought an international armed conflict from 1998 to 2000 along multiple frontier sectors.
- A claims commission created by the Algiers Agreement adjudicated inter-State claims arising from the conflict.
- This partial award addressed Eritrea’s claims concerning (i) ground conduct on the Western Front, (ii) Ethiopian aerial bombardments in Eritrea (including the Hirgigo power station), and (iii) displacement of Eritrean civilians and alleged prevention of their return.
- Eritrea alleged Ethiopian forces committed killings, beatings, rapes, looting, and property destruction against Eritrean civilians in areas under Ethiopian control and failed to protect civilians and civilian property.
- Eritrea alleged Ethiopia conducted unlawful air attacks against civilian objects and areas, including a water reservoir and the Hirgigo power station near Massawa.
- Evidence showed the Hirgigo facility was a major power project under construction that had supplied electricity on a test basis to areas including a naval base and port and was expected to be a major national asset.
- Eritrea alleged Ethiopia directly displaced civilians by orders or force and later prevented displaced persons from returning after Ethiopian withdrawal from some areas.
- The Commission applied the Algiers Agreement, State responsibility rules, and customary international humanitarian law reflected in relevant Geneva law and portions of Additional Protocols I and II.

## Issues

1. Whether the Commission had jurisdiction over claims relating to displacement, including alleged obligations to secure the postwar return of displaced civilians.
2. What evidentiary showing was required to prove patterns of abuse and specific incidents of bombardment.
3. Whether Ethiopia incurred responsibility for harm to enemy civilians and civilian property in areas under Ethiopian forces’ control.
4. Whether particular aerial attacks violated customary IHL rules governing military objectives, civilian objects, indiscriminate attacks, and proportionality, including the attacks on the Harsile water reservoir and the Hirgigo power station.
5. Whether Ethiopia was responsible for civilian displacement caused directly by orders or coercive acts, as distinct from civilians fleeing combat conditions.

## Decision

- The Commission issued a partial award resolving liability on the covered claims, with damages to be addressed in later proceedings.
- On the Western Front claims, the Commission found Ethiopia responsible for certain proven violations against Eritrean civilians (including killings, beatings, looting, rape, and failures to protect), while rejecting or limiting other allegations for insufficient proof.
- On aerial bombardment claims, the Commission upheld some allegations and dismissed others, emphasizing that damage from lawful attacks on military objectives does not create liability.
- The Commission held bombing a water reservoir used mainly by civilians was unlawful absent concrete proof that it qualified as a military objective.
- The Commission held the Hirgigo power station was a legitimate military objective in the circumstances and that its bombardment was not unlawful; the Commission’s president filed a separate opinion disagreeing.
- On displacement, the Commission found no liability for civilians who fled indirectly from fear of combat absent proof of direct unlawful causation, but found liability where civilians were displaced by orders or forceful actions.
- The Commission held it lacked jurisdiction over broader claims that Ethiopia had a duty to secure the post-conflict return of displaced civilians, rejecting any analogy to prisoner-of-war repatriation.

## Legal Principles

- Customary IHL binds parties to an international armed conflict; treaty provisions may be used as evidence of customary rules where the parties treat them as such.
- A belligerent with effective control over enemy civilians and their property must take appropriate measures to protect them, even outside a formal occupation framework.
- Where enemy civilians and property are within a party’s area of control, damage may support a presumption of State responsibility unless rebutted on the facts.
- Military objectives are objects that, by nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to military action and whose destruction offers a definite military advantage.
- Civilian objects may not be attacked; attacks on civilian infrastructure (such as water supplies) are unlawful unless the object meets the military-objective definition.
- Electric power facilities may qualify as military objectives depending on their contribution to military operations; attacks remain subject to IHL limits, including proportionality.
- It is not per se unlawful to attack a legitimate military objective with the intent to cause economic harm, provided the target is lawful and collateral harm is not excessive.
- Displacement liability turns on causation and unlawfulness: direct displacement by orders or coercive measures can engage responsibility; indirect flight from combat does not without proof of unlawful direct causation.
- A claims commission’s jurisdiction may be limited to conflict-related IHL violations and may not extend to generalized postwar obligations to ensure displaced civilians’ return.

## Conclusion

The partial award applied customary international humanitarian law to contested ground abuses, infrastructure targeting, and civilian displacement, finding Ethiopia liable for certain proven violations while rejecting other allegations, upholding the Hirgigo strike as a lawful attack on a military objective, and declining jurisdiction over claims asserting a general duty to secure displaced civilians’ postwar return.


Eritrea v. Ethiopia (W. Front, Aerial Bombardment & Related Claims), Partial Award, 26 R.I.A.A. 291 (Eri.-Eth. Cl. Comm’n 2005)