1. What is CHR?

​​​​​​Prior to explaining how CHR functions in practice, it is important to understand the basic foundations of CHR as an approach. CHR is based on 2 key premises:

​

a) Emphasis on lawful combat operations:

 

CHR focuses primarily on remedying harms which are inflicted as a result of lawful combat operations, i.e., where the principles of the law of armed conflict (LOAC) are adhered to throughout the conduct of military operations.

​

Where the principles of LOAC are not adhered to and war crimes are committed, for example, various international human rights instruments dictate that a remedy must be administered by the responsible state in the form of reparations. The same obligations do not extend to instances of lawful harms, however. CHR seeks to fill this gap and ensure that civilians are remedied, regardless of the legality of the harm.

​

Based on this distinction between lawful and unlawful conduct, Centre for Civilians in Conflict (CIVIC), one of the key organisations advocating for the implementation of CHR practices, draws a corresponding distinction between the key terms used to describe the remedy in each instance:

• Reparations refer to the obligatory remedies administered by responsible states 'for harm provided on the basis of a violation of applicable laws'

• Amends refer to the elective remedies awarded by warring parties 'for any harm to civilians due to military operations, even if lawful acts caused the harm' (CIVIC, 2022: 6)

​​

 

.... We'll explain amends in more depth below.

​

​

b) Emphasis on the individual:

​

Where traditional notions of remedying harm, such as reparations and transitional justice, have been conceptualised at the state-level, CHR operates at the individual- and community-levels. CHR is informed by the 'human security' approach, which replaces state-centricity with a novel emphasis on the individual, human subject in response processes (Hamourtziadou, 2017: 57; Browne, 2021; Ward, 2023).

​

As a result, CHR necessitates broader conceptualisations of harm, including not just direct or physical harms to civilians and infrastructure, for example, but also indirect, reverberating and civilian-constructed definitions of harm (Nohle & Robinson, 2017; Azeem et al., 2022).

​

​