Editing Reprisal (section)

==International law==
Reprisals refer to acts which are illegal if taken alone, but become legal when adopted by one state in retaliation for the commission of an earlier illegal act by another state.<ref name="ihl145">{{Cite web |url=http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule145 |title=Customary IHL - Rule 145. Reprisals}}</ref> [[ICRC]]’s Database of Customary [[International Humanitarian Law]] states in Rule 145: "Where not prohibited by international law, belligerent reprisals are subject to stringent conditions."<ref name="ihl145" /> "Counter-reprisals" are generally not allowed.<ref name="ihl145" />

===World War I===
====1914 Portugal-Germany dispute====
An example of reprisal is the [[Naulila Incident|Naulila dispute]] between [[Portugal]] and [[Germany]] in October 1914, when they were on opposite sides of the [[World War I]] chasm. After three Germans were mistakenly killed in Naulila on the border of the then-Portuguese colony of [[Angola]] (in a manner that did not violate international law),<ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/January-February-2003/scene_giry_janfeb2003.msp |title=Legal Affairs }}{{Dead link|date=April 2025 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref> Germany carried out a military raid on Naulila, destroying property in retaliation. A claim for compensation was brought by Portugal. The tribunal emphasized that before reprisals could be legally undertaken, a number of conditions had to be satisfied:
*There had to be a previous act by the other party that violated international law.
*Reprisals had to be preceded by an unsatisfied demand for reparation or compliance with the violated international law.
*There must be proportionality between the offence and reprisal.
The German claim that it had acted lawfully was rejected on all three grounds.{{sfn|Shaw|2008|p=1129}}

===Irish War of Independence===

During the [[Irish War of Independence]], reprisals were authorized by British authorities in areas of Ireland that were under [[martial law]]. From December 1920 until June 1921 approximately 150 official reprisals were carried out. In December 1920, [[Commander-in-Chief, Ireland]] [[Nevil Macready]] informed the [[Lloyd George ministry]] that military governors in areas under martial law had been authorized to conduct reprisals in response to attacks on local [[security forces]], under these conditions:<ref>{{cite book |last=Townsend |first=Charles |author-link= |date=1975 |title=The British Campaign in Ireland 1919-1921 |url= |location= |publisher=Oxford University Press |page=149 |isbn=019821863X}}</ref> {{Blockquote|text=Punishments will only be carried out on the authority of the Infantry Brigadier, who before taking action will satisfy himself that the people concerned were, owing to their proximity to the outrage or their known political tendencies, implicated in the outrage, and will give specific instructions in writing, or by telegram to the officer detailed to carry out the operation.}}

===World War II===
{{anchor|Doctrine of belligerent reprisal}}
Bennett writes that the events of [[World War II]] can be seen through either the prism of [[negative reciprocity]] or the prism of reprisal. If the latter, "the rules also required that reprisals be used ‘only as an unavoidable last resort to induce the enemy to desist from illegitimate practices’".{{sfn|Bennett|2019|p=10}}

The official 1940 [[American Rules of Land Warfare]] stated that "commanding officers must assume responsibility for retaliative measures when an unscrupulous enemy leaves no other recourse against the repetition of barbarous outrages."{{sfn|Bennett|2019|p=10}}

Both Rogers and Bennett write that "[s]tate practice in the Second World War was characterised by, among other factors, the '''doctrine of belligerent reprisal'''."{{sfn|Bennett|2019|p=5}}{{sfn|Rogers|2012|p=17}}

===Post-1945===
After 1945, as a result of the general prohibition on use of force imposed by Article 2(4) of the [[United Nations Charter]], armed reprisals in time of peace are no longer legal, but the possibility remains of non-armed reprisals (also known as [[countermeasure]]s){{sfn|Brownlie|2008|p=466}} as well as belligerent reprisals during hostilities when the [[International humanitarian law|law of international armed conflict (LOIAC)]] is violated.{{sfn|Dinstein|2004|p=220}}

In the case of belligerent reprisals, apart from the three factors in the [[Naulila Incident|Naulila case]]:{{sfn|Dinstein|2004|p=220}}{{sfn|Bennett|2019|p=10}}
* a '''warning''' must also be issued beforehand;
* once the other party has stopped violation of LOIAC, belligerent reprisals must also be terminated;
* and the decision to engage in belligerent reprisals must be taken by a '''competent authority'''.

All four Geneva Conventions prohibit reprisals against, respectively, battlefield casualties, [[Shipwreck|shipwreck survivors]], [[Prisoner of war|prisoners of war]], and [[protected persons]] ([[civilian]] or [[military]]),<ref>{{Cite web |url=https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule146 |title=Customary IHL - Rule 146. Reprisals against Protected Persons |website=ihl-databases.icrc.org|access-date=2016-10-10}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web |url=http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/27-10/Ch8.htm |title=CHAPTER 8 - Remedies for Violation of International Law; War Crimes |website=ihl-databases.icrc.org |access-date=2016-10-10}}</ref> as well as certain buildings and property. The 1977 [[Protocol I|AP 1]] defines what is an "[[indiscriminate attack]]".{{sfn|Bennett|2019|p=19}}{{sfn|Hanke|1993|p=12}}