Acts amounting to direct participation in hostilities must meet 3 requirements: (1) a threshold regarding the harm likely to result from the act, (2) a relationship of direct causation between the act and the expected harm, and (3) a belligerent nexus between the act and the hostilities conducted between the parties to an armed conflict.
This applies also to the management and uses of technology. Including servers. Including cyberattacks/operations. Such civilians become unlawful combatants.
How should I interpret direct causation? If I use my intuitive understanding, I would conclude that setting up an automated observation post does not satisfy the wording, which would surprise me.
@robryk this example does satisfy the wording. It may directly contribute to military operations.
@LukaszOlejnik is there a description of what direct means somewhere? I don't see a very clear line that makes this direct and e.g. ensuring delivery of tap water to a military base not direct.
