Direct intention creates clear responsibility
Deliberately attacking civilians is morally different from causing unintended harm during an attack on a military target.
Foreseeable harm still matters
Lack of intent does not remove responsibility when civilian deaths were predictable and reasonable precautions were not taken.
Command decisions matter
Those who select targets, approve operations, design rules of engagement and supply intelligence may carry responsibility even when they are far from the battlefield.
The attacker and defender may both contribute
An attacker may choose a populated target, while a defender may place military assets among civilians. One side's misconduct does not automatically remove the other's duties.
Proportionality is not a numerical formula
Civilian harm must not be excessive in relation to the concrete military advantage expected. This judgement is difficult and can be manipulated by broad or speculative claims.
Political responsibility extends further
Leaders who begin unnecessary wars, reject credible peace options or conceal civilian harm may bear responsibility for consequences far beyond individual attacks.
Evidence notes
Relevant evidence includes target selection, available intelligence, expected civilian presence, precautions, weapons used, military advantage claimed, warnings issued and whether incidents were independently investigated.
Ethical questions
When does foreseeable civilian harm become morally unacceptable?
Can one side's use of human shields excuse the other side's attack?
Should political leaders be judged for the full civilian consequences of starting a war?
Conclusion
Responsibility for civilian deaths may be shared across individuals, commanders and governments. Intention matters, but so do foreseeability, precautions, proportionality and the original decision to create or continue the conflict.