Abstract
The distinction between civilians and combatants is central to international humanitarian law. Yet are there distinctions among civilians that scholars of international law and international relations should consider? On the basis of US military documents and practices, we argue that in the recent conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan, a hierarchy of 'civilianness' (Sutton) emerged. This hierarchy was structured along three observable axes of differentiation: personal security, compensation for harm, and credibility. Civilians with foreign passports - in practice frequently humanitarian workers or journalists - enjoyed the highest level of security, credibility, and compensation (in case of harm). Ordinary local civilians without ties to Western institutions were the most marginalized in all dimensions: their testimonies were frequently dismissed by the US military, and their families received inadequate (if any) compensation for harm they suffered. The case studies revealed the existence of an 'in-between' group that shows the operations of institutional power: civilians who are local residents but transnational ties to Western institutions through employment or family are sometimes able to mobilize these ties for better recognition and compensation for harms they suffered from Western militaries. The article contributes to understanding how global hierarchies are refracted on the ground in asymmetrical armed conflicts.