{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.020741671904462602, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0006285355122564425, 'mean_word_length': 5.578512396694215, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
What is the distinction?

Chapter 2 introduces, but does not resolve, the conundrum of what the idea of distinction is that is circulating in international practices and how it relates to the IHL targeting rule. The main point conveyed is that distinction in the conduct of hostilities sense is in play, but that it is being deployed in ways we might not expect. Actors routinely move the line to assert intra-civilian distinctions, and collapse IHL’s principle of distinction together with other values, ideas and principles to compose the ‘distinction vernacular’. The muddling of distinction is easier to observe in the training spaces than in South Sudan, as conversations about IHL are more explicit in the former. Trainees can be found struggling to locate a civilian–combatant binary in the conduct of hostilities sense, and they extend this fuzzy treatment to their categorization of humanitarian actors. The chapter also outlines the comprehensive ethos that guides contemporary international missions, explaining how the ‘working together’ mentality shapes international interventions. From the perspective of international humanitarian actors, international military and peacekeeping actors are encroaching upon them and blurring the lines. The discussion of the Intellectual realm examines the status of the main actors, canvasses civil-military guidance documents, and considers high-level pronouncements about distinction. Attention is drawn to slippage between a civilian–combatant distinction and other fault lines, as distinction’s haziness prevails at this normative level.