Session 8: Applying IHL’s Fundamental Principles II: Civilian Status, Lawful Targets Flashcards
How (four different ways) can objects qualify as military objectives?
Article 52(2) mentions ‘nature, location, purpose or use’ as determinative factors in ascertaining whether something can be a lawful military objective
Are combatants military objectives under AP1 art. 52?
Combatants are considered lawful military targets although not explicitly mentioned
Which two of the fundamental principles of IHL play the biggest role in relation to military objectives and targeting?
Proportionality and distinction (The use of force during armed conflicts must be proportionate to the military objective pursued, in order to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects)
AP1 Art. 51 (4): (Indiscriminate attacks)
- Attacks that are not directed at a specific military objective (e.g. Carpet bombing or blind fire)
- Attacks using a weapon which cannot be directed or the effects of which cannot be directed at a specific military objective (The prohibition of indiscriminate weapons/weapons with indiscriminate effects (e.g. Biological weapons, unguided cluster munitions)
- Attacks which treats as a single military objective a number of clearly separated and distinct military objectives located in a city, town, village or other area containing a similar concentration of civilians or civilian objects
- Attacks which are expected to result in excessive collateral damage
What is the relationship between the general distinction requirements in AP1 art. 51 and 52 and the rules on precautions in attack in AP 1 art. 57?
AP 1 51: Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited
AP 1, 52: attacks are to be limited to strictly military objects, determined by either their nature, location, purpose or use + attack must offer military advantage
AP 1, 57: states must do everything feasible to verify that the objectives to be attacked are not civilians or civilians objects. Also, the damage to civilains and civilian objects must not be excessive.
Which restrictions does art. 57 pose on the choice of weapons for a particular attack?
Precision to guarantee as limited damage to civilians as possible
What are the relevant legal steps/questions to ask in the assessment of whether a particular attack can be carried out lawfully?
- Verification of targets
- Mitigation of collateral damage through choice of weapons, methods and Targets
- Warnings if may affect the civilian population (military necessity sometimes requires that the rule be flouted if compliance would result in annihilating – or at least seriously compromising – the military operation’s chances of success)
- Cancellation or suspension of attacks due to changed circumstances
Is Amnesty International right in asserting that Ukraine is violating precautionary rules by launching attacks from populated areas? What would be a sound counterargument for Ukraine?
Which fundamental IHL principle and specific rule is particularly relevant when discussing the legality of attacking so-called dual-use objects? What is the correct classification of a dual-use objects?
If an object qualifies as a military objective it is a military objective regardless of its civilian use.
The proportionality assessment will determine whether the civilian use renders an attack on the object unlawful!.
Can power general (other than nuclear) power facilities constitute a military objective? Can qar sustaining efforts qualify as military objectives – why/why not? Do state opinions differ on this matter and what do you think is the better approach?
What is the legal basis for the prohibition of launching attacks against nuclear facilities? Can more than one provision serve as legal basis for such a prohibition? Are we dealing with (an) absolute prohibition(s)? Is there room to argue that the Russian attacks against nuclear power plant Zaporizhzhia may not be prohibited by IHL? What would the main argument be?
