Practice question
A commander proposes destroying enemy property solely to punish its civilian owner, with no imperative military necessity. Under the stipulated application of Hague Article 23(g), can a general invocation of war justify the destruction?
- No; the stated necessity condition is absent.
- Yes; all enemy property may always be destroyed.
- Yes; punishment alone is imperative military necessity.
- Yes; ownership eliminates legal protection.
- Yes; a declaration of war suspends the provision.
Legal references
- Hague Regulations (1907), Article23: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/hague-conv-iv-1907/regulations-art-23
- Additional Protocol I, Article35: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-35
- Additional Protocol I (1977), Article51: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.