Practice question
A reviewer concludes that a proposed action serves a genuine military purpose. Another reviewer identifies an applicable express prohibition and notes that it contains no necessity exception covering the facts. The first reviewer argues that usefulness always prevails. Which conclusion follows?
- Any useful measure is lawful.
- The first reviewer can amend the treaty informally.
- The prohibition remains; a genuine purpose alone does not create a missing necessity exception.
- The prohibition applies only after defeat.
- Both sides must agree before an express prohibition has any force.
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.