Practice question
An AP I-governed party accepts that a proposed method is of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, but says it would improve efficiency. Does efficiency alone remove Article 35(2)'s prohibition?
- Yes, because convenience is decisive.
- No; the prohibited character is not cured by a general efficiency claim.
- Yes, if no press is present.
- Yes, if the method has been used before.
- Yes, if the enemy also alleges necessity.
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.