Practice question
An AP I-governed party argues that a military objective is important and an attack necessary. The stipulated assessment nevertheless shows expected incidental civilian harm excessive relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. The party claims necessity suspends proportionality. Which answer is sound?
- Proportionality applies only when no military purpose exists.
- Importance automatically abolishes the excessiveness limit.
- A necessity declaration makes civilian harm irrelevant.
- The proportionality prohibition remains applicable despite the claimed necessity.
- Only ownership of the objective matters.
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.