Practice question
A legal review applies the treaty proportionality standard before an attack. Later events produce an outcome different from what was reasonably expected. An investigator says the actual outcome alone conclusively proves what was anticipated and automatically establishes a war crime. Which answer is best?
- Every unexpected outcome proves criminal intent.
- The rule concerns expected harm and anticipated advantage; actual outcomes may be evidence but do not alone settle the prior assessment or all criminal elements.
- Actual harm can never be relevant evidence.
- No investigation is permitted if an officer approved the attack.
- Any civilian harm automatically proves disproportionate attack.
Legal references
- Additional Protocol I (1977), Article51: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-51
- Additional Protocol I (1977), Article57: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/en/ihl-treaties/api-1977/article-57
Answer this question in flashcards to review your response and continue practicing.