Practice question
An attack on a military objective is expected to cause incidental civilian harm excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. Under AP I, does the objective's military status alone make the attack permissible?
- No; the proportionality prohibition still applies.
- Yes; distinction always displaces proportionality.
- Yes; any advantage excuses excessive harm.
- Yes; incidental harm is never regulated.
- Yes; only the defender has duties.
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.