5cjxburmr

casualties by taking additional precautions even when such measures are not required by the lawof war. Similarly, there are cases in which, for military or policy reasons, an attack is notconducted, even though the attack would be legally permissible. 5Although the law of war creates international obligations regarding the conduct ofhostilities that apply to the parties to a conflict, responsibility for implementing certaininternational obligations would only apply to those persons belonging to the party’s forces withthe domestic authority to make the decisions necessary to implement those obligations. 6 Forexample, a pilot would be entitled to rely on the determination by headquarters that a giventarget is, in fact, a military objective. 75.2 PRINCIPLES FOR THE CONDUCT OF HOSTILITIESThe principles that provide the foundation for the law of war are discussed in Chapter II,and these principles apply to the conduct of hostilities. As noted in Chapter II, specific rules onthe conduct of hostilities are derived from, and must be interpreted consistent with, the basicprinciples that underlie the law of war. 8 Moreover, where no specific rule applies, law of warprinciples provide a general guide for conduct during war, including the conduct of hostilities. 95.3 OVERVIEW OF RULES FOR THE PROTECTION OF CIVILIANSThe protection of civilians 10 against the harmful effects of hostilities is one of the mainpurposes of the law of war. 11 Many of the rules for the protection of civilians are derived fromthe principles of distinction and proportionality. 12 Specific rules for the protection of civilians5 For example, FINAL REPORT ON THE PERSIAN GULF WAR 615 (“Similar actions were taken by the Government ofIraq to use cultural property to protect legitimate targets from attack; a classic example was the positioning of twofighter aircraft adjacent to the ancient temple of Ur (as depicted in the photograph in Volume II, Chapter VI, ‘OffLimits Targets’ section) on the theory that Coalition respect for the protection of cultural property would precludethe attack of those aircraft. While the law of war permits the attack of the two fighter aircraft, with Iraq bearingresponsibility for any damage to the temple, Commander-in-Chief, Central Command (CINCCENT) elected not toattack the aircraft on the basis of respect for cultural property and the belief that positioning of the aircraft adjacentto Ur (without servicing equipment or a runway nearby) effectively had placed each out of action, thereby limitingthe value of their destruction by Coalition air forces when weighed against the risk of damage to the temple. Othercultural property similarly remained on the Coalition no-attack list, despite Iraqi placement of valuable militaryequipment in or near those sites.”).6 Cf. United Kingdom, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Jan. 28, 1998, 2020 UNTS 75, 78 (“The United Kingdomunderstands that the obligation to comply with [art. 57] paragraph 2(b) only extends to those who have the authorityand practical possibility to cancel or suspend the attack.”).7 ICTY, Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee Established to Review the NATO Bombing CampaignAgainst the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 84 (Jun. 13, 2000) (“The building hit was clearly a civilian object andnot a legitimate military objective. … It is the opinion of the committee that the aircrew involved in the attackshould not be assigned any responsibility for the fact they were given the wrong target … .”).8 Refer to § 2.1.2.1 (Law of War Principles as an Aid in Interpreting and Applying Law of War Rules).9 Refer to § 2.1.2.2 (Law of War Principles as a General Guide).10 Refer to § 4.8.1.5 (General Usage of “Civilian” in This Manual).11 Refer to § 1.3.4 (Purposes of the Law of War).12 Refer to § 2.5 (Distinction); § 2.4 (Proportionality).185