5cjxburmr

or executing military action must be made in good faith and based on their assessment of theinformation available to them at the time. 54 A large number of States have recognized thisprinciple. 55 This principle has also been reflected in the decisions of courts assessing individualresponsibility under the law of war, which have declined to second-guess military decisions withthe benefit of hindsight. 56The requirement that military commanders and other decision-makers make decisions ingood faith based on the information available to them recognizes that decisions may be madewhen information is imperfect or lacking, which will often be the case during armed conflict.54 See United States, Statement on Consent to Be Bound by CCW Protocol III on Incendiary Weapons, Jan. 21, 2009,2562 UNTS 36, 37 (“[A]ny decision by any military commander, military personnel, or any other person responsiblefor planning, authorizing or executing military action shall only be judged on the basis of that person’s assessmentof the information reasonably available to the person at the time the person planned, authorized, or executed theaction under review, and shall not be judged on the basis of information that comes to light after the action underreview was taken.”).55 See, e.g., Australia, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Jun. 21, 1991, 1642 UNTS 473 (“In relation to Articles 51to 58 inclusive it is the understanding of Australia that military commanders and others responsible for planning,deciding upon, or executing attacks, necessarily have to reach their decisions on the basis of their assessment of theinformation from all sources, which is available to them at the relevant time.”); Austria, Statement on Ratification ofAP I, Feb. 13, 1983, 1289 UNTS 303 (“Article 57, paragraph 2, of Protocol I shall be applied to the extent that, forany decision taken by a military commander, the information actually available at the time of the decision is thedetermining factor.”); Canada, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Nov. 20, 1990, 1591 UNTS 462, 464 (“It is theunderstanding of the Government of Canada that, in relation to Articles 48, 51 to 60 inclusive, 62 and 67, militarycommanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon or executing attacks have to reach decisions on thebasis of their assessment of the information reasonably available to them at the relevant time and that such decisionscannot be judged on the basis of information which has subsequently come to light.”); Italy, Statement onRatification of AP I, Feb. 27, 1986, 1425 UNTS 438, 439 (“In relation to Articles 51 to 58 inclusive, the ItalianGovernment understands that military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon or executingattacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from all sources whichis available to them at the relevant time.”); Netherlands, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Jun. 26, 1987, 1477UNTS 300 (“With regard to Articles 51 to 58 inclusive of Protocol I: It is the understanding of the Government ofthe Kingdom of the Netherlands that military commanders and others responsible for planning, deciding upon orexecuting attacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of their assessment of the information from allsources which is available to them at the relevant time;”); Spain, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Apr. 21, 1989,1537 UNTS 389, 392 (“It is understood that decisions by military authorities or others with legal powers to plan orcarry out attacks which might affect civilian personnel goods or other effects, necessarily shall not be made on anybasis other than that of relevant information available at the time in question and obtained for that purpose.”);Switzerland, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Feb. 17, 1982, 1271 UNTS 409 (“The provisions of article 57,paragraph 2, create obligations only for battalion or group commanders and higher-echelon commanders. Theinformation available to the commanders at the time of the decision shall be the determining factor.”); UnitedKingdom, Statement on Ratification of AP I, Jan. 28, 1998, 2020 UNTS 75, 76 (“Military commanders and othersresponsible for planning, deciding upon, or executing attacks necessarily have to reach decisions on the basis of theirassessment of the information from all sources which is reasonably available to them at the relevant time.”).56 United States v. List, et al. (The Hostage Case), XI TRIALS OF WAR CRIMINALS BEFORE THE NMT 1295-96 (“Itwas with this situation confronting him that he [the defendant, Rendulic] carried out the ‘scorched earth’ policy inthe Norwegian province of Finmark which provided the basis for this charge [of wanton destruction of property] ofthe indictment. … There is evidence in the record that there was no military necessity for this destruction anddevastation. An examination of the facts in restrospect can well sustain this conclusion. But we are obliged to judgethe situation as it appeared to the defendant at the time. If the facts were such as would justify the action by theexercise of judgment, after giving consideration to all the factors and existing possibilities, even though theconclusion reached may have been faulty, it cannot be said to be criminal.”).193