5cjxburmr

contribution to the enemy’s military action, even though they are not being used at that momentfor such purposes.5.7.6.2 Make an Effective Contribution to Military Action. The object must makeor be intended to make an effective contribution to military action; however, this contributionneed not be “direct” or “proximate.” 159 For example, an object might make an effective, butremote, contribution to the enemy’s military action and nonetheless meet this aspect of thedefinition. Similarly, an object might be geographically distant from most of the fighting andnonetheless satisfy this element.Military action has a broad meaning and is understood to mean the general prosecution ofthe war. 160 It is not necessary that the object provide immediate tactical or operational gains orthat the object make an effective contribution to a specific military operation. Rather, theobject’s effective contribution to the war-fighting or war-sustaining capability of an opposingforce is sufficient. 161 Although terms such as “war-fighting,” “war-supporting,” and “warsustaining”are not explicitly reflected in the treaty definitions of military objective, the UnitedStates has interpreted the military objective definition to include these concepts. 1625.7.7 Whose Total or Partial Destruction, Capture, or Neutralization, in theCircumstances Ruling at the Time, Offers a Definite Military Advantage. In addition to makingan effective contribution to the adversary’s military action, the attack of the object must also, inthe circumstances ruling at the time, offer a definite military advantage for the object to beconsidered a “military objective.”159 Cf. BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 324 (AP I art. 52, 2.4.3) (noting that “[m]ilitary objectives mustmake an ‘effective contribution to military action’ … does not require a direct connection with combat operations”and that “a civilian object may become a military objective and thereby lose its immunity from deliberate attackthrough use which is only indirectly related to combat action, but which nevertheless provides an effectivecontribution to the military phase of a Party’s overall war effort.”).160 ROGERS, LAW ON THE BATTLEFIELD 36 (“The term military action appears to have a wide meaning equating tothe general prosecution of the war.”).161 See APPENDIX TO 1985 CJCS MEMO ON AP I 51 (“Under this definition [of military objective in AP I], an area ofland could, for example, be a military objective, as could political and economic activities that support the enemy’swar effort.”); BOTHE, PARTSCH, & SOLF, NEW RULES 324 (AP I art. 52, 2.4.2) (noting that military objectives mayinclude “activities providing administrative and logistical support to military operations such as transportation andcommunications systems, railroads, airfields and port facilities and industries of fundamental importance for theconduct of the armed conflict.”). Cf. 10 U.S.C. § 950p(a)(1) (“The term ‘military objective’ means … those objectsduring hostilities which, by their nature, location, purpose, or use, effectively contribute to the war-fighting or warsustainingcapability of an opposing force.”) (emphasis added).162 See also W. Hays Parks, Asymmetries and the Identification of Legitimate Military Objectives, inINTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW FACING NEW CHALLENGES 100 (2007) (“War-sustaining and/or war-fightingreflect State practice. Historical evidence and the description of the target sets agreed upon by NATO governmentsin ALLIED FORCE support the idea that nations have, do, and will attack not only an enemy’s war-fightingcapability, but also his capacity to sustain the conflict.”); Horace B. Robertson, The Principle of the MilitaryObjective in the Law of Armed Conflict, 8 UNITED STATES AIR FORCE ACADEMY JOURNAL OF LEGAL STUDIES 35,50-51 (1997) (comparing the definition of military objective in the 1995 Commander’s Handbook on the Law ofNaval Operations to the definition of military objective in AP I).210