5cjxburmr

shield military objectives from attack; or (3) otherwise to shield or favor one’s own militaryoperations or to impede the adversary’s military operations.5.16.1 Protected Persons and Objects. In particular, the civilian population, 393 protectedpersons under the GC, 394 POWs, 395 fixed medical establishments and medical units,parlementaires and other persons protected by a flag of truce, 396 and cultural property areprotected persons and objects that may not be used for the above purposes.Although persons and objects that are protected by the law of war may not be used inthese ways, this rule does not prohibit a party from using what would otherwise be a civilianobject for military purposes and thereby converting it to a military objective that is not protectedby the law of war. For example, a building that previously was a civilian object could be usedfor military purposes (including as cover) and would not implicate this rule because it would nolonger be a protected object. Similarly, this rule does not prohibit persons who would otherwisebe civilians from participating in hostilities or assuming the risks inherent in supporting militaryoperations. Incidental harm to those individuals would be understood not to prohibit attacksunder the proportionality rule, and thus would not implicate this rule. 3975.16.2 Intent to Endanger Protected Persons or Objects to Deter Enemy MilitaryOperations. The essence of this rule is to refrain from deliberately endangering protectedpersons or objects for the purpose of deterring enemy military operations. 398 This absolute duty392 Cf. 10 U.S.C. § 950t (“(10) USING PROTECTED PROPERTY AS A SHIELD.—Any person subject to this chapter whopositions, or otherwise takes advantage of the location of, protected property with the intent to shield a militaryobjective from attack, or to shield, favor, or impede military operations, shall be punished as a military commissionunder this chapter may direct.”); 10 U.S.C. § 950p(a)(3) (“The term ‘protected property’ means any propertyspecifically protected by the law of war, including buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science, orcharitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals, and places where the sick and wounded are collected, but only ifand to the extent such property is not being used for military purposes or is not otherwise a military objective. Theterm includes objects properly identified by one of the distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions, but does notinclude civilian property that is a military objective.”).393 Consider AP I 51(7) (“The presence or movements of the civilian population or individual civilians shall not beused to render certain points or areas immune from military operations, in particular in attempts to shield militaryobjectives from attacks or to shield, favour or impede military operations. The Parties to the conflict shall not directthe movement of the civilian population or individual civilians in order to attempt to shield military objectives fromattacks or to shield military operations.”).394 GC art. 28 (“The presence of a protected person may not be used to render certain points or areas immune frommilitary operations.”).395 Refer to § 9.5.2.3 (No Exposure to a Combat Zone or Use as a Human Shield).396 Refer to § 12.4.2.1 (Prohibition on Improper Use of the Flag of Truce).397 Compare § 5.12.3.2 (Harm to Certain Individuals Who May Be Employed In or On Military Objectives).398 BOTHE, PARTSCH & SOLF, NEW RULES 316 (AP I art. 51, 2.8.2) (“The mandatory provisions of para. 7 areintended to prohibit any deliberate use of the physical presence or physical movement of civilians for the purpose ofshielding or favouring friendly military operations against enemy action or to impede enemy military operations. …In practice this means that in some close cases the location of a military objective in the midst of a populated townmay violate para. 7 if the purpose of the location is to shield the military unit or facility from attack. On the otherhand, the same act could be innocent if it were militarily necessary to so situate the unit or facility. Thus thesubjective intent of military commander is the controlling element in determining whether there has been a breach ofpara. 7, a negligent failure to take the precautions urged by Art. 58, or a legitimate act of war.”).259