Week 4
As a Russian infantry unit from its regular armed forces successfully takes land in eastern Ukraine, in its push to Kyiv, a military commander realizes he needs more transport vehicles as many of his have broken down or become disabled in the exchanges of fire. This unit comes across an undefended Ukrainian town, and the military commander orders his men to seize as many civilian cars as the unit needs. To ensure this seizure complies with international humanitarian law, he must also order that what occur?
A. The commander must order that his unit seek permission from each cars’ owner because the supply of each car must be voluntary, given the civilian nature of each vehicle.
B. The commander must order that compensation be paid for each vehicle, and this must be accomplished before each taking.
C. The commander must order that compensation be paid for each vehicle, and if this isn’t possible, receipts left for later compensation.
D. The commander doesn’t have to order anything else because this is war and bad things happen.
What is: The commander must order that compensation be paid for each vehicle, and if this isn’t possible, receipts left for later compensation.
A Ukrainian F-16 has is given a target list of five separate targets in Russian-occupied Ukrainian territory that she’s told are various Russian weapons depots, As she comes in for a bombing run of the first target, she sees three small children run into the house, whose coordinates indicate is the target she is supposed to strike. She had been told that there were no civilians in the area. She must:
A. Abort the strike and report the new information to her command chain.
B. Continue with the strike because picking targets is above her pay grade.
C. Continue with the strike because the commander who approved the strike package should have already had that information about civilians in the vicinity.
D. Drop a bomb near the house to see if that will act like a warning to get the children to leave, and if they don’t, continue with the strike.
E. A and D.
What is: Abort the strike and report the new information to her command chain.
You are a legal advisor for the Ukrainian Chief of Staff (military top commander). She asks you to conduct a legal review of a new weapons system. As you start reading the design and plans for this new rocket, you realize that in addition to blowing people and things up, it is designed to deposit COVID 23 (a new, highly contagious coronavirus) in the ground, with effects lasting up to two years. Your legal analysis will recommend that:
A. This weapons system is lawful because as long as employed only against combatants.
B. This weapons system is lawful because it disables people first.
C. This weapons system is unlawful because it is calculated to cause unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury.
D. This weapons system is unlawful because it is cruel to inflict COVID on anyone.
What is: This weapons system is unlawful because it is calculated to cause unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury.
In the beginning of the U.S. v Iraq war (international armed conflict), an Iraqi non-commissioned officer (Iraqi soldier), dressed in civilian clothes while driving a yellow Iraqi taxi cab and posing as a taxi driver, detonated a car bomb that killed him and four U.S. soldiers who were in the car with him. The Iraqi soldier is later captured by the U.S. military and prosecuted in a military commission for the war crime of perfidious killing (perfidy). Upon appeal, his conviction will be:
A. Upheld, because his actions invited the confidence of the U.S. soldiers that he was a protected person, that is, a civilian, and he engaged in killing while so acting.
B. Upheld, because combatants are never allowed to use ruses in armed conflict to trick the enemy.
C. Overturned, because he was engaged in a lawful ruse and killed only combatants.
D. Overturned, because taxi drivers are specially protected persons, like medics and can engage in offensive action against the enemy.
What is: Upheld, because his actions invited the confidence of the U.S. soldiers that he was a protected person, that is, a civilian, and he engaged in killing while so acting.
In the current Russian IAC against Ukraine, a Ukrainian grandmother in her village in eastern Ukraine decides to join an organized armed Ukrainian resistance group that fights Russian military using guerilla tactics (that is, without wearing uniforms or carrying arms openly). As a member of this group, she usually is their cook and travels with small units of this resistance group; she also occasionally uses her old Soviet-era AK47 assault rifle to take shots at Russian soldiers. A Russian soldier, having assessed intelligence and determined she is a member of the resistance group, sends an armed drone over her outdoor kitchen and kills her as she is cooking. The Ukrainians prosecute this Russian soldier after they’ve captured him, claiming he committed a war crime by killing this civilian. The soldier’s best argument in his defense is:
A. He has combatant immunity as a member of the regular Russian armed forces for lawful acts of combatancy, and since she was directly participating in hostilities at the time she was killed, his actions were in compliance with IHL.
B. He has combatant immunity as a member of the regular Russian armed forces for lawful acts of combatancy, and since she was an unprivileged belligerent, she was a lawful target based on that status and could be killed as long as not hors de combat.
C. Despite not having combatant immunity given that Russia is fighting an illegal war of aggression in violation of the jus ad bellum, the soldier could target her because she was directly participating in hostilities at the time.
D. Despite not having combatant immunity given that Russia is fighting an illegal war of aggression in violation of the jus ad bellum, the soldier could target her because of her unprivileged status.
What is: He has combatant immunity as a member of the regular Russian armed forces for lawful acts of combatancy, and since she was an unprivileged belligerent, she was a lawful target based on that status and could be killed as long as not hors de combat.
A Ukrainian F-16 is flying close air patrol for a Ukrainian infantry battalion. She sees civilian trucks carrying Russian flat-bed missiles to the Russian front lines. Her intelligence assets, getting data from a drone that flew by these trucks, confirms these are driven by civilians. She attacks the civilian trucks, blowing up all five. The drivers were:
A. Lawful targets given their direct participation in hostilities.
B. Lawful incidental damage given the anticipated military advantage to be gained from the attack.
C. Unlawful targets because they were civilians, and were not fighting or otherwise directly participating in hostilities.
D. A and B.
What is: Lawful targets given their direct participation in hostilities AND Lawful incidental damage given the anticipated military advantage to be gained from the attack. [Options A & B]. (precise because frontlines)
You are a legal advisor for the Ukrainian Air Force commander of the Ukrainian armed drone squadron. The Ukrainians have decided to start taking the fight to Russians on Russian territory, and this commander has a targeting list in front of her. She has four targets in Moscow circled which she’s unsure of the legality of targeting. One of which is a munitions (arms) plant. Over 250 civilians work there, and will all be killed if the plant is bombed. While it is an important target, there is intelligence that the munitions it makes are barely making a difference to the Russian efforts, given that much better munitions are being sent by Iran and Russia is using them to a much greater degree. Hence this commander believes this strike is indiscriminate because it violates proportionality. One of the other legal advisors argues that since the civilian workers in the plant are all directly participating in hostilities, their deaths shouldn’t factor into the proportionality analysis, and therefore the strike is discriminate because no protected civilians will be killed. Commander wants to know if this other legal advisor is correct. You answer that he is:
A. Not correct, as these civilians are not DPHing.
B. Correct, these civilians are DPHing hence unprotected from attack.
What is: Not correct, as these civilians are not DPHing.
A Russian warship is disguised as an enemy warship, hence flying the colors of Ukraine with corresponding Ukrainian markers and a Ukrainian name. It is therefore able to pull up right next to a Ukrainian Navy small frigate; immediately before shooting at this small frigate (military naval vessel), the Russian warship raises its Russian flag and takes down the Ukrainian one it had been flying, and then commences to attack the Ukrainian small frigate.
A. This was a war crime of perfidy.
B. This was a lawful act under the special rules governing naval warfare.
C. This was a lawful act under the special rules of missile warfare.
D. None of the above.
What is: This was a lawful act under the special rules governing naval warfare.
A Ukrainian helicopter has been swooping down over a Russian infantry unit who is battling Ukrainian soldiers stretched out over a mile of fighting along the edge of a large forest. The gunner on the helicopter spots some Russian soldiers fleeing the battle by running into the forest, and the helicopter gunner shoots them all in the back as they run away. The helicopter continues along the battle line, and then turns back around to this area to see if there were any other fleeing Russian soldiers. Once there, the gunner sees several wounded Russians lying on the ground, moaning and turning their heads but otherwise not moving and seemingly unable to move. He decides to shoot them again to ensure they will never rejoin the fight. The helicopter’s camera catches this incident on film, and higher headquarters views it later, and it gets leaked to the press. The international community’s reaction to this will most likely:
A. Support of Ukraine as this is an illegal war instigated by Russia.
B. Condemnation of this killing of persons who are hors de combat (war crime).
C. Support because enemy soldiers are always lawful targets until they’ve surrendered or been captured.
D. None of the above.
What is: Condemnation of this killing of persons who are hors de combat (war crime).
A United Airlines flight from Moscow to Minsk (capital of Belarus) is listed as a civilian flight, but is actually carrying a large number of Russian troops to position them for fighting in Ukraine. Can Ukrainian forces lawfully target and shoot down this aircraft?
A. No, because the plane is a civilian object.
B. Yes, because by its current use, it is contributing to effective military action and its destruction will offer a definite military advantage.
C. Yes, because the number of civilians who will also be killed in successfully targeting the plane are not excessive compared to anticipated military advantage.
D. Both B & C.
What is: Yes, because by its current use, it is contributing to effective military action and its destruction will offer a definite military advantage. AND. Yes, because the number of civilians who will also be killed in successfully targeting the plane are not excessive compared to anticipated military advantage. [Options B & C].
You are a legal advisor for a Russian military commander who is frustrated with the stalemate he is confronting as he tries to take the Ukrainian city of Pirrt. He asks you if it’s ok to attach bombs to bats and release the bats near the city at night. You answer:
A. Great, very creative!
B. Creative, but unlawful because will cause superfluous injury.
C. Creative, but unlawful because this is a means of warfare that is indiscriminate.
D. Yes, but he can do this but only if the city is given warning first.
What is: Creative, but unlawful because this is a means of warfare that is indiscriminate.
If a Russian submarine torpedoes and sinks an enemy Ukrainian navy warship in the Black Sea during the current international armed conflict between those two States, the Russian submarine commander may forgo active search and collection of the wounded sailors floating in the water if the submarine commander reasonably determines that:
A. She does not like Ukrainians and prefers these combatants drown.
B. That it is not feasible to search and collect the shipwrecked enemy sailors because it will expose the submarine to undue additional hazard.
C. That it is not feasible to search and collect the shipwrecked enemy sailors because it will expose the submarine to undue additional hazard.
D. Both B &C.
What is: That it is not feasible to search and collect the shipwrecked enemy sailors because it will expose the submarine to undue additional hazard. OR That it is not feasible to search and collect the shipwrecked enemy sailors because it will expose the submarine to undue additional hazard. [Options B & C]
A Russian infantry platoon has started to break through Ukrainian lines and is clearing Ukrainian military installations to destroy them or take them over. In the chaos, the platoon commander sees two Ukrainians in military uniform running away while pushing a gurney with someone on it; the two uniformed personnel have white arm bands on their left arms with a red cross on. While the Russian soldiers are shooting at the other fleeing Ukrainian soldiers, the Russian platoon commander tells his unit to stop firing in the direction of those wearing the armbands, and specifically not to target them. This Russian commander:
A. Does this only out of a sense of compassion for the retreating medical personnel.
B. Does this because he is legally obligated to ensure that his soldiers do not target the properly identified military medical personnel.
C. Does this because he is legally obligated to ensure that his soldiers do not target the victim on the stretcher (as he or she was hors de combat).
D. None of the above.
E. B & C.
What is: Does this because he is legally obligated to ensure that his soldiers do not target the properly identified military medical personnel, and to ensure that his soldiers do not target the victim on the stretcher (as he or she was hors de combat). [Option B & C].
A Russian infantry commander is analyzing what bombs to drop on a Ukrainian military weapons depot. If she uses regular ordinance, the damage to nearby civilian structures will be extensive, though she reasonably assesses that such forecasted damage is not excessive compared to the anticipated direct military advantage to be gained by this attack. However, she does have one precision weapon system, but only has supporting parts for it to be used once; if she uses it, the civilian harm will be less.
Does this commander have to utilize the weapons systems that will produce less civilian harm, hence the precision weapon?
A. No, because commanders can ignore civilians in armed conflict.
B. Yes, because this is an obligation flowing from the “take constant care” requirement found in API and customary international law.
C. No, because commanders only have to take all feasible precautions, and feasibility includes preserving combat power.
D. Yes, because if the commander knows civilian harm will result in an attack, the attack is therefore considered “indiscriminate” and is therefore unlawful.
What is: No, because commanders only have to take all feasible precautions, and feasibility includes preserving combat power.
After an intense battle between Ukrainian and Russian soldiers, the Russians have secured the area after the surviving Ukrainians retreated.The Russian medics are searching for and collecting the wounded, and Russian soldiers are taking prisoners. One wounded Ukrainian is pretending to be unconscious, and when a Russian medic gets to him, leaps up and throws a hand grenade at some of the Russian soldiers, killing five. He is severely wounded in the explosion but survives. His action should be considered:
A. Lawful combatancy and hence protected by combatant immunity.
B. Perfidy and hence a war crime.
C. A lawful ruse of war.
D. None of the above.
What is: Perfidy and hence a war crime.
Russian Air Force Colonel Joe Stalin knows that the men under his command in his elite hypersonic missile unit are occasionally and purposefully targeting occupied civilian apartment buildings in Kyiv, despite having no intelligence that these are used for any military purposes. In fact, his men have bragged about how many apartments they each have destroyed, making it a contest amongst themselves. General Stalin does nothing to stop this practice. If captured and prosecuted, he should be found guilty of:
A. The war crimes his men are committing, such as indiscriminate attack, because he knew about them yet did nothing to stop these unlawful attacks.
B. Dereliction of duty for not stopping the war crimes his men are committing, but not found guilty of the unlawful attacks themselves because he did not order them, encourage them nor assist them.
C. The crime of aggression.
D. Arson and murder.
What is: The war crimes his men are committing, such as indiscriminate attack, because he knew about them yet did nothing to stop these unlawful attacks.
A Ukrainian soldier has a shoulder-mounted surface to air missile launcher, and takes aim at a Russian military fighter jet streaking overhead. Amazingly, using this shoulder-fired missile, she hits the Russian MIG fighter jet. She sees two airmen parachuting out of the disabled airplane before it goes down in flames. She then radios to her platoon’s gunnery element that the unit’s artillery element should target and eliminate these parachuting airmen. She is:
A. About to commit a war crime because these are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, AP I and customary international law.
B. About to commit a war crime because she never should have targeted an aircraft without attempting to provide a warning first.
C. About to commit a national act of bravery for which she should be given a medal.
D. About to commit a lawful act of combatancy, for which she is protected from prosecution by combatant immunity given that she is a member of the regular armed forces.
What is: About to commit a war crime because these are protected persons under the Geneva Conventions, AP I and customary international law.
A Ukrainian military commander is analyzing what bombs to drop on a Russian military installation. She is specifically planning an attack on the barracks in order to target Russian military members. After assessing that there are no civilians nor civilian objects within the military installation, the commander is weighing one attack plan that will severely disable almost all the military personnel in the barracks and only kill a few, against another that will kill every military member in the barracks and indeed on the entire Russian military installation. When asked about the legality of the two options, as her military legal advisor, you reply:
A. They are equally permissible under international humanitarian law.
B. The first attack plan should should be given legal priority as the least destructive means, in terms of loss of life, that achieve the commander’s goals should always be utilized first.
C. The second attack plan should be given legal priority, because all military members are combatants and should all be killed as lawful targets in an armed conflict.
D. The first should be given legal priority because it kills less people, whether combatants or not, in accordance with the principle of humanity.
What is: They are equally permissible under international humanitarian law.
A U.S. military Air Force commander is analyzing a targeting plan in its international armed conflict against Canada. He notes that the one of the targets, a Canadian military training center for new recruits, in Ottawa, is surrounded by civilian apartment buildings. He asks his planner if they can use more precise weapons to mitigate (lessen) the damage the blasts targeting the training center will cause to the apartment buildings. His planner says yes, and the commander approves the plan using those precision weapons, given they have them in plentiful supply and they are expected to cause much less civilian damage while producing the effect the commander wants (to destroy the training center). However, when the pilots target the center, they decide they want to use their bigger and less precise bombs because they were slightly easier to drop, despite that they will cause much greater civilian harm. Are the pilots required by IHL to use the precision weapons?
A. No, because military feasibility is whatever the military members dropping the bombs decide .
B. Yes, because as part of IHL’s constant care obligation, the U.S. pilots should be using all feasible measures to cause less civilian harm, and the commander had reasonably decided that the precision weapons were feasible.
C. No, because ease of delivery is a valid factor when determining feasibility..
D. Yes, because the attack plan (and weapons used) that will cause the least amount of civilian harm should always be given precedence over all other alternatives.
What is: Yes, because as part of IHL's constant care obligation, the U.S. pilots should be using all feasible measures to cause less civilian harm, and the commander had reasonably decided that the precision weapons were feasible.
You are a Ukrainian soldier is on patrol with your infantry platoon. After capturing a Russian soldier who was running away from his unit, your platoon commander interrogates him. At the end of questioning, your platoon commander turns to you and orders you to ”get rid of him and ensure the body is not found.” This order is:
A. An awful one, but military orders are presumed lawful and hence you must follow it.
B. Not super unusual in war, in which detainees often are often abused and worse, particularly at point of capture.
C. A manifestly unlawful one, and you have a legal duty to disobey it.
D. Both B & C.
What is: Not super unusual in war, in which detainees often are often abused and worse, particularly at point of capture; a manifestly unlawful one, and you have a legal duty to disobey it. [Option B & C].