Under the law of war, which action is not prohibited by the principle of military necessity?

Enhance your knowledge with the PFE Distance Guide 26E5 Test. Master multiple-choice questions with hints and explanations to succeed in your exam.

Multiple Choice

Under the law of war, which action is not prohibited by the principle of military necessity?

Under the law of war, military necessity allows force that is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective and not excessive in relation to that objective, while still respecting protections for civilians and civilian objects, and adhering to distinction and proportionality. Destroying an enemy base that did not initiate an attack is not prohibited because a base can be a legitimate military objective if it contributes to the enemy’s ability to wage war. The fact that the base didn’t start the fighting doesn’t make its destruction illegitimate; what matters is whether its destruction would meaningfully further a military objective and be proportional to the anticipated military gain, with precautions to minimize civilian harm. Attacking a clearly marked medical facility is not allowed because medical facilities are protected objects and may only be attacked under very limited circumstances (e.g., if they are being used for military purposes and after safeguards fail), not simply because they’re marked. Destruction of cultural property is heavily restricted and generally prohibited unless strictly necessary to achieve a military objective and when no feasible alternatives exist. Targeting a combatant who is actively firing aligns with the principle of military necessity, as engaging armed opponents who are actively participating in hostilities is permissible.

Under the law of war, military necessity allows force that is necessary to achieve a legitimate military objective and not excessive in relation to that objective, while still respecting protections for civilians and civilian objects, and adhering to distinction and proportionality.

Destroying an enemy base that did not initiate an attack is not prohibited because a base can be a legitimate military objective if it contributes to the enemy’s ability to wage war. The fact that the base didn’t start the fighting doesn’t make its destruction illegitimate; what matters is whether its destruction would meaningfully further a military objective and be proportional to the anticipated military gain, with precautions to minimize civilian harm.

Attacking a clearly marked medical facility is not allowed because medical facilities are protected objects and may only be attacked under very limited circumstances (e.g., if they are being used for military purposes and after safeguards fail), not simply because they’re marked. Destruction of cultural property is heavily restricted and generally prohibited unless strictly necessary to achieve a military objective and when no feasible alternatives exist. Targeting a combatant who is actively firing aligns with the principle of military necessity, as engaging armed opponents who are actively participating in hostilities is permissible.

More practice questions