Abstract
Recent conflicts have renewed the long-running debate over the legality of attacking economic objects under the law of armed conflict. Within that discourse, observers frequently frame the controversy in relation to an abstract U.S. “war-sustaining” position. Critics often characterize the United States as advancing a distinctive and overly permissive interpretation of military objectives that allegedly departs from the targeting criteria set forth in Article 52(2) of Additional Protocol I. This article challenges that characterization. It concludes that the United States does not apply a separate “war-sustaining” lex specialis to economic objects. Rather, U.S. practice reflects a contextual application of Article 52(2)’s two-pronged test using nuanced terminology that has been widely misunderstood. References to “war-sustaining” do not displace well-accepted targeting criteria but instead describe how an economic object’s relationship to military operations may be assessed in complex operational environments.
html
Included in
Accessibility Request
Some items in this repository were created or digitized prior to implementation of the accessibility standards under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and are preserved in their original, unmodified state for research, reference, or historical recordkeeping. In accordance with the ADA Title II Final Rule, the College provides accessible versions of archival materials upon request. To request a version of a file or resource, please submit an Accessible File Request Form.
