attacks against objects
131
Handbook replaces the phrase ‘military action’ with ‘war-fighting or warsustaining capability’,90 explaining ‘economic objects of the enemy that indirectly but effectively support and sustain the enemy’s war-fighting capability may also be attacked’.91 Advocates of this approach would, as an illustration, argue that it is lawful to launch cyber attacks against the enemy State’s oil export industry if the war effort depended on the revenue from oil sales. The majority of the International Group of Experts rejected this position on the ground that the connection between war-sustaining activities and military action was too remote. They would limit the notion of military objective to those objects that are war-fighting (used in combat) or war-supporting (otherwise making an effective contribution to military action, as with factories producing hardware or software for use by the military) and that otherwise fulfil the criteria of a military objective as defined above. 17. ‘Military advantage’ refers to that advantage accruing from an attack. Such advantage must be assessed by reference to the attack considered as a whole and not only from isolated or particular parts of an attack.92 For instance, cyber attacks may be conducted against a military objective far from a location where a related major operation is about to be mounted in order to deceive the enemy as to the actual location of the pending operation. In itself, the military value of the cyber attack is insignificant since the operations are planned to occur elsewhere. However, the success of the ruse may determine the success of the overall operation. In this case, the military advantage is that anticipated from the operation as a whole, of which the ruse is a part. This point is also crucial with regard to the application of the principle of proportionality and the requirement to take precautions in attack (Rules 51 to 58). It must be cautioned that the notion of ‘attack considered as a whole’ refers to a specific operation or series of related operations, not the entire war. 18. The term ‘military advantage’ is meant to exclude advantage that is not military in nature. In particular, it would exclude advantage that is exclusively economic, political, or psychological. Thus, for instance, a
90 91
92
US Commander’s Handbook, para. 8.2. US Commander’s Handbook, para. 8.2.5. See also AMW Manual, commentary accompanying Rule 24. UK Manual, para. 5.4.4(j); UK Additional Protocol Ratification Statement, para. (i); German Manual, para. 444; ICRC Customary IHL Study, commentary accompanying Rule 14.