{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.015248796147672551, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.461139896373057, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Need for Unified Understanding of ‘Military Objective’ in the Context of Human Shields and Passive Precautions Concepts

Summary Belligerent party being the target of military operations is under obligation to protect civilian population under its control by taking passive precautions and avoid using human shields. Prima facie such obligation is bound to the concept of “military objective”, since non-military objectives are already “immune” from targeting. However, such approach does not take into account the fact that the states have not been able to agree upon unified interpretation of the military objective. It seems counterproductive to limit the obligations to protect civilians only to military objectives. Furthermore, the law does not necessarily support such approach. While the Additional Protocol I speaks of military objectives in the passive precautions, it also includes an overall clause to protect civilians, and the specific references to military objectives should be taken as examples instead of limiting the overall obligations to protect civilians. There is no real reason to tie the obligations to protect civilians to military objectives and allow targeted party into neglecting its duties to protect civilians.