Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule8_sectionh
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 09:05:17+00:00

Document:
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) includes among military objectives “areas of land which are of direct use to defending or attacking forces, eg land through which an adversary is likely to move its forces or which may be used as a forming up point preceding an attack”.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 527(h); see also § 916(b) (“areas of land which armed forces use or which have military significance such as hills and bridgeheads”).
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) provides as an example of military objectives “areas of land which are of direct use to defending or attacking forces, eg land through which an adversary is likely to move its forces or which may be used as a forming up point preceding an attack”.
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) considers “an area of land of tactical importance” as a military objective.
According to Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999), a “specific area of land may constitute a military objective”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 4-1, § 8.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 406.2.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 26.
According to Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992), military objectives include “tactically relevant points of terrain”.
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) includes “areas of land of tactical importance” among military objectives.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, Part I, § 1.2.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) states that “areas of land that would be useful to capture or deny to the enemy in order to achieve a military operation” are military objectives.
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) includes “areas of tactical importance” among military objectives.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states that military objectives include “areas of land of tactical importance”.
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands notes that the Government of the Netherlands has declared that “an area of land can constitute a military objective as long as it fulfils the conditions thereof”.
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “[t]he [Dutch] Government has also declared that a given piece of terrain may also form a military objective”.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0511.
An area of land may be a military objective, provided that the particular area offers a definite military advantage to the defending forces or those attacking. This would include a tract of land through which the adverse Party would be likely to move its forces, or an area the occupation of which would provide the occupant with the possibility of mounting a further attack.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 516(6); see also § 623(6).
The capture or preservation of a specific area of land constitutes a military objective when it meets all the requirements laid down in Article 52 of Additional Protocol I and it confers a concrete military advantage taking into account the circumstances ruling at the time.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 4.4.d; see also § 2.3.b.(1).
Taking or holding a certain area of land is considered a military objective, when all the requirements laid down in article 52 of [the 1977] Additional Protocol I are met and it provides a concrete military advantage, taking into account the circumstances prevailing at the time.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 4.4.d; see also §§ 2.3.b.(1) and 4.2.b.
The definition [of military objectives contained in Article 52(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is intended to apply only to property or objects. Thus, for example, areas of land cannot be included; but this does not prevent an area objective if it is a matter of hindering an enemy advance by means of artillery fire or mining. Attacks on an area are permitted as long as the attack cannot be classified as indiscriminate.
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) considers “an area of land of tactical importance” as a military objective.
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) states that military objectives include “areas of land which either have military significance such as hills, defiles or bridgeheads or which contain military objects; or … minefields”.
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 13, § 3(b)(1).
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “Proper objects of attack include, but are not limited to, such military objectives as … geographic features, such as a mountain pass”.
The Report on the Practice of Spain (1998) notes that the fact that a particular zone may be considered a military objective provided it fulfils the requirements of Article 52(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I is consistent with the possibility provided for under Spanish law of establishing zones of interest for national defence, comprising “expanses of land, sea, or airspace declared as such because they constitute or may constitute a permanent base or an effective aid to offensive action necessary for such purpose”.
Report on the Practice of Spain, 1998, Chapter 1.3, referring to Zones and Installations Law, 1975, Article 2.
A specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in Article 47 [now Article 52 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
It is the understanding of the Government of Canada in relation to Article 52 that: a. a specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in the Article as to what constitutes a military objective, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization in the circumstances governing at the time offers a definite military advantage.
Canada, Statements of understanding made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 20 November 1990, § 8(a).
A specific zone may be considered as a military objective if, due to its location or for any other criteria mentioned in Article 52 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances governing at the time offers a decisive military advantage.
France, Reservations and declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 11 April 2001, § 12.
The Government of the French Republic declares that a specific area may be considered a “military objective” as referred to in article 8, paragraph 2 (b) as a whole if, by reason of its situation, nature, use, location, total or partial destruction, capture of neutralization, taking into account the circumstances of the moment, it offers a decisive military advantage.
France, Interpretative declarations made upon ratification of the 1998 ICC Statute, 9 June 2000, § 6.
A specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in Article 47 [now Article 52 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Germany, Federal Republic of, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 188.
Article 52 of Additional Protocol I is understood by the Federal Republic of Germany to mean that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if it meets all requirements of Article 52, paragraph 2.
Germany, Federal Republic of, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 14 February 1991, § 7.
A specific area of land may be a “military objective” if, because of its location or other reasons specified in Article 52, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers definite military advantage.
Italy, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 27 February 1986, § 7.
Netherlands, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 195.
4. With regard to article 1, paragraph 3, of Protocol III: It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph 3, its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Netherlands, Declaration made upon ratification of the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 18 June 1987, §§ 1 and 4.
It is the understanding of the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph 2 [of Article 52 of the Protocol], its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Netherlands, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 26 June 1987, § 7.
The Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands takes the view that a specific area of land may also be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in paragraph six, its total or partial destruction, capture, or neutralization in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Netherlands, Declaration made upon acceptance of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 25 March 1999, § 3.
In relation to Article 52, it is the understanding of the Government of New Zealand that a specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in the Article, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage.
New Zealand, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 8 February 1988, § 4.
It is understood that an area of land can itself be a legitimate military objective for the purposes of the use of landmines, if its neutralisation or denial, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a definite military advantage.
Pakistan, Declaration made upon acceptance of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 9 March 1999, § 5.
It is the understanding [of the Spanish Government] that the capture or holding of a specific area of territory constitutes a military objective when all the conditions set out in this paragraph [paragraph 2 of Article 52] together offer a concrete military advantage taking into account the circumstances at the relevant time.
Spain, Declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 21 April 1989, § 7.
A specific area of land might be a military objective if, because of its location or for other reasons specified in Article 47 [now Article 52 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I], its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offered a definite military advantage.
United Kingdom, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.41, 26 May 1977, p. 169, § 153.
In relation to Article 52, that a specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in the Article, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers definite military advantage.
United Kingdom, Declaration made upon signature of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 12 December 1977, § f.
United Kingdom, Declaration made upon ratification of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 13 February 1995, § (b).
It is the understanding of the United Kingdom that a specific area of land may be a military objective if, because of its location or other reasons specified in this Article 52, its total or partial destruction, capture or neutralisation in the circumstances ruling at the time offers a definite military advantage.
United Kingdom, Reservations and declarations made upon ratification of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, 28 January 1998, § j.
An area of land can be a military objective if by its nature, location, purpose or use it makes an effective contribution to military action and its total or partial destruction, denial, capture or neutralization offers a definite military advantage, in the circumstances ruling at the time. Most areas which would be mined in war would meet this definition.
The opinio juris of the U.S. government recognizes the definition of military objectives in Article 52 of Additional Protocol I as customary law. United States practice gives a broad reading to this definition, and would include areas of land … as military objectives.
The United States understands that an area of land itself can be a legitimate military objective for the purpose of the use of landmines, if its neutralization or denial, in the circumstances applicable at the time, offers a military advantage.
United States, Declaration made upon acceptance of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, 24 May 1999, § 4.

References: § 527
 § 916
 § 8
 § 406
 § 1
 § 0511
 § 516
 § 623
 § 4
 § 2
 § 4
 § 3
 § 8
 § 12
 § 6
 § 7
 § 7
 § 7
 § 3
 § 4
 § 5
 § 7
 § 153
 § 4