14 Jun IHL Quiz — How much do you (and they) know?
Maybe it’s too soon after finals for some of you, but for those still willing to undergo examination, the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs has a short on-line quiz on international humanitarian law (IHL). You can access it here. It’s issued in concert with a major conference the Center is hosting later this week on Hamas, the Gaza War, and Accountability under International Law. The conference has an impressive line-up of participants, including Yoram Dinstein, George Fletcher, and Daniel Taub. (Taub made a visit to Temple Law School this past March, and I was tremendously impressed by his nuanced understanding of international law and its role in the Middle East Peace Process as well as his general willingness to appreciate competing perspectives on both topics.)
As for the Quiz, it’s timed and takes your first answer, so work quickly, but be sure before you click. I got 9 out of 12 “correct” (my errors coming from a general lack of knowledge about phosphorous and some differences of opinion with the quiz-authors on the scope of civilian distinction principles in armed conflicts). I wonder how others with IHL expertise will do? And I’d like to hear if anyone has reactions to either the form of the questions or the answers themselves. Feel free to leave your feedback in the comment thread below.
Wohoo, I got 10 right.
7 out of 12, but I’d like to note for the record that I came close a few times more. (i.e. the correct answer would have been my second choice.)
It’s an interesting idea. It shows the difficulty of making choices in the field. (Which is why the ticking clock adds to the effect.)
8 right. I quibble with the “right” answer on the Al-Qaeda one though. I wish they would cite to the sources of the “right” answer – for example on phosphorous. Thanks for posting this.
Best,
Ben
The Al Qaeda one was kind of a “gimme” as “there is debate on the matter” is a more-or-less correct answer to any topic of international law.
8 of 12. Missed the one on submarine survivors, remembered the relevant incident in WW2 that ended the custom of rescuing survivors among the Axis, but didn’t recall the legal status thereof.
Also got the bridge one wrong, I thought the fact the warning made the bridge near militarily useless (by virtue of their repositioning) made the strike fall more into the category of collective punishment or attacks against purely civilian infrastructure.
Also, a caveat on the phosphorus question, while most countries can only use it as a smoke agent, countries that did not sign the prohibition against incendiary weapons (1980 Protocol III of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons) should be free to use phosphorus as weaponry.
http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/incendiary-legal.htm