Karakter: A
Begrunnelse for karakter:

Your exam paper have received the grade “A”. That means that the paper is an excellent performance, which is clearly outstanding. You have in the answer of both questions demonstrated sound judgment as well as a high degree of independent thinking.

As to Question one, you go straight to the point, and addresses the legal basis for the international legal obligations incumbent upon parties to an armed conflict to comply with the principle

Karakter: A
Begrunnelse for karakter:

Your exam paper have received the grade “A”. That means that the paper is an excellent performance, which is clearly outstanding. You have in the answer of both questions demonstrated sound judgment as well as a high degree of independent thinking.

As to Question one, you go straight to the point, and addresses the legal basis for the international legal obligations incumbent upon parties to an armed conflict to comply with the principle of distinction. By referring to Article 48 of AP I, and the more detailed provisions in articles 50-56, and also to articles 57 and 58, you show good overview. Besides, it gives good payoff that you point out that CIHL has bridged the gap between IACs and NIACs as far as the protection gap between the two kinds of conflicts is concerned.

You also give a good answer to the part of the question that regards what kind of measures taken by warring parties that are most conductive in order to strengthen the principle. In addition to the measures you have mentioned, one could also have mentioned other measures, for instance that States implement the principle at the domestic level through instructions to their armed forces and inclusion it in military manuals, and to attach individual criminal responsibility to the failure to comply with the principle of distinction. However, within a frame of 1000 words, one has to limit oneself to mentioning some measures, and your choice makes sense.

You give an excellent answer also to question two. From the facts of the case, you correctly points out that this is an IAC and that the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols regulate the situation, and in particular Protocol I. You also correctly consider the bridge as such as a legitimate military target. Furthermore, your assessment that the pilot when carrying out the first attack, did not take all feasible precaution in order to minimize harm to civilians and civilian objects, and that the case therefore reveals a violation of the principle of precaution as enshrined in Article 57 of Additional Protocol I, is well founded.

The same goes for your assessment of the second attack. This seems to be a clear violation of Article 57 (2) b), which requires that an attack has to be suspended or cancelled, if there are reason to believe that a continuing of the attack will cause excessive damage to civilian objects and civilian life, in relation to the military advantage anticipated. Your evaluation of the facts of the case and use of the relevant IHL-provision shows that you have good knowledge regarding these provisions, and a high level of understanding regarding their factual use. It also gives an extra plus that you draws parallels to the Gredlica Gorve train bombing.

To sum up: You have given excellent answers to both questions, and has therefore received a well-deserved “A”. For the record, I mention that my co-censor, Sigrid Redse Johansen, and I agreed on this assessment.