ABSTRACT
Michael Bothe, Karl Josef Partsch, and the late Waldemar A. Solf remarked that the definition of the "military objective" in the sense of targets for attack had, until adoption of Article 52 of Additional First Protocol, "eluded all efforts to arrive at a generally acceptable solution." This is surprising in that the principle of distinction, from which the principle of the military objective is derived, is one of the two "cardinal principles" of the law of armed conflict. Aerial bombardment is legitimate only when directed at a military objective, that is to say, an object of which the destruction or injury would constitute a distinct military advantage to the belligerent. Although Article 51, paragraph (1) (b) and Article 57, paragraph 2(a) (iii) of additional First Protocol use the more restrictive term "concrete and direct" military advantage, the documents of the CDDH do not disclose the reasons for using different expressions.
