* This text was reproduced and reformatted from the text appearing at the Permanent Court of Arbitration website (visited February 14, 2006) <http://www.pca-cpa.org/>.

1 Partial Award, Prisoners of War, Eritrea’s Claim 17 Between the State of Eritrea and The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia (July 1, 2003), para. 46 [hereinafter Partial Award in Eritrea’s Pow Claim]; Partial Award, Prisoners of War, Ethiopia’s Claim 4 Between The Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the State of Eritrea (July 1, 2003), para. 37 [hereinafter Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Pow Claim].

2 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Aug. 12,1949,6U.S.T. p. 3114,75 U.N.T.S. p. 31; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. p. 3217, 75 U.N.T.S. p. 85; Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. p. 3316, 75 U.N.T.S. p. 135 [herein after Geneva Convention III]; Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Aug. 12, 1949, 6 U.S.T. p. 3516, 75 U.N.T.S. p. 287 [hereinafter Geneva Convention IV].

3 Partial Award in Eritrea’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, at para. 38; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, at para. 29; Partial Award, Central Front, Eritrea’s Claims 2, 4, 6, 7, 8& 22 Between the State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Government of Ethiopia (April 28, 2004), para. 21 [hereinafter Partial Award in Eritrea’s Central Front Claims]; Partial Award, Central Front, Ethiopia’s Claim 2 Between the Federal Democratic Government of Ethiopia and the State of Eritrea (April 28, 2004), para. 15 [hereinafter Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Central Front Claims]; Partial Award in Eritrea’s Claims 15, 16, 23& 27-32 Between the State of Eritrea and the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, para. 28 (December 17, 2004) [hereinafter Partial Award in Eritrea’s Civilians Claims]; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Claim 5 Between the Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia and the State of Eritrea, para. 24 (December 17, 2004) [hereinafter Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Civilians Claims].

4 Partial Award in Eritrea’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, at paras. 40-41; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, at paras. 31-32; Partial Award in Eritrea’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at para. 21; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at para. 15; Partial Award in Eritrea’s Civilians Claims, supra note 3, at para. 28; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Civilians Claims, supra note 3, at para.24.

5 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land and Annexed Regulations, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. p. 2277, 1 Bevans p. 631.

6 See Partial Award in Eritrea’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at para. 22; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at para. 16.

7 International Military Tribunal, Trial of the Major War Criminals by the International Military Tribunal pp. 253-254 (1947); United States v. Von Leeb [High Command Case], 11 Trials of war criminals before the nuernberg mili-tary tribunal under control council law NO. 10 p. 462 (1950); Report of the Secretary-General Pursuant to Paragraph 2 of the Security Council Resolution 808, Annex, at p. 9, U.N. Doc. S/25704 (1993); see also Vol. II, Oppen-Heim’S International law PP. 234-236 (Hersch Lauter-Pacht Ed., Longmans, 7th ed. 1952); Char-Ney, Jonathan I., International Agreements and the Development of Customary International Law, 61 Wash. l. rev. p. 971 (1986)Google Scholar.

8 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of Aug. 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, June 8, 1977,1125 U.N.T.S. p. 3 [hereinafter Geneva Protocol I].

9 U.N. Convention on Prohibition or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Oct. 10, 1980, 1342 U.N.T.S. p. 137, reprinted in 19 I.L.M. p. 1523 (1980).

10 Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, Oct. 10,1980,1342 U.N.T.S. 168, reprinted in 19 I.L.M. p. 1529 (1980).

11 Id., as amended at Geneva, May 3, 1996, reprinted in 35 I.L.M. p. 1209 (1996).

12 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on Their Destruction, Sept. 18, 1997, 36 I.L.M. p. 1507 (1997).

13 Partial Award in Eritrea’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at para. 29; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at para. 23.

14 Partial Award in Eritrea’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at paras. 62, 63, 85, 92 and 103.

15 Ethiopia’s Counter-Memorial to Eritrea’s Claims 1, 3, 5& 9-13, filed by Ethiopia on January 17, 2005, Documentary Annexes, Vol. II, at A-3.

16 See Partial Award in Eritrea’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, at paras. 139-142; Partial Award in Eritrea’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at paras. 36—41; Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at paras. 34-40.

17 Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, at para. 54; Partial Award in Eritrea’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, at para. 56.

18 Geneva Protocol I, supra note 8, art. 48.

19 Id. art. 51(2).

20 Id. art. 52.

21 Id. art. 51(4)& (5).

22 Id. arts. 57& 58.

23 The Commission notes with appreciation the new, exhaustive study of customary law by the ICRC, Jeanmarie henck aerts& louise doswald-beck, customary international humanitarian law (Cambridge University Press 2005). That study concludes that a broader prohibition than the one stated in Article 54(2) has become customary law. The Commission need not, and does not, endorse the study’s broader conclusion.

24 The Commission is aware that there has been criticism of Article 52(2) on grounds that it is too restrictive. See, e.g., Hays Parks, W., Air Law and the Law of War, 32 Air force law review pp. 137–144 (1990)Google Scholar.

25 See, e.g., The handbook of humanitarian law in armed conflict p. 162 (Dieter Fleck ed., Oxford University Press 1995) [hereinafter Fleck].

26 See, e.g., Theodor meron, human rights and humanitarian norms as customary law p. 64 (Clarendon Press 1989) and Customary international humanitarian law, supra note 23, at pp. 29-32.

27 The manual of the law of armed conflict pp. 55& 56 (U.K. Ministry of Defence, Oxford University Press 2004).

28 Eritrea did not allege that civilian casualties resulted from the air strike, so questions of proportionality in relation to such casualties do not arise. Further, as explained above, the Power plant was a military objective, and not a civilian object within the meaning of Article 52. Accordingly, the issue of proportionality likewise does not arise with respect to property dam age there.

29 See Leslie green, the contemporary law of armed conflict p. 191 (Manchester University Press, 2d ed. 2000); Eric David, principes de droit des conflits armes p. 272 (Bruylant, 3rd ed. 2002); and Yoram dinstein, the conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict pp. 96-97 (Cambridge University Press 2004).

30 For a recent collection of State practice indicating that many economic installations and, indeed, the economic potential of an enemy State constitute military objectives, see Vol. II Customary international humanitarian law, supra note 23, at pp. 216-222.

31 Fleck, supra note 25, at p. 157.

32 Partial Award in Eritrea’s Pow Claim, supra note 1, para. 146.

33 Commission Decision No. 1: The Commission’s Mandate/Temporal Scope of Jurisdiction, issued July 24, 2001.

34 Eritrea’s Claim 21 for Internally Displaced Persons and Refugees, Statement of Claim, filed by Eritrea on December 12, 2001, para. C.2.

35 Partial Award in Ethiopia’s Central Front Claims, supra note 3, at para. 53.

1 Marco sassóli& antoine a. bouvier, how does law protect in war? pp. 161-162 (ICRC 1999).

2 See San remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea p. 161 (Cambridge 1995). See also Yoram Dinstein, Legitimate Military Objectives under the Current Jus in Bello, 31 Israel yearbook on human rights p. 7 (2001).

3 ICRC Commentary to the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of August 12, 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), June 8, 1977, para. 2024, available at <http://www.icrc.org> [hereinafter ICRC Commentary]; Michael bothe, karl josef partsch& waldemar a. solf, new rules for victims of armed conflicts p. 324 (Martinus Nijhoff 1982) [hereinafter BOTHE ET AL.].

4 ICRC Commentary, supra note 3, at para. 2017; Dinstein, supra note 2, at pp. 1& 5; The handbook of humanitarian law in armed conflicts p. 442 (Dieter Fleck ed., Oxford University Press 1995) [hereinafter Fleck]; Waldemar A. Solf, Article 52, in BOTHE ET AL., supra note 3, at p. 326; DeSaussure, H., Remarks, 2 AM. U. J. INT’L L.& Pol. pp. 513–514 (1987)Google Scholar; Final report to the prosecutor by the committee established to review the nato bombing campaign against the federal republic of yugoslavia, 39 I.L.M. p. 1257 (2000), at para. 55 [hereinafter ICTY Report]; Bothe, Michael, The Protection of the Civilian Population and Nato Bombing on Yugoslavia: Comments on a Report to the Prosecutor of the ICTY, 12(3) E.J.I.L. p. 531 (2001)Google Scholar [hereinafter Bothe]; Eric David, principes de droit des conflits armes p. 273 (Bruylant, 3rd ed. 2002) [hereinafter David].

5 See, e.g., ICTY Commentary supra note 3,at para. 2034;David supra note 4,at p.274; Fleck, supra note 4, at p.164.

6 See, e.g., ICTY Report, supra note 4, paras. 38& 39; Fleck, supra note 4, at pp. 158& 161.

7 Bothe, supra note 4, at p. 535.

8 Ethiopia’s Counter Memorial to Eritrea’s Claim 25, filed by Ethiopia on January 17, 2005, at p. 24.

9 Id. at p. 24.

10 Transcript of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission Hearings of April 2005, Peace Palace, The Hague, at p. 378 (Apr. 7, 2005).

11 See, e.g., ICRC Commentary, supra note 3, at paras. 2023& 2028; David, supra note 4, at p. 273; Yoram dinstein, the conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict p. 94 (Cambridge University Press 2004); Horace B. Robertson, Jr., The Principle of the Military Objective in the Law of Armed Conflict, in The law of military operations p. 211 (Naval War College Press 1998).

12 David, supra note 4, at p. 274.

13 Leslie green, the contemporary law of armed conflict p. 193 (Manchester University Press, 2d ed. 2000