This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a
list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the
full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the
legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
In the current article, there is a note pertaining to the concept of "Dual Use" and legitimate military targets. An example is given of a factory producing stereo equipment that may be pressed into service to manufacture telecomms equipment for the military. Does this mean that a factory is a legitimate military target because it could be pressed into producing goods for the military? Or is it only a legitimate military target once it has been pressed into service? — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
24.50.226.143 (
talk)
20:32, 9 April 2015 (UTC)reply
@
PBS: Here you are
[1] Can't devote much time to Wikipedia over the coming weeks, unfortunately, so thanks if you could look into it if you have spare time. Cheers, —
kashmiriTALK09:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
I should have thought to look for a copy of the article in the WayBack Machine archives. I found one prior to this article being started
Placing it in Earwig and comparing it with the current text returns a 70% match. However some of that is a match because Wikipedia and the original article contain quotes, and one paragraph I know is not a copy because I put it in here as a rewrite of a paragraph (in 2011) basing my paragraph on text in
Military necessity, an article I had originally written on back in 2006. It was the bullet points that were a copyright violation so I have removed them. I will rewrite them so that they are no longer a copyright violation. --
PBS (
talk)
14:53, 14 September 2017 (UTC)reply
Many of the countries today that engage in conflict are not states party to Additional Protocol I, namely the India, Pakistan, Iran, the USA, and Israel.