Talk:Legitimate military target

Legitimate military targets and "Dual Use"
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)

Copyvio
Most of article text is a direct copy or close paraphrasing of this copyrighted source: http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/legitimate-military-targets/. — kashmiri  TALK  07:05, 26 May 2017 (UTC)


 * @User:Kashmiri the page to which you link is not available to me the original Wikipedia page created on 31 March 2010 cites:
 * Gaby Rado, Legitimate Military Targets, Crimes of War Project a-z Guide, accessed 31 Mar 2007
 * Please run Earwig's Copyvio Detector on the two texts and report here what the tool states as a percentage of violation that still exists. To create a report -- PBS (talk) 08:47, 12 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Here you are 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, —  kashmiri  TALK  09:35, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * 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)
 * Done. -- PBS (talk) 15:36, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Discussion without Protocol I
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.

It would be helpful to have a separate discussion about the legal analysis when belligerents are nonparty to the protocol. 174.57.114.191 (talk) 15:00, 23 December 2023 (UTC)