text: Chapter 1
  Distinguishing a Party’s Own Persons and Objects
  1-38. Distinction gives rise to three different types of rules that obligate a party to assist its opponent in
  discriminating between protected and unprotected persons and objects, principally between a party’s armed
  forces and the civilian population. Parties to a conflict must take certain measures, in offense or defense: (1)
  to ensure military forces are identifiable from civilians and civilian objects; (2) to separate, as feasible, their
  military objectives from civilians and civilian objects; and, (3) to refrain from misusing civilians and civilian
  objects to shield military forces or military objectives (see DOD Law of War Manual, 2.5.3; consider AP I
  art. 58).
  1-39. To ensure military forces are identifiable from civilians and civilian objects, parties must not disguise
  their armed forces as civilians or as other protected categories in order to kill or wound opposing forces (see
  DOD Law of War Manual, 2.5.3.1; consider AP I, art. 37). Further, some rules obligate parties to mark
  protected persons and objects, such as marking hospitals with a red cross, to help them receive the protections
  of that status (consider AP I art. 18). Additionally, medical personnel should identify (or distinguish)
  themselves as noncombatants to ensure they receive protection from direct attack to which they are entitled.
  Conversely, certain rules incentivize parties to a conflict to identify certain persons and objects as
  unprotected. For example, members of organized resistance movements must, among other requirements,
  wear fixed, distinctive signs visible at a distance and carry arms openly to distinguish themselves from the
  civilian population in order for their group to receive POW status upon capture (GPW art. 4A(2)).
  1-40. Distinction also creates obligations for parties to a conflict to take feasible measures to separate
  civilians and civilian objects from military objectives in order to reduce the risk that the opposing party to a
  conflict will incidentally harm the civilian population and other protected persons and objects. Accordingly,
  military commanders must take reasonable steps to separate their military units from the civilian population
  and civilian objects, as far as military requirements permit, such as by evacuating civilians from danger areas.
  Thus, distinction seeks not only to reduce the risk that civilians will be erroneously attacked, but also to
  reduce the risk of other incidental harm to civilians, regardless of the attacker’s subjective intent.
  1-41. Although the duty to separate depends largely on what is feasible, parties to a conflict in all cases must
  not use protected persons or objects as a shield to protect military objectives, whether by hiding a military
  objective or by exploiting an adversary’s adherence to proportionality considerations.
  Misconceptions about Distinction
  1-42. Distinction seeks to ensure that protected and unprotected categories are distinct from one another, not
  distinct in the abstract. For example, using camouflage is consistent with distinction because foliage is not a
  protected category and because civilians generally do not wear camouflage. Similarly, U.S. forces have worn
  nonstandard uniforms to blend with local forces while remaining distinct from the civilian population.
  Furthermore, distinction addresses the different rights, duties, and liabilities of different categories; it does
  not mandate that a particular person or object must fall within a particular category. For example, a combatant
  generally may take a civilian object and use it for military purposes, thereby turning it into a military
  objective, consistent with distinction. Similarly, persons with medical training or who provide medical care
  on the battlefield are not necessarily noncombatants and need not be identified as such. Rather, a State may
  reserve the ability to use these persons as combatants (who are liable to attack) by refraining from designating
  them as protected medical personnel (see DOD Law of War Manual, 2.5.4).
  Reinforcing Duties
  1-43. Discriminating in conducting attacks against the enemy and distinguishing one’s own persons and
  objects reinforce one another. A party is not relieved of its obligations to discriminate in conducting attacks
  by the failures of its adversary to distinguish the adversary’s military objectives from protected persons and
  objects. Nonetheless, the practical ability of a party to discriminate in conducting attacks often depends on
  the degree to which its enemy has distinguished its military objectives from protected persons and objects.
  For example, if enemy forces intermingle with civilians, an opposing party may be less able to avoid
  incidentally harming the civilian population. Similarly, if enemy forces do not respect the Red Cross or other
  distinctive emblem, but instead specifically attack persons wearing it, the party receiving these attacks is less
  likely to distinguish its medical personnel and transports (see DOD Law of War Manual, 2.5.5).