text: Conduct of Hostilities
  generally criminalize a much broader range of acts than those acts constituting “direct participation in
  hostilities” for targeting purposes.
  HUMAN SHIELDS
  An adversary’s use of human shields can present complex moral, ethical, legal, and policy
  considerations. The use of civilians as human shields violates the rule that protected persons may not be used
  to shield, favor, or impede military operations (see DOD Law of War Manual, 5.16; consider AP I art. 51(7)).
  The party that employs human shields in an attempt to shield military objectives from attack assumes
  responsibility for their injury, although the attacker may share this responsibility if they fail to take feasible
  precautions in conducting its attack. If civilians are used as human shields, provided they are not taking a
  direct part in hostilities, they must be considered as civilians in determining whether a planned attack would
  be excessive, and feasible precautions must be taken to reduce the risk of harm to them. However, the enemy
  use of voluntary human shields may be considered as a factor in assessing the legality of an attack. Based on
  the facts and circumstances of a particular case, the commander may determine that person characterized as
  voluntary human shields are taking a direct part in hostilities (see DOD Law of War Manual, 5.12.3.4).
  The use of human shields to intentionally shield military objectives should not be understood to
  prohibit an attack under LOAC. LOAC should not be interpreted in a way that would perversely encourage
  the use of human shields and allow violations by the defending force to increase the legal obligations of the
  attacking force. Policy, practice, or mission-specific rules of engagement may provide additional guidance
  in this area.
  TARGETING AND MILITARY OBJECTIVES
  In armed conflict, one of the most difficult tasks for Soldiers and Marines under LOAC is conducting
  an attack and making targeting decisions. Parties to a conflict must conduct attacks in accordance with the
  principles of distinction and proportionality. Accordingly, LOAC authorizes combatants to make military
  objectives the object of an attack, but prohibits directing an attack against civilians not taking a direct part in
  hostilities, the civilian population as such, civilian objects, or other protected persons or objects (see DOD
  Law of War Manual, 5.4.2; consider API arts. 51(2) and 52(1)).
  TARGETING
  The LOAC principle of distinction obligates each party to a conflict, in its use of force and conduct of
  military operations, to distinguish between military objectives on the one hand and the civilian population
  and other protected persons and civilian objects on the other. The principle of distinction applies to each party
  to a conflict, whether its armed forces are engaged in offensive or defensive operations.
  The principle of distinction does not guarantee the safety of the civilian population or civilian objects.
  The risk of injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects increases if either are intermingled with military
  objectives, whether unintentionally or intentionally.
  Military operations may range from operations occurring in regions nearly devoid of civilians or
  civilian objects (such as deserts) to operations in urban areas, where members of the civilian population are
  likely to be found and the presence of civilian objects is certain. Similarly, an area normally free of civilians
  suddenly may become heavily populated due to an influx of displaced persons who are fleeing the effects of
  military operations elsewhere.
  Military commanders must be prepared for the possibility of an intermingling of civilians with military
  objectives or that some military objectives (in particular, roads and bridges) are objects commonly used by
  both the civilian population and military forces. Neither the mere presence of civilians nor intermingling or
  common use renders a military objective immune from attack. An object used concurrently for civilian and
  military purposes is liable to attack if it is a military objective (see paragraph 2-36 on “Dual-Use Objects”
  and paragraphs 2-29 through 2-57 on “Military Objectives” generally). Nor does intermingling or concurrent
  use preclude otherwise lawful military options under consideration by military planners. Intermingling or
  concurrent use are factors, however, that military commanders and their staffs must consider in planning and
  executing military operations through the LOAC principle of proportionality.