“Good Morning, Your Honors and may it please the Court.

My name is Stephanie Barile and in behalf of the defendant Nathan Orkhan, I will be addressing the first
issue of war crime of destruction and appropriation of property.”

(Military Necessity Justification)

Destruction and violence are inherent characteristics of a warfare. Force shall always be used to achieve
the intended military objective and generally, the defeat of the adverse military forces.

My Client, Nathan Orkhan invokes the concept of military necessity in order justify the capturing of the
oil fields, the adjacent refinery and processing facilities in the Dessert of Tusks.

The principle of military necessity legally justifies attacks against targets that are valid military objectives
because such attacks are recognized as indispensable to securing the rapid submission of the enemy.

It is a long-standing rule of customary international law that the destruction and seizure of the property
of an adversary may be justified by an imperative military necessity. The application of the doctrine of
military necessity makes use of the principle of proportionality as a mechanism for determining a
positioning of a fulcrum between the competing poles of military victory and the needs of humanity.
(Rule 50)

Necessity determines the legitimacy of the armed attack. Proportionality determines the amount of
force that might be used. They functioned as each others check and balances. A balanced principle of
military necessity fosters gaining military advantage while also manifesting the humanitarian
requirements of law. Military necessity and humanitarian considerations are not competing, distinct
rules; they complement and strengthen each other.Together with the principle of distinction and the
prohibition of unnecessary suffering they are considered to be elements of the principle of
proportionality. As principles, they support the interpretation of positive rules and serve as guidance
when no specific rule exists to regulate certain circumstances.

In this case, there is an absence of a wanton devastation of the enemy’s property or an infliction of a
willful suffering of its inhabitants for the sake of suffering alone. The purpose of capturing the oil fields
and its installations is to remedy the fuel supply of tanks and armored vehicles of the Khamrian forces
which was jeopardized by the guerrilla attacks of the Chaqua militias. The Khamrian forces applied an
amount and kind of force that resulted to a minimal destruction. It did not caused excessive civillian
losses and the refinery remained undamaged.

The Khamrian Forces employed a course of action out of the alternatives for achieving the designated
military goal by employing means and method which is expected to trigger the least collateral damage.

(Economic Losses)

When assessing proportionality, the incidental loss of life, injury or damage has to be measured against
the ‘concrete and direct overall military advantage anticipated. The ‘concrete and direct overall military
advantage’ indicates a military advantage that is foreseeable by the perpetrator at the time of the
attack.

(Military Objective)

A separate, but intimately related question is whether the target of the attack is valid military objective.

In so far as objects are concerned, military objectives are limited to those objects which by their
nature, location, purpose or use make an effective contribution to military action and whose partial
or total destruction, capture or neutralization, in the circumstances ruling at the time, offers a
definite military advantage. (Rule 8)

The only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the other parties to the
conflict.

The transfer of the oil barrels to a warehouse owned by Kham Oil, located in the Khamrian capital is part
of the tactical plan of the commander; that is, to store the seized oil barrels in a strategic and safe
location. This act falls within the definition of a legitimate military objectives.

There are no substantial evidence that the seized oil was used for proprietary objective. The production
of oil may increase anytime because of different factors, one of which is that, the Kingdom of Khamri is
an oil producing country and is engaged in the exportation of oil and oil products for a long period of
time.

CLOSING STATEMENT

As time passed by, warfare became more civilized than before although it is important to understand
that warfare has never been and will never be humane as it goes against the very nature of armed
conflict. One can only infer more humane means and methods than others. Based on both utilitarian
and moral grounds, My client, Nathan Orkhan should not be held criminally liable for the war crimes
charged.