相关规则
Sweden
Practice Relating to Rule 54. Attacks against Objects Indispensable to the Survival of the Civilian Population
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
Article 54:2 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … prohibits attack on such property as is essential for the survival of a civilian population for the purpose of depriving the civilian population or the adversary of vital necessities, in order to starve them out or compel them to leave an area, or for any other reason. It is equally forbidden to remove such property or render it useless. The property which shall receive protection in the first instance is foodstuffs and agricultural areas, crops, cattle, plant and reservoirs for drinking water and irrigation works. This list is incomplete, and further objects could be added. It may be pertinent to list also civilian dwellings in cold areas, which considerably increase the scope of the article. Yet it is less probable that such an extension would gain general approval. Moreover, civilian dwellings have protection in Article 52, even though this is far from sufficient.
The prohibition in Article 54:2 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] applies only to attack, removal or incapacitation performed for the purpose given – thus the article offers no protection against unintentional injury or losses arising from an attack that has other purposes. Attack on a hostile force deployed in the neighbourhood of a community may thus for example lead to damage to a nearby grain store without these secondary effects involving a breach of Article 54. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 60.
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
It is permitted to attack stocks of foodstuffs, water reservoirs, etc. which are in the hands of the adversary’s armed forces. In practice, however, it would probably be very hard to determine whether a food transport or store was intended only for the armed forces or also for the civilian population. Also, military food transports may in some cases be intended for protected groups such as prisoners-of-war or civilians in the hands of one of the belligerents.
… Attacks may also be made on objects being used by the adverse party in direct support of his military operations. This exception may apply mainly when enemy units are for example using a cornfield for advance, or some other object for concealing military units.
The text uses the expression “military action” as opposed to the often-used expression “military operations” which is a broader concept. Thus the exception applies only if the attack entails a direct advantage in a given tactical situation. As against this, it is not permitted to attack an irrigation works, for example, with the excuse that this may be an advantage in a future operation, i.e. an indirect advantage. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, pp. 60–61.
[emphasis in original]
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) states:
Another question addressed in Article 54 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is the possibility for one party faced with an approaching hostile attack to resort to widespread destruction within a given area – the method usually termed “burnt earth tactics”. Such steps are permitted under 54:5 where they are required by overriding military necessity and concern only one party’s national territory. However, this latter addition implies important limitations. Thus it is not allowed to attack, for example by aerial bombardment, an area occupied by the adversary if the purpose is to impede the civilian population’s supply of indispensable necessities. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.5, p. 61.
[emphasis in original]
At the CDDH, Sweden remarked, with reference to the possible exceptions to the prohibition of attacks against objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, that it considered a scorched earth policy used to stop an enemy invasion on a party’s own territory to be permissible. The Swedish delegate described this strategy as “a deep-rooted practice which should be taken into account”. 
Sweden, Statement at the CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.17, 11 February 1975, p. 145, § 19.