Proportionality in Bello: A Case Against Indirect Military Advantage in War
In: Journal of International Humanitarian Legal StudiesSearch for other papers by Surbhi Soni in
Current site
Google Scholar
Abstract
Rule of proportionality strikes a bargain in launching attacks. It demands that military commanders suspend or cancel operations if collateral damage anticipated from an attack exceeds the potential military advantage offered. The definitional phrase military advantage has been the subject of a rich debate, varyingly interpreted to expand or limit the scope of attacks. This paper participates in the debate, advocating that military advantage must be limited to exclude attacks on objects that indirectly contribute to military potential, such as, economic, social, psychological or political advantage, which invariably target civilians or civilian enterprises. It critically engages with the principles and precedents invoked to legitimise a broader understanding of military advantage. It posits that such attacks disregard belligerents’ privileges, and render unbound categories of civilian objects susceptible to destruction. Pursuantly, the rule of proportionality, originally articulated to nuance and improve the rule of distinction, is usurped to violate the latter.
Purchase
Buy instant access (PDF download and unlimited online access):
Institutional Login
Log in with Open Athens, Shibboleth, or your institutional credentials
Personal login
Log in with your brill.com account
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 297 | 297 | 19 |
| Full Text Views | 18 | 18 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 52 | 52 | 2 |
Proportionality in Bello: A Case Against Indirect Military Advantage in War
In: Journal of International Humanitarian Legal StudiesSearch for other papers by Surbhi Soni in
Current site
Google Scholar
PubMed
Abstract
Rule of proportionality strikes a bargain in launching attacks. It demands that military commanders suspend or cancel operations if collateral damage anticipated from an attack exceeds the potential military advantage offered. The definitional phrase military advantage has been the subject of a rich debate, varyingly interpreted to expand or limit the scope of attacks. This paper participates in the debate, advocating that military advantage must be limited to exclude attacks on objects that indirectly contribute to military potential, such as, economic, social, psychological or political advantage, which invariably target civilians or civilian enterprises. It critically engages with the principles and precedents invoked to legitimise a broader understanding of military advantage. It posits that such attacks disregard belligerents’ privileges, and render unbound categories of civilian objects susceptible to destruction. Pursuantly, the rule of proportionality, originally articulated to nuance and improve the rule of distinction, is usurped to violate the latter.
| All Time | Past 365 days | Past 30 Days | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Abstract Views | 297 | 297 | 19 |
| Full Text Views | 18 | 18 | 1 |
| PDF Views & Downloads | 52 | 52 | 2 |