What is it about?
The rule of proportionality requires military commanders to balance the 'concrete and direct military advantage' anticipated from an attack, against the collateral harm it is expected to cause. The fogginess of the phrase concrete and direct military advantage has resulted in a peculiar mass of literature and practice that legitimises targeting objects based on their political, social, economic and psychological contributions made to the military effort of the opposing belligerent. Oil infrastructure, narcotics revenue, petroleum installations and electricity grids, among others, have been targeted in recent armed operations to debilitate economies of opposing belligerents. Psychological support for the government has been targeted through destruction of tangible means of political support (such as machinery used for government propaganda). In similar vein, efficiency, frugality and security of the attacking force has been considered as a legitimate military advantage in itself. The foregoing instances have sprouted as outcomes of an expansive construction of concrete and direct military advantage. They share in common the higher risk of death and destruction of civilians and civilian property. This paper argues that emerging interpretations of military advantage must be resisted as they sanction indiscriminate attacks in war.
Featured Image
Read the Original
This page is a summary of: Proportionality in Bello: A Case Against Indirect Military Advantage in War, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, July 2024, Brill,
DOI: 10.1163/18781527-bja10100.
You can read the full text:
Contributors
The following have contributed to this page