Self-Defense Targeting: Blurring the Line between the Jus ad Bellum and the Jus in Bello

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Geoffrey S. Corn
Keyword(s):  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Self Defense

Sequences of Military Necessity for the Jus in Bello

2020 ◽  
pp. 247-284
Author(s):  
Dino Kritsiotis
Keyword(s):  
Hague Convention ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
War And Peace ◽  
International Court Of Justice ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Additional Protocol ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Military Necessity ◽  
International Court

This chapter considers several discrete snapshots or “sequences” in the life of military necessity—as it has come to be understood within the laws of the jus in bello. Commencing with its relationship with self-preservation under the laws of war and peace, the chapter proceeds to examine the idea of “necessity” of self-defense within the laws of the jus ad bellum; it then turns to “military necessity” as invoked in the Lieber Code, the 1907 Hague Regulations, Additional Protocol I of 1977 and the 1954 Hague Convention, the ICRC Study on Customary International Humanitarian Law as well as the advisory jurisprudence of the International Court of Justice. Consideration is given, too, to “necessity” as it features within the law of State responsibility, in order to more fully understand the function, status and standing of “military necessity” more generally within the jus in bello.

The Essential Link between Proportionality and Necessity in the Exercise of Self-Defense

2020 ◽  
pp. 79-112
Author(s):  
Geoffrey S. Corn
Keyword(s):  
Use Of Force ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Military Action ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Self Help ◽  
Equal Importance ◽  
Collective Self ◽  
The Impact

The lawful use of force in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense by states requires compliance with the universally recognized elements of necessity and proportionality. Both of these elements frame the justification of resorting to self-help action. These two elements of self-defense, while often treated as distinct requirements, may be better understood as integrated into the assessment of overall strategic justification, with proportionality defining whether the scope and duration of military action in self-defense is genuinely necessary to protect against the unlawful threat. Thus, there is logic in conceptualizing proportionality not as distinct from the necessity requirement but as an integral component of that requirement. Linking proportionality assessments to the necessity of acting in self-defense leads to a rational link between the threat requiring self-defense action and the strategic scope and duration of operations to protect against that unlawful threat. This will contribute to careful tailoring of self-defense military operations to the overall nature of that threat. Of equal importance, this strategic-oriented focus will ideally offset the temptation to judge jus ad bellum proportionality by applying jus in bello principles. If nothing else, greater emphasis on the important differences between these two variants of the international legal proportionality requirement will enhance the impact on each of these variants on the success and legitimacy of self-defense operations.

scholarly journals The Just War and the Mystry of Self Defense

2019 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. p156
Author(s):  
Walid Fahmyt
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Just War ◽  
International Context ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Self Defense ◽  
Explicit Recognition ◽  
Two Phases ◽  
United Nations Charter ◽  
The Relationship

The theory of the Just War initiated by St. Augustine must absolutely seek peace. To avoid this being the case, two phases are defined: Jus ad Bellum; the Jus in Bello. Thus, self-defense as a just cause is a concept often addressed in international law and its explicit recognition in Article 51 of the United Nations Charter has made it even more present. But, from the adoption of the Charter to today, there are many examples of actions or arguments of states based on self-defense that are more or less in phase with each other. The most recent references to the concept of self-defense have developed in a particularly volatile international context since the attacks of September 11, 2001, and the consequences that ensued. The relationship between the just war and self-defense raises some questions: can the anti-terrorism war, the preventive war and the war against non-state actors be considered part of the principle of self-defense? What are the criteria for Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello considered during the Self- defense?

Proportionality under Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello: Clarifying their Relationship

2012 ◽  
Vol 45 (1) ◽  
pp. 107-124 ◽  
Author(s):  
Raphaël van Steenberghe
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Military Operations ◽  
Military Operation ◽  
Jus In Bello ◽  
Jus Ad Bellum ◽  
Legal Literature ◽  
State Practice ◽  
The Individual ◽  
The Military ◽  
The Relationship

Proportionality is a condition provided under both jus ad bellum and jus in bello. Based on a particular interpretation of state practice and international case law, recent legal literature argues that the two notions of proportionality are interrelated in that proportionality under jus in bello is included in the assessment of proportionality under jus ad bellum. This article seeks to refute such a position and, more generally, to clarify the relationship between the two notions of proportionality.The main argument of the article is in line with the traditional position regarding the relationship between jus ad bellum and jus in bello. It is argued that, although sharing common features and being somewhat interconnected, the notions of proportionality provided under these two separate branches of international law remain independent of each other, mainly because of what is referred to in this article as the ‘general versus particular’ dichotomy, which characterises their relations. Proportionality under jus ad bellum is to be measured against the military operation as a whole, whereas proportionality under jus in bello is to be assessed against individual military attacks launched in the framework of this operation.This article nonetheless emphasises the risk of overlap between the assessments of the two notions of proportionality when the use of force involves only one or a few military operations. Indeed, in such situations, the ‘general versus particular’ dichotomy, which normally enables one to make a distinct assessment between the two notions of proportionality, is no longer applicable since it becomes impossible to distinguish between the military operation as a whole and the individual military attacks undertaken during this operation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document