Van Steenberghe, Raphael
[UCL]
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dichotomy, which normally enables one to make a distinct assessment between the two notions of proportionality, is no longer applicable since it becomes impossible to distinguish between the military operation as a whole and the individual military attacks undertaken during this operation.
- Kolb, Ius in bello: Le droit international des conflits armés, 36 (2009)
- Meyrowitz, Le principe de l'égalité des belligérants devant le droit de la guerre (1970)
- Sassòli, How Does Law Protect in War (2011)
- Sassòli, International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein (2007)
- David, Principes de droit des conflits armés (2008)
- Roberts Adam, The equal application of the laws of war: a principle under pressure, 10.1017/s1816383109000162
- Giladi Rotem, The Jus Ad Bellum/Jus In Bello Distinction and the Law of Occupation, 10.1017/s0021223700000236
- Moussa Jasmine, Can jus ad bellum override jus in bello? Reaffirming the separation of the two bodies of law, 10.1017/s181638310900023x
- Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, 35 (2004)
- Orakhelashvili A., Overlap and Convergence: The Interaction Between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello, 10.1093/jcsl/krm010
- Sharma, Jus Post Bellum: Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace (2008)
- Chinkin Christine M., Kosovo: A "Good" or "Bad" War?, 10.2307/2555349
- Charney, American Journal of International Law, 93 (1999)
- Simma, The Charter of the United Nations: A Commentary (1994)
- Henckaerts Jean-Marie, Doswald-Beck Louise, Alvermann Carolin, Dormann Knut, Rolle Baptiste, Customary International Humanitarian Law, ISBN:9780511804700, 10.1017/cbo9780511804700
- Gardam Judith, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States, ISBN:9780511494178, 10.1017/cbo9780511494178
- Greenwood, The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law (2008)
- Schindler, The Laws of Armed Conflicts (1988)
- Meyrowitz Henri, The principle of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering: From the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 to Additional Protocol 1 of 1977, 10.1017/s002086040007830x
- Brown, Cornell International Law Journal, 10 (1976)
- Cannizzaro Enzo, Contextualizing proportionality: jus ad bellum and jus in bello in the Lebanese war, 10.1017/s1816383107000896
- de Hemptinne, Droit International Humanitaire (2012)
- Österdahl, Nordic Journal of International Law, 78 (2010)
- Greenwood, International Law at a Time of Perplexity: Essays in Honour of Shabtai Rosenne (1989)
- Kolb, Réflexions de philosophie du droit international. Problèmes fondamentaux du droit international public: Théorie et philosophie du droit international (2003)
- VAN STEENBERGHE RAPHAËL, Self-Defence in Response to Attacks by Non-state Actors in the Light of Recent State Practice: A Step Forward?, 10.1017/s0922156509990380
- Corten, The Law against War: The Prohibition on the Use of Force in Contemporary International Law (2010)
- Wilmshurst E., The Chatham House Principles of International Law on the Use of Force in Self-Defence, 10.1093/iclq/lei137
- Akande, British Yearbook of International Law, 68 (1997)
- Steenberghe, La légitime défense en droit international public: Statut, contenu et preuve, 273 (2012)
- Meron, American Journal of International Law, 94 (2000)
- Gardam, Australian Yearbook of International Law, 20 (1999)
- Pictet, Commentary on the Geneva Convention I (1952)
- Lanfranchi, La licéité de l'emploi d'armes nucléaires devant la Cour Internationale de Justice (1997)
Bibliographic reference |
Van Steenberghe, Raphael. Proportionality under Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello. Clarifying their Relationship. In: Israel Law Review, Vol. 45, no. 1, p. 107-124 (2012) |
Permanent URL |
http://hdl.handle.net/2078/119788 |