Skip to main content
×
Home
    • Aa
    • Aa

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

  • Raphaël van Steenberghe (a1)
  • DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0021223711000082
  • Published online: 05 March 2012
Abstract

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dichotomy, which normally enables one to make a distinct assessment between the two notions of proportionality, is no longer applicable since it becomes impossible to distinguish between the military operation as a whole and the individual military attacks undertaken during this operation.

Copyright
Linked references
Hide All

This list contains references from the content that can be linked to their source. For a full set of references and notes please see the PDF or HTML where available.

Alexander Orakhelashvili , ‘Overlap and Convergence: The Interaction between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello’ (2007) 12 Journal of Conflict and Security Law 157

Serena K Sharma , ‘Reconsidering the Jus ad Bellum/Jus in Bello Distinction’ in Carsten Stahn and Jann K Kleffner (eds), Jus Post Bellum: Towards a Law of Transition from Conflict to Peace (TC Asser2008) 9

Christine M Chinkin , ‘Kosovo: A “Good” or “Bad” War?’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 841, 841–42

Jonathan I Charney , ‘Anticipatory Humanitarian Intervention in Kosovo’ (1999) 93 American Journal of International Law 834, 839

Theodor Meron , ‘The Humanization of Humanitarian Law’ (2000) 94 American Journal of International Law 239

Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

Israel Law Review
  • ISSN: 0021-2237
  • EISSN: 2047-9336
  • URL: /core/journals/israel-law-review
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords: