Proportionality and Necessity in Bello

Jovana Davidovic

doi:10.1017/9781316591307.011

Traditionally, in Just War theory and international law proportionality calculations focus on collateral damage or the number of civilians one might unintentionally, but foreseeably, kill in pursuit of some military advantage. This means that proportionality calculations are not affected, in orthodox Just War theory and international law, by the harm some military action might impose on combatants, or by the moral status of the military advantage one is seeking.Recently, so-called revisionist just war scholars have started moving away from exclusive focus on collateral damage in evaluations of proportionality (wide proportionality) and have started paying attention to harm military actions might impose on combatants (narrow proportionality). This change in focus has been, at least in part, a result of acknowledging that the line between civilians and combatants is not easily drawn. In addition, some revisionist scholars have also started focusing on the incommensurability between the notions of military advantage and human deaths, and the consequences of admitting such incommensurability for traditional proportionality calculations.In this chapter, I look at both traditional/orthodox and revisionist (in particular, individualist) accounts of in bello proportionality and I examine their strengths and weaknesses. I also consider the closely related in bello condition of necessity and briefly explain how it relates to proportionality. The chapter focuses on, what I take to be, the central debate in just war tradition – between (traditional) scholars who take war to be so different from ordinary life that it requires a sui generis set of moral rules and (individualist) scholars who think that the moral rules that apply in ordinary circumstances (and in particular in self- and other-defence) ought to underpin the moral principles that govern behaviour in war.I start the chapter, in Section I, by looking at traditional Just War theory's account of in bello proportionality. I quickly address the main worries traditional accounts of proportionality face. In Section II, I examine the individualist revisions of Just War theory and in particular the individualist account of in bello proportionality. I lay out the groundwork for thinking that we should approach proportionality in war as continuous with proportionality in ordinary cases of self- and other-defence.

Proportionality and Necessity in Bello

View Online

Abstract

Details

Metrics