Henckaerts, Jean-Marie, and Louise Doswald-Beck, eds. “Military Necessity and Due Process: The Place of Human Rights in the War on Terror.” In New Wars, New Laws?, edited by David Wippman and Matthew Evangelista, 53–73. “Military Necessity and Humanitarian Imperatives.” Military Law and Law of War Review (1973): 129–51.ĭworkin, Anthony. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004.ĭraper, G. The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict. ▸ Attacks ▸ Methods (and means) of warfare ▸ Military objectives ▸ Proportionality ▸ Protected objects and property ▸ Warįor Additional Information: Dinstein, Yoram. aimed at spreading terror among the civilian population.indiscriminate-the attack did not distinguish between military objectives and civilian objects.disproportionate-the military advantage was not proportionate to the collateral damage to civilians.unnecessary-the target or victims were not linked to a specific military objective.The use of armed force is legitimate only when attempting to attain specific military objectives, and then only as long as it stays within the limits of the principle of proportionality.Ĭonversely, this notion can serve to contest the use of armed force if it seems that the violence or destruction were: Any violence or destruction that is not justified by military necessity is prohibited by the law of armed conflict. In times of conflict, military necessity is the notion used to justify the recourse to violence.
0 kommentar(er)
