Proportionality in Bello: A Case Against Indirect Military Advantage in War

Abstract

Abstract Rule of proportionality strikes a bargain in launching attacks. It demands that military commanders suspend or cancel operations if collateral damage anticipated from an attack exceeds the potential military advantage offered. The definitional phrase military advantage has been the subject of a rich debate, varyingly interpreted to expand or limit the scope of attacks. This paper participates in the debate, advocating that military advantage must be limited to exclude attacks on objects that indirectly contribute to military potential, such as, economic, social, psychological or political advantage, which invariably target civilians or civilian enterprises. It critically engages with the principles and precedents invoked to legitimise a broader understanding of military advantage. It posits that such attacks disregard belligerents’ privileges, and render unbound categories of civilian objects susceptible to destruction. Pursuantly, the rule of proportionality, originally articulated to nuance and improve the rule of distinction, is usurped to violate the latter.