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.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callMore From: Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
