How Consistent are Interpretations of the Principle of Proportionality in Situations of Asymmetric Conflicts?

Inhaltsverzeichnis (Table of Contents)

• Abstract
• List of Abbreviations
• Introduction
• Empirical Analysis: Consistency in Substance
• Scope
• Content
• Time
• Certainty
• Empirical Analysis: Consistency in Process
• Purposive Analysis: Proportionality Balancing as a ROL Problem
• The Normative Relationship of IHL and IHRL
• Purposive Analysis of IHL
• Purposive Analysis of IHRL
• The Proportionality Continuum: Applying the Theoretical Findings to the Empirical Discoveries
• Conclusion

Zielsetzung und Themenschwerpunkte (Objectives and Key Themes)

This paper examines the consistency of interpretations of jus in bello proportionality in the context of counterinsurgency operations, specifically focusing on precision strikes. It argues that inconsistency exists both in substance and process, and seeks to understand the normative relationship between International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and International Human Rights Law (IHRL) in relation to this inconsistency.

• Inconsistency in proportionality balancing in counterinsurgency operations.
• The normative relationship between IHL and IHRL.
• The concept of a "proportionality continuum" and its implications for policy and law.
• The role of precision strikes in modern warfare and their impact on civilian casualties.
• The balancing act between military advantage and civilian protection.

Zusammenfassung der Kapitel (Chapter Summaries)

The paper begins with an empirical analysis of case law and US counterinsurgency policy, examining consistency in four categories: scope, content, time, and certainty. It then moves to a purposive analysis of the legal framework, exploring the relationship between IHL and IHRL in order to address the inconsistency in proportionality balancing as a Rule of Law (ROL) problem. The final chapter applies the theoretical findings to the empirical discoveries, demonstrating that inconsistency is due to a "proportionality continuum" and arguing for policy changes rather than legal modifications.

Schlüsselwörter (Keywords)

This paper delves into the complexities of proportionality balancing in asymmetric conflicts, particularly in the context of drone operations. It examines key concepts such as arbitrary deprivation of life, collateral damage, distinction, precision strikes, targeted killings, and the interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law. The research explores the implications of inconsistency in proportionality balancing, highlighting the need for a comprehensive understanding of the "proportionality continuum" and its impact on civilian protection.