The obscurities of jus ad bellum proportionality and its interplay with jus in bello

Dr. Dana Schirwon

doi:10.5771/9783748943716

, to see if you have full access to this publication.

Book Titles No access

The obscurities of jus ad bellum proportionality and its interplay with jus in bello

Authors:
Series:: Kölner Schriften zum Friedenssicherungsrecht - Cologne Studies on International Peace and Security Law - Études colonaises sur le droit de la paix et de la sécurité internationale, Volume 27
Publisher:: 26.04.2024

Summary

Although not explicitly mentioned in Art. 51 of the UN Charter, there is a consensus that self-defence is inter alia restricted by proportionality. However, the content and scope of this so-called jus ad bellum proportionality are still controversial in international legal scholarship and practice. This book concretises the criterion with the help of the rules of interpretation of the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, taking into account the extensive application of the proportionality requirement by states and UN institutions as subsequent practice pursuant to Art. 32 VCLT. As practice indicates, this book finally the relevance of the rules of international humanitarian law in the assessment of jus ad bellum proportionality.

Keywords

Search publication

Bibliographic data

Publication year: 2024
Publication date: 26.04.2024
ISBN-Print: 978-3-7560-1674-7
ISBN-Online: 978-3-7489-4371-6
Publisher: Nomos, Baden-Baden
Series: Kölner Schriften zum Friedenssicherungsrecht - Cologne Studies on International Peace and Security Law - Études colonaises sur le droit de la paix et de la sécurité internationale
Volume: 27
Language: English
Pages: 387
Product type: Book Titles

Titelei/Inhaltsverzeichnis No access Pages 1 - 26
1. A. Introduction No access
2. 1. I. Right of self-defence No access
  2. II. Jus ad bellum No access
  3. III. Jus contra bellum No access
  4. IV. Jus in bello No access
  5. V. Jus ad bellum proportionality No access
3. 1. 1. 1. Necessity as question of ‘if’ No access
    2. 2. Imminence as question of ‘when’ No access
    3. 3. Proportionality as a question of ‘how’ No access
  2. 1. 1. a. Quantitative approach No access
      2. b. Functional approach No access
      3. c. Conflationist Approach No access
      4. d. War exceptionalist approach No access
      5. e. Subjective approach No access
    2. 1. a. Static approach No access
      2. b. Continuous approach No access
4. 1. 1. 1. Art. 51 UNC as a Source of Treaty Law No access
    2. 1. a. The restrictionists No access
      2. b. The counter-restrictionists No access
      3. c. The Nicaragua judgements of the ICJ No access
      4. d. Assumption of this examination No access
  2. 1. 1. a. Literal Interpretation: the ordinary meaning of a treaty norm No access
      2. b. Systematic Interpretation: the context of a treaty norm No access
      3. c. Teleological interpretation: Object and purpose No access
    2. 1. a. Subsequent agreements pursuant to Art. 31 para. 3 lit. a) VCLT No access
      2. b. Subsequent practice pursuant to Art. 31 para. 3 lit. b) VCLT No access
      3. c. Other subsequent practice pursuant to Art. 32 VCLT No access
      4. d. Relevance of the practice of the Institutions of the UN No access
      5. e. Working method regarding state practice No access
    3. 1. a. Silence in international treaty law No access
      2. b. Silence in subsequent practice of a treaty norm No access
1. 1. 1. 1. Koine Eirene No access
    2. 1. a. Plato’s ideas of temperance and justice No access
      2. b. Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean No access
  2. II. The Just War Doctrine No access
  3. III. Immanuel Kant’s Perpetual Peace No access
  4. 1. 1. Liberum jus ad bellum No access
    2. 1. a. Summary of events No access
      2. b. Significance of the Webster-Formula for contemporary jus contra bellum No access
    3. 3. Codification of jus in bello No access
  5. V. The Formalisation of War: the Covenant of the League of Nations, 1920-1946 No access
  6. 1. 1. Treaties of Locarno No access
    2. 2. Kellogg-Briand Pact, 1928 No access
  7. VII. Summary and Results No access
2. 1. I. Vertical proportionality as a principle of national public law No access
  2. 1. 1. Domestic self-defence as paradigm for the states’ right of self-defence No access
    2. 1. a. England and Wales No access
      2. b. United States No access
      3. c. France No access
      4. d. Germany No access
      5. e. Russia No access
      6. f. China No access
      7. g. Israel No access
      8. h. Art. 31 Rome-Statute No access
    3. 3. Conclusions No access
1. 1. I. Inherent right of individual or collective self-defence No access
  2. 1. 1. “Until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security” No access
    2. 2. Reporting requirement (Art. 51 S. 2 UNC) No access
  3. III. Intermediate result No access
2. 1. 1. 1. a. Notions of force No access
      2. b. Threat or use No access
      3. c. Inter-state application No access
    2. 1. a. Peremptory character of the prohibition of aggression No access
      2. b. Dispositive character of Art. 51 UNC No access
      3. c. Art. 51 UNC as exception to Art. 2 (4) UNC No access
      4. d. Jus ad bellum proportionality as a safeguard of the adherence to a peremptory norm No access
  2. 1. 1. Purposes and principles of the UN No access
    2. 1. a. Pacific settlement of disputes pursuant to Chapter VI UNC No access
      2. b. Collective measures pursuant to Art. 39 – 42 UNC No access
      3. c. Limits of the UNSC’s authorities No access
      4. d. Intermediate result No access
    3. 3. Indications for jus ad bellum proportionality No access
  3. III. Intermediate result No access
3. 1. 1. 1. “To save succeeding generations from the scourge of war” No access
    2. 2. Maintenance of international peace and security No access
    3. 3. Indications of the Preamble No access
  2. 1. 1. Absence of self-defence in the Dumbarton Oaks Proposal No access
    2. 2. San Francisco Conference No access
    3. 3. Conclusions from travaux préparatoires No access
  3. III. Intermediate result: object and purpose of Art. 51 UNC No access
4. D. Conclusion: limitation of the right of self-defence No access
1. A. Lack of subsequent agreements or practice pursuant to Art. 31 para. 3 lit. a) and b) VCLT No access
2. 1. 1. 1. Introduction of the proportionality requirement No access
    2. 1. a. Statements in favour of the proportionality criterion No access
      2. b. Statements critical towards the idea of proportionality No access
    3. 3. Intermediate result: majority supporting proportionality requirement No access
    4. 4. Legal value of the discussions No access
  2. 1. 1. Ago’s Addendum to the eighth report on State responsibility No access
    2. 2. Indications of Ago’s report No access
  3. 1. 1. Nicaragua vs. USA, 1986 No access
    2. 2. Advisory Opinion on the Threat or Use of Nuclear Weapons, 1996 No access
    3. 3. Iran vs. USA, 2003 No access
    4. 4. DRC vs. Uganda No access
    5. 5. Perception of jus ad bellum proportionality by the ICJ No access
3. 1. 1. 1. Summary of events No access
    2. 2. State practice No access
    3. 3. Legal significance No access
  2. 1. 1. Summary of events No access
    2. 2. State practice No access
    3. 3. Legal significance No access
  3. 1. 1. a. Operation Cast Lead, 2008-2009 No access
      2. b. Operation Pillar of Defence, 2012 No access
      3. c. Operation Protective Edge, 2014 No access
    2. 1. a. Operation Cast Lead, 2008-2009 No access
      2. b. Operation Pillar of Defence, 2012 No access
      3. c. Operation Protective Edge, 2014 No access
    3. 3. Legal significance No access
  4. 1. 1. Summary of events No access
    2. 2. State practice No access
    3. 3. Legal significance No access
  5. 1. 1. Summary of events No access
    2. 2. State practice No access
    3. 3. Legal significance No access
  6. 1. 1. a. Functional nexus No access
      2. b. Geographical nexus No access
      3. c. Disproportionate self-defence amounts to aggression No access
    2. 2. Indicative value of subsequent state practice No access
4. D. Conclusions No access
1. A. Introduction No access
2. 1. 1. 1. No overriding power of jus contra bellum No access
    2. 2. Paragraph 2 (E) of the dispositif No access
  2. II. Jus ad bellum proportionality and the relevance of IHL No access
3. 1. 1. 1. Micro-view of jus in bello No access
    2. 2. Macro-view of jus contra bellum No access
    3. 3. Intermediate result No access
  2. 1. 1. jus in bello No access
    2. 2. jus contra bellum No access
    3. 3. Intermediate result No access
  3. 1. 1. Equal application of jus in bello to all parties of a conflict No access
    2. 2. Application of jus contra bellum independently of jus in bello No access
    3. 3. Indication of the principle for relevance of jus in bello in jus ad bellum proportionality No access
  4. IV. Conclusion No access
4. 1. I. Jus in bello as embodiment of proportionality No access
  2. 1. 1. Origins in Just War Tradition No access
    2. 2. Jus contra bellum aspects of early jus in bello codification No access
    3. 3. Establishment of principle of separation in 1920s No access
    4. 4. Intermediate result No access
  3. 1. 1. Rationale of jus in bello No access
    2. 2. Rationale of jus contra bellum No access
    3. 3. Common ethical rationale No access
  4. 1. 1. The scope of application of jus in bello No access
    2. 1. a. Definition of “armed attack” No access
      2. b. Armed attack by a state against a state No access
      3. c. Armed attack by a non-state actor against a state No access
    3. 3. Concurrent application No access
5. 1. I. Relevance of jus in bello violations within the assessment of ad bellum proportionality No access
  2. II. Transformation from individual assessment to an overall assessment No access
  3. III. Disproportionality of defensive action under Art. 51 UNC No access
1. 1. 1. 1. Legal grounds No access
    2. 2. Obscure content of halt-and-repel-test No access
    3. 3. Quantity as first indication No access
  2. 1. 1. a. Subsequent practice: proportionate targeting as fundamental part of proportionality No access
      2. b. Academic discussion: Targeting as part of the necessity or proportionality assessment? No access
      3. c. Proportionate targeting No access
    2. 1. a. Proportionate choice of weapons No access
      2. b. Proportionate methods of warfare No access
      3. c. Proportionate effects of warfare No access
    3. 3. Regional aspects No access
    4. 4. Temporal aspects No access
  3. III. Subjective aspects of jus ad bellum proportionality No access
  4. 1. 1. Jus ad bellum proportionality as means-end test No access
    2. 2. Jus ad bellum proportionality as harm-benefit test No access
2. 1. I. Temporal scope No access
  2. II. Material scope No access
  3. III. Personal scope No access
3. 1. I. Disproportionality of defensive action vs. overall disproportionality No access
  2. II. Disproportionate self-defence as an act of aggression No access
  3. III. State responsibility No access
  4. IV. Individual criminal responsibility No access
1. A. Chapter 1 No access
2. B. Chapter 2 No access
3. C. Chapter 3 No access
4. D. Chapter 4 No access
5. E. Chapter 5 No access
6. F. Chapter 6 No access
1. A. Summary of Events No access
2. B. State practice No access
3. C. Conclusions No access
Literature No access Pages 365 - 387