Article

Self-defense targeting : blurring the line between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello

Geoffrey S. Corn

• International law studies, Vol. 88, 2012, p. 57-92

English

This essay will argue that the concept of self-defense targeting does not and cannot provide a substitute for resolving the debate about in bello applicability to transnational counterterror military operations. The reasons for this are multifaceted. First, the jus ad bellum has never been understood as a source of operational or tactical regulation nor a substitute for the law providing that regulation. Indeed, one of the central tenets of the jus belli has always been the invalidity of reliance on the jus ad bellum to define jus in bello obligations. Instead, the de facto nature of tactical execution is the principal factor for assessing applicability of the jus in bello. Second, because the jus ad bellum has never been conceived as a tactical regulatory framework, using it as a substitute for the jus in bello injects unacceptable confusion into the planning and execution of combat operations. Finally, while the principles of necessity and proportionality are central to both branches of the jus belli, the meaning of these principles is not identical in each branch but, in fact, disparate. As a result, the scope of lawful authority to employ force during mission execution will be subtly but unquestionably degraded if ad bellum principles are utilized as a substitute for in bello regulation.

• Full text

• International law studies
• International law studies [Vol. 88, 2012]