Considerations of necessity under article 57(2)(a)(ii), (c), and (3) and proportionality under article 51(5)(b) and article 57(2)(b) of Additional Protocol I : is there room for an integrated approach? / Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg
Considerations of necessity under article 57(2)(a)(ii), (c), and (3) and proportionality under article 51(5)(b) and article 57(2)(b) of Additional Protocol I : is there room for an integrated approach?
Wolff Heintschel von Heinegg
Necessity and proportionality in international peace and security law
Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2021
While military necessity as such does not absolve the parties to the conflict from their obligations of avoiding or minimizing collateral damage, of giving an advance warning, or of choosing an alternative target, considerations of military necessity have an impact on the scope of those obligations. The same holds true for the prohibition of collateral damage that is expected to be excessive in relation to the military advantage anticipated and for the obligation to cancel or suspend an attack, if circumstances have changed. Targeting decisions must be based on a complex assessment of a variety of factors that must be taken account of in their entirety. Accordingly, the law of armed conflict obliges those who plan or decide on an attack to adopt an integrated approach.
By entering this website, you consent to the use of technologies, such as cookies and analytics, to customise content, advertising and provide social media features. This will be used to analyse traffic to the website, allowing us to understand visitor preferences and improving our services. Learn more