The Discourse of Proportionality and the Use of Force: International Law and the Power of Definition

Q2 Social Sciences
M. Mckenna
{"title":"The Discourse of Proportionality and the Use of Force: International Law and the Power of Definition","authors":"M. Mckenna","doi":"10.1163/15718107-89030006","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Foregrounding standards like ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’ have come to assume a central place in the international legal vocabulary for assessing the legitimacy of war. In both ethical and practical terms, the shift towards common standards provides a useful vernacular to assess military operations. But the question remains: how should these terms be interpreted and applied and by whom? Simultaneously, debates over the definitional boundaries of the legal concept of war and its attendant categories (e.g. lawful military objects, protected zones, combatants, civilians) have arisen in many contexts, leaving room for different and conflicting interpretations, often to the detriment of marginalised groups and weaker States. This article examines the ambivalences, complexities and contestations that have arisen in the move towards broader and subjective discourses of law and war, through the lens of proportionality. (Less)","PeriodicalId":34997,"journal":{"name":"Nordic Journal of International Law","volume":"89 1","pages":"364-382"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-11-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/15718107-89030006","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Nordic Journal of International Law","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/15718107-89030006","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Social Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Foregrounding standards like ‘proportionality’ and ‘necessity’ have come to assume a central place in the international legal vocabulary for assessing the legitimacy of war. In both ethical and practical terms, the shift towards common standards provides a useful vernacular to assess military operations. But the question remains: how should these terms be interpreted and applied and by whom? Simultaneously, debates over the definitional boundaries of the legal concept of war and its attendant categories (e.g. lawful military objects, protected zones, combatants, civilians) have arisen in many contexts, leaving room for different and conflicting interpretations, often to the detriment of marginalised groups and weaker States. This article examines the ambivalences, complexities and contestations that have arisen in the move towards broader and subjective discourses of law and war, through the lens of proportionality. (Less)
相称性与武力的使用:国际法与定义的力量
像“相称性”和“必要性”这样的前瞻性标准已经在评估战争合法性的国际法律词汇中占据了中心地位。从道德和实际的角度来看,向共同标准的转变为评估军事行动提供了一个有用的术语。但问题仍然存在:这些术语应该如何解释和应用,由谁来解释和应用?与此同时,在许多情况下,对战争的法律概念及其相关类别(如合法军事目标、保护区、战斗人员、平民)的定义界限产生了辩论,为不同和相互矛盾的解释留下了余地,往往损害了边缘化群体和较弱国家。本文通过比例的视角审视了在走向更广泛和主观的法律和战争话语的过程中出现的矛盾、复杂性和争论。(少)
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
0.00%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: Established in 1930, the Nordic Journal of International Law has remained the principal forum in the Nordic countries for the scholarly exchange on legal developments in the international and European domains. Combining broad thematic coverage with rigorous quality demands, it aims to present current practice and its theoretical reflection within the different branches of international law.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信