Proportionality in Warfare by Keith Pavlischek
Israel’s efforts to protect itself against Hamas and Hezbollah have been widely criticized in the press for being “disproportionate,” going beyond an eye for an eye. This is a grave misunderstanding of the term, Keith Pavlischek explains, drawing out its true meaning in the tradition of just war theory as a strategy for avoiding harm to noncombatants — an area in which Israel is far more conscientious than its enemies.
Which led me to ask the question, is it morally permissible for an entity to wage 4GW if it is the only way to achieve victory? Or are certain tactics proscribed, e.g. deliberately endangering civilians by blending in with them?
2 comments:
Hey papabear,
I remember people saying that operation cast lead was a 'disproportionate' response, and the implication did seem to be that there should be a parity between casualty rates on either side.
My understanding of proportionality is firstly that the use of force should be proportional to the degree of threat. eg. if the enemy is firing rockets, a proportional response is to take out the rocket-launchers, or the enemy's capacity to create and fire rockets.
Proportionality also applies -as the article discusses- in the context of double-effect and the risk to civilians.
Hamas eventually admitted 700 combatant deaths, out of as many as 1400 total casualties. Yet at the time, non-IDF estimates were closer to 200 combatant casualties, suggesting a much less proportionate combatant to non-combatant death toll - hence the popular outrage.
With regard to 4GW, just war requires 'legitimate authority', which may rule out non-state actors. In WWII, for example, the Free French forces maintained legitimate authority under De Gaulle. Just war also requires hope of success, which the French retained in the context of their alliances. Without these factors any 4GW would not be legitimate.
But with regard to the morality of specific tactics: in the Israeli situation, moral responsibility for civilian deaths lies on those who attack from civilian areas. The same principles would apply to any 4GW, I believe.
However, hiding among the populace as in the case of the Free French would - I believe - still be permissible.
Zac, while I would not say everything was right with Vichy France, but it seems to me that if surrender was morally required of the French, then the authority of the Vichy Government and its subjection to the Germans, now matter how it was accomplished, was at least initially legitimate. It might be determined at some point that either regime was no longer legitimate since it had become tyrannical and therefore no longer legitimate, but at this point I cannot see De Gaulle's claim that he was representative of the legitimate government of France could be valid, at least right after the surrender.
I suppose that in the case of those who are rebelling under an unjust regime, they are doing so under the mantle of legitimate authority, as the ruler who attacks the common good has lost authority, which has devolved back onto the people. Or, they are not really engaged in war, as a political action, but just self-defense, even if it is highly organized.
Post a Comment