Proportionality in War: Geneva Rules and Modern Conflicts
This paper examines the principle of proportionality in war, tracing its legal foundations in the Geneva Convention's Articles 51 and 57, the ICTY NATO bombing report, and the U.S. Department of Defense Law of War Manual. The paper argues that while these frameworks were well-intentioned, the modern battlefield — characterized by stateless actors, human shields, propaganda, and emerging technologies such as autonomous weapons — has rendered traditional rules increasingly difficult to apply. Drawing on scholarly sources spanning just war theory, terrorism, surveillance ethics, and the Second Lebanon War, the paper contends that international standards governing proportionality must be revised to reflect the realities of contemporary armed conflict.
- Introduction: The Contested Principle of Proportionality: Frames proportionality debate and changing rules of war
- Geneva Convention Standards and Civilian Protection: Articles 51 and 57 on civilian protection in conflict
- NATO Bombing Guidelines and the Proportionality Calculus: ICTY NATO report on bombing and collateral damage
- U.S. Law of War Manual, Human Shields, and Case Law: DoD manual, human shields, and Israeli court cases
- The Argument for Revised International Standards: Scholarly case for updating proportionality frameworks
- Conclusion: Traditional rules remain binding but need revision
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds its argument in primary legal sources — Geneva Convention Articles 51 and 57, the ICTY NATO bombing report, and the DoD Law of War Manual — before advancing its normative claim, giving the analysis credibility.
- Uses concrete historical and contemporary examples (Hiroshima/Nagasaki, Fallujah, the Second Lebanon War, Al Qaeda and ISIS) to illustrate abstract legal concepts, making the argument accessible and grounded.
- Marshals a range of peer-reviewed scholarly sources to support the central claim that traditional proportionality frameworks need updating, moving beyond legal texts into political science, ethics, and military studies.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper demonstrates effective synthesis of primary legal documents with secondary scholarly literature. Rather than treating the Geneva Convention and NATO guidelines as endpoints, the author uses them as a baseline against which to measure the shortcomings of existing law, then layers in academic sources to build the normative argument for reform. This "establish then challenge" structure is a useful model for policy-oriented argumentative essays.
Structure breakdown
The paper opens with a broad introduction framing the problem of proportionality in contemporary war. The analysis section surveys relevant legal frameworks in sequence — Geneva Convention, NATO bombing guidelines, and U.S. military doctrine — with illustrative case examples. The argument section then applies scholarly literature to advocate for revised international standards, addressing propaganda, the civil-criminal boundary, terrorism, just war theory, and emerging technologies. A brief conclusion restates the central tension between honorable conduct and evolving battlefield realities.
Introduction: The Contested Principle of Proportionality
The principle of proportionality in war is hotly contested and debated. How the principle could and should apply — in terms of response to military action or aggression, the incidence or possibility of civilian casualties, and related concerns — are all considerations when it comes to proportionality in war. In general terms, the argument is that there should be consistency between a strike and a counterstrike. Obviously, the goal is to win whatever conflict is at hand; however, there are limits to this approach. For example, responding to a cruise missile strike with a nuclear strike is clearly impermissible. Yet there are times when proportionality becomes clouded and difficult to assess, and the issue can be deeply controversial.
The dual nuclear strikes on Japan during World War II are one example of a case where proportionality remains contested. The manner in which the often-stateless armies of today unapologetically use civilians as human shields — and otherwise ignore the commonly held laws of war — is another. Regardless of which side one comes down on in the modern age, it is clear that while the rules may not have changed in the eyes of many, the battlefield and how certain parties conduct themselves has certainly changed. This raises the question of whether traditional rules should still apply as written, or whether there should be greater focus on achieving victory through any reasonable means, rather than placing paramount emphasis on proportionality and fairness.
Even under any expansion of the guidelines governing war, the standard rules about avoiding civilian casualties and prohibiting nuclear strikes unless responding in kind would generally hold. Even so, the fact that the rules of engagement are often ignored by today's fighters and rogue regimes cannot be overlooked. Many suggest that while descending to their level of depravity is unacceptable, adhering rigidly to honorable and traditional rules is also problematic given how ruthless the opposing side can often be.
Geneva Convention Standards and Civilian Protection
Even as the landscape and paradigm of war and how it should be waged continue to change, it is important to consult all relevant and applicable sources. One of the authoritative sources when it comes to the rules, expectations, and laws of war is the Geneva Convention and its associated guidelines. One particularly important provision when it comes to this topic is Article 51, which addresses the protection of the civilian population. The rules on this subject are foundational: civilians shall "enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations," they are "not to be the object of attack," and indiscriminate attacks in which civilians are caught up in the conflagration are prohibited.1
Article 57 of the same convention is also directly relevant and contains similar provisions. The first item in that section states that "in the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects." This means avoiding the killing and harming of civilians, their homes, and their other property whenever possible.2 These provisions were adopted in the 1970s.
A clear example of a military action that would be prohibited under these provisions is the dual nuclear bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Both bombings were civilian — rather than strictly military — in character, and were plainly indiscriminate in nature. As such, those bombings would have violated both Article 51 and Article 57 of the Geneva Conventions had those rules been in force at the time.
NATO Bombing Guidelines and the Proportionality Calculus
Another set of rules and guidelines commonly cited in this area refers specifically to bombing: the ICTY NATO bombing report. Beginning at paragraph 48, the report contains a section that specifically addresses proportionality as it relates to bombing operations. The language of that section is clear and instructive, stating that "it is relatively simple to state that there must be an acceptable relation between the destructive effect and undesirable collateral effects." The section uses the example of a refugee camp, noting that its bombing would not be permitted even if the people sheltering there were "knitting socks for soldiers." On the other hand, the report indicates that bombing an ammunition dump would be permissible, even if a nearby farmer happened to be plowing a field and was killed as a result — since the target was legitimate and it is unlikely that those ordering the strike would have known the farmer was present. The report concedes, however, that while valuing a military target or military resources is relatively straightforward, placing a comparable value on human life lost or affected by a bombing is far more difficult.3
The NATO rules section goes on to discuss proportionality at greater length. It notes that one must ask what the "relative value" is of the military advantage gained compared to the potential injury to non-combatants or damage to civilian objects resulting from a strike. Even a high-value military target may be rendered effectively untouchable if it is deliberately positioned among civilians — near houses, busy roads, or a marketplace. That placement may itself be intentional, designed to deter a military strike. Even so, questions remain about what factors are included when "totaling your sums," what the "standard of measurement" is when deciding whether to attack or stand down, and to what extent an attacking force should expose its own personnel to danger in order to limit or mitigate civilian casualties.4
A more contemporary illustration of this dilemma is the city of Fallujah following the fall of Saddam Hussein. The city was undeniably full of combatants and posed serious security challenges. Some might argue that it should simply have been destroyed entirely in order to eliminate the threat. However, the resulting civilian casualties would have been enormous, and it would have destroyed the homes and property of innocent residents. Instead, American and coalition forces conducted door-to-door operations designed to target only those persons and items connected to the armed resistance, sparing civilians and their property wherever possible.
Conclusion
It is clear that the Geneva Convention and some of the other more dated rules and laws of war were created with good intentions and strong ideals in mind. However, the rules and concept of war have changed, and there are many people and fighters in the world who will unapologetically use the more traditional rules of war against the United States and other countries in a pernicious way. Whether it be using human shields, fighters operating for stateless regimes outside any official army structure, exaggerating casualty numbers, or deploying propaganda, so much of what is leveled against the United States and the rest of the world as they engage in war or war-like actions is deeply insidious.
At the same time, the United States and other aggressive parties — including, for example, Israel — must remember that they remain bound by rules even when other parties and nations have no intention of following them. This means they must fight for legitimate reasons and conduct themselves in the right way. The challenge going forward is to preserve that commitment to lawful conduct while honestly confronting the reality that the existing legal frameworks were not designed for the conflicts being fought today.
Bibliography
Brown, Davis. 2011. "Proportionality in Modern Just War Theory: A Tort-Based Approach." Journal of Military Ethics 10, no. 3: 213–229. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Case Briefs. 2017. "Public Committee Against Torture V. State of Israel | Casebriefs." Casebriefs.com. http://www.casebriefs.com/blog/law/criminal-law/criminal-law-keyed-to-kadish/exculpation/public-committee-against-torture-v-state-of-israel/.
"Department of Defense — Law of War Manual." 2017. US Department of Defense. http://archive.defense.gov/pubs/Law-of-War-Manual-June-2015.pdf.
Eberle, Christopher J. 2016. "Rights, Goods, and Proportionate War." Monist 99, no. 1: 70. MasterFILE Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Fitzsimmons, Scott. 2015. "Just War Theory and Private Security Companies." International Affairs 91, no. 5: 1069–1084. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Franzen, Johan. 2010. "Losing Hearts and Minds in Iraq: Britain, Cold War Propaganda and the Challenge of Communism, 1945–58." Historical Research 83, no. 222: 747–762. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Ganor, Boaz. 2013. "Israel and Hamas: Is War Imminent?" Orbis 57, no. 1: 120–134. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Gardam, Judith G. 2005. "A Role for Proportionality in the War on Terror." Nordic Journal of International Law 74, no. 1: 3–25. Business Source Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Gross, Michael L. 2008. "The Second Lebanon War: The Question of Proportionality and the Prospect of Non-Lethal Warfare." Journal of Military Ethics 7, no. 1: 1–22. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Hamoked. 2017. "HCJ 3799/02 — Adalah et al. v. GOC Central Command, IDF Judgment — Hamoked." Hamoked.org.
ICRC. 2017. "Treaties, States Parties, and Commentaries — Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 — 51 — Protection of the Civilian Population." Ihl-Databases.Icrc.org. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750065.
ICRC. 2017. "Treaties, States Parties, and Commentaries — Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 — 57 — Precautions in Attack." Ihl-Databases.Icrc.org. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750073?OpenDocument.
ICTY. 2017. "Press | International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia." Icty.org. http://www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal#IVA64d.
Khalidi, Rashid I. 2014. "The Dahiya Doctrine, Proportionality, and War Crimes." Journal of Palestine Studies 44, no. 1: 5–13. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Macnish, Kevin. 2015. "An Eye for an Eye: Proportionality and Surveillance." Ethical Theory & Moral Practice 18, no. 3: 529–548. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
May, Larry. 2013. "Jus Post Bellum Proportionality and the Fog of War." European Journal of International Law 24, no. 1: 315–333. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Schleifer, Ron. 2005. "Reconstructing Iraq: Winning the Propaganda War in Iraq." Middle East Quarterly 12, no. 3: 1–10. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Simpson, Thomas W., and Vincent C. Muller. 2016. "Just War and Robots' Killings." Philosophical Quarterly 66, no. 263: 302–322. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Solomon, Solon. 2010. "The Great Oxymoron: Jus In Bello Violations as Legitimate Non-Forcible Measures of Self-Defense: The Post-Disengagement Israeli Measures towards Gaza as a Case Study." Chinese Journal of International Law 9, no. 3: 501–536. Academic Search Premier, EBSCOhost (accessed May 5, 2017).
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.