Eleanor Finch
Military necessity, along with distinction and proportionality, are three important principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict. Military necessity is a principle that permits measures necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not prohibited by international humanitarian law. In the case of an armed conflict, the only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the other parties involved. The judgement of a field commander in battle over military necessity and proportionality is rarely subject to legal challenge unless the methods of warfare used by the commander were illegal.
| Characteristics | Values |
|---|---|
| Definition | Military necessity is one of the three important principles of international humanitarian law governing the legal use of force in an armed conflict. |
| Purpose | To weaken the military capacity of the other parties to the conflict. |
| Constraints | An attack or action must be intended to help in the military defeat of the enemy; it must be an attack on a military objective; and the harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated". |
| Judgment | A field commander's judgment in battle over military necessity and proportionality is rarely subject to legal challenge unless the methods of warfare used were illegal. |
| Weapons | Military necessity also applies to weapons, especially when a new weapon is developed and deployed. |
| Relation to humanity | Military necessity is often considered to be opposed to humanity, but this is a nuanced issue. While some acts of military necessity may be inhumane, it is possible for conduct to be both effective and humane. |
Explore related products
What You'll Learn
Military necessity and international humanitarian law
Military necessity is one of the three important principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict. The principle of military necessity permits actions that are necessary to achieve a legitimate military purpose and are not prohibited by international humanitarian law. The only legitimate military purpose in an armed conflict is to weaken the military capacity of the enemy.
Military necessity is often considered to be in opposition to humanity, as it can be interpreted to justify acts that have been outlawed by IHL rules. However, it is important to note that military necessity does not always encourage inhumane acts, and there can be a convergence between military and humanitarian considerations. For example, fighting insurgents in a way that earns the support of local civilians can be both effective and humane.
The judgement of a field commander in battle over military necessity and proportionality is rarely subject to legal challenge unless the methods of warfare used were illegal. Military necessity also applies to weapons, particularly when a new weapon is developed and deployed.
International humanitarian law permits belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even if civilian deaths or injuries may occur. However, a war crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians or if an attack is launched on a military objective with the knowledge that the incidental civilian injuries would be clearly excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage.
Becoming a Constitutional Lawyer in South Africa: A Guide
You may want to see also
Military necessity vs. humanity
The principle of military necessity is a crucial component of international humanitarian law (IHL). It permits actions that actively contribute to achieving a legitimate military goal during an armed conflict and refraining from those that do not. Military necessity is often juxtaposed with humanity, as the former is perceived to prioritise military interests over humane conduct.
International humanitarian law aims to balance military necessity and humanitarian exigencies. Military necessity allows belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks on military targets, even if civilian casualties may occur, as long as the harm to civilians is not excessive concerning the anticipated military advantage. This principle is not merely about the legal use of force but also applies to weapons and methods of warfare, which must be legal and not prohibited by international humanitarian law.
Humanity, on the other hand, inclines towards mandating humane behaviour and forbidding inhumane conduct. It seeks to minimise civilian harm and protect civilian property to the extent possible while still pursuing the military defeat of the enemy. In this sense, military necessity and humanity are not always in conflict but rather represent a contradiction of norms. For instance, certain actions can be both effective and humane, such as employing strategies that gain the support of local civilians, while others can be both pointless and cruel, like subjecting detainees to harsh interrogation techniques that impair their cognitive abilities.
While the concept of military necessity may appear to contradict humanitarian principles, it is essential to recognise that military necessity does not always promote inhumane behaviour. The law of armed conflict (LOAC) attempts to reconcile military and humanitarian considerations, and the interplay between these two factors is complex and nuanced. The International Committee of the Red Cross asserts that an act's military non-necessity renders it unlawful, even if it is not explicitly prohibited by IHL rules. However, this perspective has been challenged, with some arguing that this position oversimplifies the intricacies of IHL norm creation.
In conclusion, military necessity and humanity are not inherently opposed. While military necessity may sometimes require harsh or difficult decisions, it does not necessarily conflict with humanitarian principles. The two concepts coexist within the framework of international humanitarian law, which seeks to strike a delicate balance between achieving military objectives and minimising civilian harm.
Marketing 4 Ps: Understanding the Core Fundamentals
You may want to see also
Military necessity and the legal use of force
Military necessity is one of the three important principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict. The other two principles are distinction and proportionality. Military necessity permits actions that are necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not prohibited by international humanitarian law.
In the context of an armed conflict, the legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the enemy. Military necessity is not just about the use of force but also applies to weapons and their deployment. For example, the development and deployment of a new weapon must be considered in terms of military necessity. The judgement of a field commander in battle over military necessity and proportionality is rarely challenged legally unless the methods of warfare used by the commander were illegal.
There is a common perception that military necessity is diametrically opposed to humanity in IHL. This notion suggests that military necessity encourages inhumane actions and discourages humane ones. However, this view oversimplifies the complexities and nuances of IHL norm creation. In reality, military necessity and humanity are not always in conflict but rather represent a contradiction of norms. For instance, certain conduct can be both effective and humane, such as fighting insurgents in a way that gains the support of local civilians. On the other hand, some actions can be both pointless and cruel, such as severely harming a detainee through harsh interrogation techniques.
International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks against military objectives, even if there is a risk of civilian casualties. However, a war crime occurs if there is an intentional attack directed against civilians or if an attack is launched on a military target knowing that the incidental civilian harm would be clearly excessive compared to the anticipated military advantage.
Fruit and Veggie Servings: How Much is Enough?
You may want to see also
Explore related products
Military necessity and weapons
Military necessity is one of the three important principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict. It permits actions that are necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not prohibited by international humanitarian law. The only legitimate military purpose in an armed conflict is to weaken the military capacity of the opposing parties.
Military necessity is often considered to be in opposition to humanity, as it can involve actions that result in harm to civilians or civilian property. However, it is important to note that military necessity is not inherently opposed to humanity, and the two can coexist. For example, fighting insurgents in a way that gains the support of local civilians can be both effective and humane.
The principle of military necessity applies to the use of weapons as well. When a new weapon is developed and deployed, the consideration of military necessity comes into play. The use of a weapon must be justified by its contribution to the attainment of a legitimate military goal and must not violate international humanitarian law.
The judgement of a field commander regarding military necessity and proportionality is rarely challenged legally unless the methods of warfare used are illegal. This was the case with Radislav Krstic, who was found guilty as an aider and abettor to genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for the Srebrenica massacre.
In conclusion, military necessity is a critical aspect of international humanitarian law that guides the use of force and weapons during armed conflicts. It aims to strike a balance between achieving legitimate military objectives and minimizing harm to civilians. While it may sometimes be perceived as opposing humanitarian interests, military necessity can also align with humane considerations when appropriately applied.
Class Action Lawsuits: Who Can Be Included?
You may want to see also
Military necessity and legality
Military necessity is one of the three important principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict. The other two principles are distinction and proportionality. Military necessity permits actions that are necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not prohibited by international humanitarian law. In an armed conflict, the only legitimate military purpose is to weaken the military capacity of the opposing parties.
The principle of military necessity is often considered to be in opposition to humanity. This notion holds that military necessity encourages inhumane actions and discourages humane conduct. However, this is a simplification of the complex relationship between military necessity and humanity. In reality, military conduct can be both effective and humane, or it can be pointless and cruel. IHL rules aim to balance military and humanitarian considerations, recognising that military necessity does not always conflict with humanity.
The judgement of a field commander regarding military necessity and proportionality is rarely challenged legally, unless the methods of warfare used are illegal. For example, Radislav Krstic was found guilty of aiding and abetting genocide by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia for the Srebrenica massacre.
International humanitarian law and the Rome Statute permit belligerents to carry out proportionate attacks on military objectives, even if some civilian deaths or injuries may occur. However, an intentional attack directed against civilians or an attack on a military objective that causes excessive civilian harm is considered a war crime.
Rhode Island's Population Stance in the Constitution
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Military necessity is one of the three important principles of international humanitarian law (IHL) that govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict. It permits measures that are necessary to accomplish a legitimate military purpose and are not prohibited by international humanitarian law.
Military necessity is subject to several constraints. Firstly, an attack or action must aim to aid in the military defeat of the enemy. Secondly, it must be an attack on a military objective. Lastly, any harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not "excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated".
Military necessity is often viewed as being opposed to humanity, as it can involve actions that may cause harm to civilians. However, it is important to note that military necessity considers both military and humanitarian interests, aiming to strike a balance between the two.
The judgement of a field commander regarding military necessity is rarely subject to legal challenge unless the methods of warfare used were illegal.
