Book contents
- The Military Commander’s Necessity
- The Military Commander’s Necessity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Concept, History and Basics
- Part II Distinction As Limitation upon Military Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict
- Part III Effectuating Distinction: Enforcing an Ultimate Balance between Necessities of War and Considerations of Humanity
- Part IV The Exceptive Face of Military Necessity
- Part V Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 30 September 2019
Book contents
- The Military Commander’s Necessity
- The Military Commander’s Necessity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Preface
- Table of Cases
- Table of Treaties
- 1 Introduction
- Part I Concept, History and Basics
- Part II Distinction As Limitation upon Military Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict
- Part III Effectuating Distinction: Enforcing an Ultimate Balance between Necessities of War and Considerations of Humanity
- Part IV The Exceptive Face of Military Necessity
- Part V Conclusions
- Bibliography
- Index
- References
Summary
A summary is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- The Military Commander's NecessityThe Law of Armed Conflict and its Limits, pp. 410 - 425Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2019
References
Primary Sources
Adler, Gerald J., ‘Targets in war: legal considerations’, Houston Law Review, vol. 8 (1970): 1–46.Google Scholar
Agius, Maria, ‘The invocation of necessity in international law’, Netherlands Law Review, vol. 56, no. 2 (2009): 95–135.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andenæs, Johs, ‘Okkupasjonstidens likvidasjoner i et rettslig lys’, Tidsskrift for Retsvitenskap (1948): 1–31.Google Scholar
Andler, Charles, ‘Frightfulness’ in Theory and Practice: As Compared with Franco-British Usages (Fisher Unwin, 1916).Google Scholar
Arai-Takahashi, Yutaka, ‘Excessive collateral civilian casualties and military necessity: awkward crossroads in international humanitarian law between state responsibility and individual criminal liability’, in Chinkin, Christine and Baetens, Freya (eds.), Sovereignty, Statehood and State Responsibility: Essays in Honour of James Crawford (Cambridge University Press, 2015): 325–40.Google Scholar
Aras, M. H., Miloglu, O., Barutcugil, C., Kantarci, M., Ozcan, E. and Harorli, A., ‘Comparison of the sensitivity for detecting foreign bodies among conventional plain radiography, computed tomography and ultrasonography’, Dentomaxillofacial Radiology, vol. 39, no. 2 (2010): 72–8.Google Scholar
Arnold, Roberta and Wehrenberg, Stefan, ‘Article 8: mental element’, in Triffterer, Otto and Ambos, Kai (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd ed. (C. H. Beck, Hart and Nomos, 2016).Google Scholar
Barber, Peter, ‘Scuds, shelters and retreating soldiers: the laws of aerial bombardment in the Gulf War’, Alberta Law Review, vol. 31, no. 4 (1994): 662–91.Google Scholar
Bartels, Rogier, ‘Dealing with the principle of proportionality in armed conflict in retrospect: the application of the principle in international criminal trials’, Israel Law Review, vol. 46, no. 2 (2013): 271–315.Google Scholar
Bartels, Rogier, ‘Discrepancies between international humanitarian law on the battlefield and in the courtroom: the challenges of applying international humanitarian law during international criminal trials’, in Matthee, M. et al. (eds.), Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face (TMC Asser Press, 2013): 339–78.Google Scholar
Bashi, Sari, ‘Justifying restrictions on reconstructing Gaza: military necessity and humanitarian assistance’, Israel Law Review, vol. 49, no. 2 (2016): 149–69.Google Scholar
Baxter, Richard, ‘So-called unprivileged belligerency: spies, guerrillas, and saboteurs’, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 28, no. 323 (1951).Google Scholar
Beer, Yishai, ‘Humanity considerations cannot reduce war’s hazards alone: revitalizing the concept of military necessity’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 26, no. 4 (2015): 801–28.Google Scholar
Best, Geoffrey, ‘Restraint in war in historical and philosophical perspective’, in Delissen, Astrid J. M. and Tanja, Gerard J. (eds.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead: Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers) (1991): 3–26.Google Scholar
Biddle, Tami Davis, Rhetoric and Reality in Air Warfare: The Evolution of British and American Ideas about Strategic Bombing, 1914–1945 (Princeton University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Bill, Brian J., ‘The Rendulic “Rule”: military necessity, commander’s knowledge, and methods of warfare’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol. 12 (2009): 119–55.Google Scholar
Blix, Hans, ‘Area bombardment: rules and reasons’, in Schmitt, Michael N. and Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff (eds.), The Conduct of Hostilities in International Humanitarian Law, vol. 1 (Ashgate, 2012).Google Scholar
Blum, Gabriella, ‘The fog of victory’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 24, no. 1 (2013): 391–421.Google Scholar
Boivin, Alexandra, ‘The legal regime applicable to targeting military objectives in the context of contemporary warfare’, Centre for International Humanitarian Law, Research Paper Series, no. 2 (2006).Google Scholar
Boothby, William H., ‘“And for such time as”: the time dimension to direct participation in hostilities’, International Law and Politics, vol. 42 (2009–10): 741–68.Google Scholar
Bothe, Michael, ‘The protection of the civilian population and NATO bombing on Yugoslavia: comments on a report to the Prosecutor of the ICTY’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 12, no. 3 (2001): 531–5.Google Scholar
Bothe, Michael, ‘War crimes’, in Cassese, Antonio, Gaeta, Paola and Jones, John R. W. D. (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, vol. 1 (Oxford University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Bothe, Michael, Partsch, Karl Joseph and Solf, Waldemar A., New Rules for Victims of Armed Conflicts, Commentary on the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 2nd ed. (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2013).Google Scholar
Bring, Ove and Körlof-Askholt, Anna, Folkrätt i krig, kris och fredsoperationer (Norstedts Juridik, 2010).Google Scholar
Byman, Daniel L., Waxman, Matthew C. and Shapiro, Jeremy, ‘The future of U.S. coercive airpower’, in Khalilzad, Zalmay and Shapiro, Jeremy (eds.), Strategic Appraisal: United States Air and Space Power in the 21st Century (Rand Corporation, 2002).Google Scholar
Cannizzaro, Enzo, ‘Proportionality in the Law of Armed Conflict’, in Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paolo (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Cassese, Antonio, International Criminal Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Martens Clause: half a loaf or simply pie in the sky’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 11 (2000).Google Scholar
Carnahan, Burrus, ‘Lincoln, Lieber and the laws of war: the origins and limits of the principle of necessity’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 92, no. 2 (1998): 213–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnahan, Burrus, ‘“Linebacker II” and Protocol I: the convergence of law and professionalism’, American University Law Review, vol. 31, no. 861 (1981–2).Google Scholar
Christoffersen, Jonas, Fair Balance: Proportionality, Subsidiarity and Primarity in the European Convention on Human Rights (Martinus, Nijhoff Publishers, 2009).Google Scholar
Clausewitz, Carl von, On War, edited and translated by Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter (Princeton University Press, 1984).Google Scholar
Cohen, Amichai, ‘The Lebanon War and the application of the proportionality principle’, International Law Forum, Research Paper No. 6–07 (2007).Google Scholar
Conan Doyle, Arthur, The War in South Africa: Its Cause and Conduct (London: Smith, Elder & Co., 1902).Google Scholar
Corn, Geoffrey S., ‘Targeting, command judgment, and a proposed quantum of information component: a fourth amendment lesson in contextual reasonableness’, Brooklyn Law Review, vol. 77 (2011–12): 437–98.Google Scholar
Corn, Geoffrey S., Hansen, Victor, Jenks, M. Christopher, Jackson, Richard, Jensen, Eric Talbot and Schoettler, James A., The Law of Armed Conflict: An Operational Approach (Aspen Publishers, Walter Kluwer, 2012).Google Scholar
Coupland, Robert, ‘Humanity: what is it and how does it influence international law?’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 83, no. 844 (2001): 969–90.Google Scholar
Coupland, Robin M., The SIrUS Project: Towards a Determination of Which Weapons Cause ‘Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering’ (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1997).Google Scholar
Crawford, James, The International Law Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility. Introduction, Text and Commentaries (Cambridge University Press, 2002).Google Scholar
Crawford, J. W., ‘The law of noncombatant immunity and the targeting of national electrical power systems’, The Fletcher Forum of World Affairs, vol. 21, no. 2 (1997).Google Scholar
Cross, Kenneth, Dullum, Ove, Jenzen-Jones, N. R. and Garlasco, Marc, Explosive weapons in populated areas: technical considerations relevant to their use and effects, Special Report, Ares Armament Research Services (2016).Google Scholar
De Cock, Chris, ‘Operation Unified Protector and the protection of civilians in Libya’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol. 14 (2011).Google Scholar
De Cock, Christian, ‘Operation Unified Protector: targeting densely populated areas in Libya’, Military and Strategic Affairs, vol. 4 (2012).Google Scholar
De Saussure, Hamilton and Glasser, Robert, ‘Air warfare Christmas 1972’, in Trooboff, Peter D. (ed.), Law and Responsibility in Warfare: The Vietnam Experience (The University of North Carolina Press, 1975).Google Scholar
Det Kongelige Forsvarsdepartement, Kongelig Resolusjon, 23 March 2011, Fullmakt til deltakelse med norske militære bidrag i operasjoner til gjennomføring av FNs sikkerhetsrådsresolusjon 1973 (2011).Google Scholar
De Vattel, Emmerich, The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (T. and J. W. Johnson, 1758, republished 1853).Google Scholar
Dill, Janina, ‘Applying the principle of proportionality in combat operations’, in Oxford Institute of Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, Policy Briefing (2010), www.elac.ox.ac.uk/downloads/proportionality_policybrief_%20dec_2010.pdf (accessed 7 May 2017).Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Legitimate military objectives under the current jus in bello’, in Wall, Andru E. (ed.), Legal and Ethical Lessons of NATO’s Kosovo Campaign, International Law Studies, vol. 78 (2002): 139–72.Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Unlawful combatancy’, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, vol. 32 (2002): 247–70.Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘The interaction between customary international law and treaties’, Recueil des Cours, vol. 322 (2006): 243 ff.Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Distinction and loss of civilian protection in international armed conflicts’, in Carsten, Michael D. (ed.) International Law and Military Operations, International Law Studies, vol. 84 (2008): 183–98.Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation (Cambridge University Press, 2009).Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, War, Aggression and Self-Defence, 5th ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘The principle of proportionality’, in Larsen, Kjetil Mujezinovic, Cooper, Camilla Guldahl and Nystuen, Gro (eds.), Searching for a ‘Principle of Humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, Non-international Armed Conflicts in International Law (Cambridge University Press, 2014).Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Military necessity’, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (MPEPIL) (Oxford University Press, 2015), at para 1–7.Google Scholar
Dolzer, Rudolf, ‘Commentary’, in Wall, Andru E. (ed.), Legal and Ethical Lessons of NATO’s Kosovo Campaign, International Law Studies, vol. 78 (2002).Google Scholar
Doswald-Beck, Louise (general editor) and International Institute of Humanitarian Law, San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Cambridge University Press 1995).Google Scholar
Downey, William Gerald Jr., ‘Captured enemy property: booty of war and seized enemy Property’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 44, no. 3 (1950): 488–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Downey, William Gerald Jr., ‘The law of war and military necessity’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 47 (1953).Google Scholar
Dörmann, Knut, Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICRC/Cambridge University Press, 2003).Google Scholar
Dörmann, Knut, ‘The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants”’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 85, no. 849 (2003): 45–74.Google Scholar
Dörmann, Knut, ‘The definition of military objectives’, in Beruto, Gian Luca (ed.), The Conduct of Hostilities, Revisiting the Law of Armed Conflict, 100 Years after the 1907 Hague Conventions and 30 Years after the 1977 Additional Protocols (San Remo, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2007): 78–85.Google Scholar
Dörmann, Knut, ‘Article 8: mental element’, in Triffterer, Otto and Ambos, Kai (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd ed. (C. H. Beck, Hart and Nomos, 2016).Google Scholar
Draper, G. I. A. D., ‘The status of combatants and the question of guerilla warfare’, British Year Book of International Law, vol. 45 (1971):173–218.Google Scholar
Draper, G. I. A. D., ‘Military necessity and humanitarian imperatives’, Military Law and the Law of War Review, vol. 12 (1973).Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. C. H., ‘Military necessity in war crimes trials’, British Yearbook of International Law, vol. 29 (1952).Google Scholar
Dunlap, Charles, ‘The end of innocence: rethinking noncombatancy in the post-Kosovo era’, Strategic Review (Summer 2000): 9–17.Google Scholar
Engle, Eric, ‘The history of the general principle of proportionality: an overview’, Dartmouth Law Journal, vol. X (2012).Google Scholar
Feinstein, Andrew, ’Where is Gaddafis vast arms stockpile?’, The Guardian, 26 October 2011, www.theguardian.com/world/2011/oct/26/gadaffis-arms-stockpile (accessed 7 May 2017).Google Scholar
Fenrick, William J., ‘The rule of proportionality and Protocol I in conventional warfare’, Military Law Review, vol. 98 (1982).Google Scholar
Fenrick, William J., ‘Targeting and proportionality during the NATO bombing campaign against Yugoslavia’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 12, no. 3 (2001): 489–502.Google Scholar
Ferrell, William H., ‘No shirt, no shoes, no status: uniforms, distinctions and special operations in international armed conflict’, Military Law Review, vol. 178 (2003): 93–140.Google Scholar
Fleck, Dieter, ‘Ruses of war and prohibition of perfidy’, Military Law and the Law of War Review, no. 13 (1974): 273 ff.Google Scholar
FM 27-10, US Department of the Army Field Manual, The Law of Land Warfare (US Field Manual) (Washington D. C. Headquarters Department of the Army, 1956, as amended 1976).Google Scholar
Gasser, Hans Peter and Dörmann, Knut, ‘Protection of the civilian population’, Fleck, Dieter et al. (eds.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2013): 231–321.Google Scholar
Gardam, Judith, ‘Proportionality and force in international law’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 87, no. 3 (1993): 391–413.Google Scholar
Gardam, Judith, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States (Cambridge University Press, 2004).Google Scholar
Garraway, Charles, ‘“Combatants” – substance or semantics?’, in Schmitt, Michael and Pejic, Jelena (eds.), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007): 317–34.Google Scholar
Gayle, Damien, ‘They’re in SO much trouble: low-flying Brazilian air force pilots shatter every window of the country’s Supreme Court’, The Daily Mail, 2 July 2012, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2167773/Theyre-SO-trouble-Low-flying-Brazilian-air-force-pilots-shatter-window-countrys-Supreme-Court.html (accessed 15 May 2019).Google Scholar
Geiss, Robin, ‘Military necessity: a fundamental “Principle” fallen into oblivion’, in Ruiz Fabri, H., Wolfrum, R. and Gogolin, J. (eds.), Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law, 2008 (Hart Publishing, 2010): 554–68.Google Scholar
Geiss, Robin, ‘The principle of proportionality: force protection as a military advantage’, Israel Law Review, vol. 45 (2012).Google Scholar
Gentili, Alberico, De Iure Belli Libri Tres (Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Division of International Law, 1933).Google Scholar
German Federal Ministry of Defence, Joint Service Regulation (ZDv) 15/2, Law of Armed Conflict Manual (German Manual) (2013).Google Scholar
Gillard, Emanuela-Chiara, ‘Proportionality in the conduct of hostilities: the incidental harm side of the assessment’, Research Paper International Law Programme (Chatham House, 2018).Google Scholar
Gjelsten, Roald, ‘Marinens beredskap 1960-90; Kampklar i Nordflåtens skygge’, Oslo Files on Defence and Security, no. 4 (2011).Google Scholar
Grant, Rebecca L., ‘Michael C. Short: airman undaunted’, in Olsen, John A. (ed.), Air Commanders (Potomac, 2013).Google Scholar
Gray, Christine, International Law and the Use of Force, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Green, James A. and Waters, Christopher P. M., ‘Military targeting in the context of self-defence actions’, Nordic Journal of International Law, vol. 84 (2015): 3–28.Google Scholar
Green, L. C., The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict (Manchester University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Greenspan, Morris, The Modern Law of Land Warfare (University of California Press, 1959).Google Scholar
Grotius, Hugo, The Rights of War and Peace, edited and with an introduction by Tuck, Richard, from the edition by Barbeyrac, Jean 1738 (Liberty Fund, 2005).Google Scholar
Hallion, Richard P., ‘Charles A. Horner: Desert Storm maestro’, in Olsen, John A. (ed.), Air Commanders (Potomac, 2013).Google Scholar
Hampson, Francoise, ‘Necessity and proportionality in the Gulf Conflict’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 86 (1–4 April 1992): 45–58.Google Scholar
Hampson, Francoise, Military necessity, crimes of war, www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/military-necessity/ (accessed 22 April 2016).Google Scholar
Hancke, Heinz Marius, ‘The 1923 Hague Rules of Air Warfare – a contribution to the development of international law protecting civilians from air attack’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 33, no. 292 (1993): 12–45.Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. and Honoré, Tony, Causation in the Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford University Press, 1985).Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, ‘Requirements of military necessity in international humanitarian law and international criminal law’, Boston University International Law Journal, vol. 38 (2010): 39–140.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, ‘Military necessity as normative indifference’, Georgetown Journal of International Law, vol. 44, no. 2 (2013): 675–782.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, ‘Contextualizing military necessity’, Emory International Law Review, vol. 27, no. 189 (2013): 189–283.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, ‘Basic principles’, in Liivoja, Rain and McCormack, Tim (eds.), Routledge Handbook of the Law of Armed Conflict (Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 2016): 89–105.Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, Military Necessity (Leiden University, dissertation for PhD, Repository, 2017).Google Scholar
Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff and Dreist, Peter, ‘The 2009 Kunduz Air Attack: the decision of the Federal Prosecutor-General on the dismissal of criminal proceedings against members of the German armed forces’, German Yearbook of International Law, vol. 53 (2010): 833–66.Google Scholar
Heintschel von Heinegg, Wolff, ‘The law of armed conflict at sea’, in Fleck, Dieter et al. (eds.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Henckaerts, Jean Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, International Committee of the Red Cross Customary International Humanitarian Law (CIHL) (Cambridge University Press, 2005, reprint 2009) Also accessible with updated commentaries at: ICRC, Customary IHL Database, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_rul_rule50 (accessed 4 January 2017).Google Scholar
Henderson, Ian, The Contemporary Law of Targeting (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2009).Google Scholar
Hersh, Seymour, ‘Overwhelming force: what happened in the final days of the Gulf War?’, The New Yorker (2000).Google Scholar
Higgins, Rosalyn, Problems and Process: International Law and How We Use It (Clarendon Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Holborn, Hajo, ‘The Prusso-German School: Moltke and the rise of the general staff’, in Paret, Peter (ed.), Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (Clarendon Press, 1986).Google Scholar
Howard, Michael, The Franco-Prussian War: The German Invasion of France, 1870–1871 (Methuen, 1981).Google Scholar
Howard, Michael, ‘Empire, race and war in pre-1914 Britain’, History Today (December 1981).Google Scholar
Howard, Michael, ‘Constraints on warfare’, in Howard, Michael, Andreopoulus, George J. and Schulman, Mark R. (eds.), The Laws of War: Constraints on Warfare in the Western World (Yale University Press, 1994).Google Scholar
Huber, Max, ‘Die kriegsrechtlichen Verträge und die Kriegsraison’, VIII Zeitschrift fuer Voelkerrecht (1913).Google Scholar
Hull, Isabel V., ‘Military necessity and the laws of war in Imperial Germany’, in Kalyvas, Stathis N., Shapiro, Ian and Masoud, Tarek (eds.), Order Conflict and Violence (Cambridge University Press, 2008): 352–77.Google Scholar
ICRC, Commentary on the First Geneva Convention: Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 2nd ed., 2016, https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/full/GCI-commentary (accessed 7 June 2019).Google Scholar
ICRC, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (Interpretive Guidance), International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 90, no. 872 (2008): 991–1047.Google Scholar
International and Operational Law Department, Operational Law Handbook (The Judge Advocate General’s Legal Center and School, US Army, 2015).Google Scholar
Ipsen, Knut, ‘Combatants and non-combatants’, in Fleck, Dieter et al. (eds.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2013): 79–114.Google Scholar
Jachec-Neale, Agnieszka, The Concept of Military Objectives in International Law and Targeting Practice (Routledge, 2014).Google Scholar
Jaworski, Eric, ‘Military necessity and civilian immunity: where is the balance’, Chinese Journal of International Law, vol. 2, no. 1 (2003): 175–206.Google Scholar
Johansen, Sigrid Redse, ‘The occupied and the occupier: the case of Norway’, in Larsen, Kjetil, Cooper, Camilla Guldahl and Nystuen, Gro (eds.), Searching for a ‘Principle of Humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Johansen, Sigrid Redse, ‘Mission command and command responsibility’, The Royal Swedish Academy of War Sciences Journal (2017).Google Scholar
Kalshoven, Frits, ‘Remarks’, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), vol. 86 (1–4 April 1992).Google Scholar
Kalshoven, Frits, Reflections on the Law of War: Collected Essays (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kalshoven, Frits and Zegveld, Liesbeth, Constraints on the Waging of War, 4th ed. (ICRC/ Cambridge University Press, 2011).Google Scholar
Keen, Maurice, The Laws of War in the Late Middle Ages (Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1965).Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans and Tucker, Robert W., Principles of International Law (Holt, Rinehart and Winston, 1966).Google Scholar
Kleffner, Jann, ‘Section IX of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities: the end of ius in bello proportionality as we know it?’, Israel Law Review, vol. 45 (2012): 35–52Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert, ‘The main epochs of international humanitarian law since 1864 and their related dominant legal constructions’, in Larsen, Kjetil Mujezinovic, Cooper, Camilla Guldahl and Nystuen, Gro (eds.), Searching for a Principle of Humanity in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert, ‘“Humanitarian bombardments” in jus in bello?’, in Heintze, Hans-Joachim and Thielbörger, Pierre (eds.), From Cold War to Cyber War: The Evolution of the International Law of Peace and Armed Conflict Over the Last 25 Years (Springer, 2016): 113–27.Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert and Hyde, Richard, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflicts (Hart Publishing, 2008).Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert and Del Mar, Katherine, ‘Treaties for armed conflict’, in Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paola (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2014): 50–91.Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti, From Apology to Utopia: The Structure of International Legal Argument (Cambridge University Press, 2007).Google Scholar
Laursen, Andreas, ‘NATO, the war over Kosovo, and the ICTY investigation’, American University International Law Review, vol. 17, no. 4 (2002): 765–814.Google Scholar
Letter from the Norwegian Ministry of Defence to the Defence Staff, dated 24 March 2011.Google Scholar
Lew, Daniel, ‘Manchurian booty and international law’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 40 (1946): 584–92.Google Scholar
MacIsaac, David, ‘Voices from the central blue: the air power theorists’, in Paret, Peter (ed.), Makers of Modern Strategy: From Machiavelli to the Nuclear Age (Clarendon Press, 1986): 624–48.Google Scholar
McClintock, A. D., ‘The law of war: coalition attacks on Iraqi chemical and biological weapons storage and production facilities’, Emory International Law Review (1993).Google Scholar
McCoubrey, Hilaire, ‘The nature of the modern doctrine of military necessity’, Military Law and the Law of War Review, vol. 30, no. 215 (1991).Google Scholar
McDougal, Myres S. and Feliciano, Florentino P., Law and Minimum World Order: The Legal Regulation of International Coercion (Yale University Press, 1961).Google Scholar
Melzer, Nils, ‘Targeted killing or less harmful means? Israel’s High Court judgment on targeted killing and the restrictive function of military necessity’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law vol. 9 (2006): 87–113.Google Scholar
Menzies, Peter, Counterfactual Theories of Causation (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, 2008).Google Scholar
Meron, Theodor, ‘Francis Lieber’s code and principles of humanity’, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, vol. 36 (1998).Google Scholar
Meron, Theodor, ‘The Martens Clause, principles of humanity, and dictates of public conscience’, American Journal of International Law, vol. 94, no. 1 (2000): 78–89.Google Scholar
Meron, Theodor, The Humanization of International Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2006).Google Scholar
Meron, Theodor, ‘Customary humanitarian law today: from the academy to the courtroom’, in Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paola (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford University Press, 2014): 37–50.Google Scholar
Merriam, John, ‘Affirmative target identification: operationalizing the principle of distinction for U.S. warfighters’, Virginia Journal of International Law, no. 56 (2016): 83–145.Google Scholar
Mezran, Karim, ‘Libya’s lessons on Syria’ foreign affairs’, 4 September 2013, http://foreignpolicy.com/2013/09/04/libyas-lessons-on-syria/ (accessed 26 March 2016).Google Scholar
Meyrowitz, Henri, ‘Reflections on the centenary of the Declaration of St. Petersburg’, International Review of the Red Cross, no. 93 (1968): 611–25.Google Scholar
Meyrowitz, Henri, ‘The principle of superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering, from the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 to Additional Protocol I of 1977’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 34, no. 299 (1994): 98–123.Google Scholar
Militærmanual om folkeret for danske væbnede styrker in internationale militære operationer (Danish Manual), København, Forsvarministeriet/Værnsfælles Forsvarskommando, 2016, www2.forsvaret.dk/omos/publikationer/Publications/Attachments/34/Militærmanual%20AF%20SEPT%202016.pdf (accessed 2 May 2017).Google Scholar
Morgan, J. H., The German War Book: Being ‘The Usages of War on Land’ (translated version) (Murray, 1915).Google Scholar
NATO, Glossary of Terms and Definitions, AAP-6, 2013, www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/other/aap6.pdf (accessed 29 April 2017).Google Scholar
Neff, Stephen, War and the Law of Nations: A General History (Cambridge University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
Nurick, Lester, ‘The distinction between combatant and noncombatant in the law of war’, The American Journal of International Law, vol. 39, no. 4 (1945): 680–97.Google Scholar
O’Brien, William V., ‘The meaning of “military necessity” in international law’, World Polity: A Yearbook of Studies in International Law and Organization (Spectrum Publishers, 1957).Google Scholar
O’Connell, Mary Ellen, ‘Historical development and legal basis’, in Fleck, Dieter et al. (eds.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2013).Google Scholar
Oeter, Stefan, ‘Comment: is the principle of distinction outdated?’, in von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel and Epping, Volker (eds.), International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges (Springer, 2007): 53–62.Google Scholar
Stefan, Oeter, ‘Methods and means of combat’, in Fleck, Dieter et al. (eds.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2013): 115–231.Google Scholar
Office of the Judge Advocate General, Joint Doctrine Manual, Law of Armed Conflict at the Tactical and Operational Levels (Canadian Manual), B-GJ-005–104/FP-021 (Office of the Judge Advocate General, Canada, 2001).Google Scholar
Ohlin, Jens David and May, Larry, Necessity in International Law (Oxford University Press, 2016).Google Scholar
Olasolo, Hector, Unlawful Attacks in Combat Situations: From the ICTY’s Case Law to the Rome Statute (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2008).Google Scholar
Oppenheim, Lassa and Lauterpacht, Hersch, Disputes, War and Neutrality (Longmans, 1952).Google Scholar
Otieno, Mbori, Wabuke, Emma and Otieno, Smith, ‘The fission and fusion in international use of force: relating unlawful use of force and the war crime of disproportionate force not justified by military necessity’, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, vol. 48, nos. 1 and 2 (2016): 303–28.Google Scholar
Parks, Hays W., ‘Rolling thunder and the law of war’, Air University Review, vol. 33 (1982).Google Scholar
Parks, Hays W., ‘“Special Forces” wear of non-standard uniforms’, Chicago Journal of International Law, vol. 4 (2003): 493–560.Google Scholar
Parks, Hays W., ‘Asymmetries and the identification of legitimate military objectives’, in von Heinegg, Wolff Heintschel and Epping, Volker (eds.), International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges (Springer, 2007): 65–116.Google Scholar
Parks, Hays W., ‘Military objectives’, in Beruto, Gian Luca (ed.), The Conduct of Hostilities, Revisiting the Law of Armed Conflict, 100 Years after the 1907 Hague Conventions and 30 Years after the 1977 Additional Protocols (San Remo, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2007): 72–7.Google Scholar
Parks, Hays W., ‘Part IX of the ICRC DPH Study: no mandate no expertise, and legally incorrect’, International Law and Politics, vol. 42 (2010): 769–830.Google Scholar
Parks, Hays W., ‘Perspectives and the importance of history’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol. 14 (2011).Google Scholar
Pejic, Jelena, ‘“Unlawful/enemy combatants”: interpretations and consequences’, in Schmitt, Michael and Pejic, Jelena (eds.), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007): 335–57.Google Scholar
Pictet, Jean S., The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1952).Google Scholar
Pictet, Jean S., Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1985).Google Scholar
Pigaroff, Donald K. and Robinson, Darryl, ‘Article 30: mental element’, in Triffterer, Otto and Ambos, Kai (eds.), The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: A Commentary, 3rd ed. (C. H. Beck, Hart and Nomos, 2016).Google Scholar
Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research Harvard University (HPCR), Commentary on the HPCR Manual on International Law Applicable to Air and Missile Warfare (AMW Manual) (2010).Google Scholar
Rabus, W. G., ‘A new definition of the levee en masse’, Netherlands International Law Review, vol. 24, no. 1–2 (1977): 232–41.Google Scholar
Ragone, P. A., ‘The applicability of military necessity in the nuclear age’, Journal of International Law and Politics, vol. 16, no. 4 (1984).Google Scholar
Rauch, Elmar, ‘The concept of military necessity in the context of the law of war’, Military Law and the Law of War Review, vol. 19 (1980, English version).Google Scholar
Reichberg, Gregory M., Syse, Henrik and Begby, Endre, The Ethics of War: Classic and Contemporary Readings (Blackwell Publishing, 2006).Google Scholar
Reeves, Shane and Thurnher, Jeffrey, ‘Are we reaching a tipping point? How contemporary challenges are affecting the military necessity-humanity balance’, Harvard National Security Journal Features (2013): 1–12.Google Scholar
Roberts, Adam, ‘Land warfare: from Hague to Nuremberg’, in Howard, Michael, George, J. Andreopoulus and Shulman, Mark R. (eds.), The Laws of War. Constraints on Warfare in the Western World (Yale University Press, 1994): 116–39.Google Scholar
Roberts, Adam and Guelff, Richard, Documents on the Laws of War, 3rd ed. (Oxford University Press, 2000).Google Scholar
Robertson, Horace B., ‘The principle of the military objective in the Law of Armed Conflict’, US Air Force Academy Journal of Legal Studies (1997): 35–70.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. P. V., ‘Zero-casualty warfare’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 82, no. 837 (2000).Google Scholar
Rogers, A. P. V., ‘Combatant status’, in Wilmshurst, E. and Breu, S. (eds.), Perspectives on the ICRC Study on International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge University Press, 2007): 101–27.Google Scholar
Rogers, A. P. V., Law on the Battlefield, 3rd ed. (Manchester University Press, 2012).Google Scholar
Roscini, Marco, ‘Targeting and contemporary aerial bombardment’, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, vol. 54, no. 2 (2005): 411–43.Google Scholar
Sandoz, Yves, Swinarski, Christophe and Zimmermann, Bruno (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (AP I Commentary) (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 1987).Google Scholar
Sassoli, Marco, ‘Targeting: the scope and utility of the concept of “military objectives” for the protection of civilians in contemporary armed conflicts’, in Wippman, David and Evangelista, Michael (eds.), New Wars, New Laws? Applying Laws of War in 21st Century Conflicts (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2005).Google Scholar
Sassoli, Marco, ‘Ius ad bellum and Ius in bello’, in Schmitt, Michael and Pejic, Jelena (eds.), International Law and Armed Conflict: Exploring the Faultlines. Essays in Honour of Yoram Dinstein (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2007): 241–65.Google Scholar
Sassoli, Marco, Bouvier, Antoine A. and Quintin, Anne, How Does Law Protect in War (ICRC, 2011).Google Scholar
Schachter, Oscar, ‘Implementing limitations on the use of force: the doctrine of proportionality and necessity’, American Society of International Law (ASIL) Proceedings (1992): 39.Google Scholar
Schindler, Dietrich and Toman, Jiri, The Laws of Armed Conflicts (Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2004).Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘“Direct participation in hostilities” and 21st century armed conflict’, in Fischer, Horst et al. (eds.), Crisis Management and Humanitarian Protection: Festschrift für Dieter Fleck (Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2004).Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Humanitarian law and direct participation in hostilities by private contractors or civilian employees’, Expert Paper submitted at the Second Expert Meeting on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities (International Committee of the Red Cross, 2004).Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Targeting and humanitarian law: current issues’, in Jaques, Richard B. (ed.), International Law Studies vol. 80, IX, Issues in International Law and Military Operations (2006): 151194.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Asymmetrical warfare and international humanitarian law’, Air Force Law Review, vol. 62 (2008): 1–42.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Targeting and international humanitarian law in Afghanistan’, The War in Afghanistan: A Legal Analysis, International Law Studies, vol. 85 (2009): 307–39.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Deconstructing direct participation in hostilities: the constitutive elements’, International Law and Politics, vol. 42 (2009/2010): 697–739.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: a critical analysis’, Harvard National Security Journal, vol. 1 (2010): 5–44.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Military necessity and humanity in international humanitarian law: preserving the delicate balance’, Virginia Journal of International Law, vol. 50 (2010).Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N. (general editor), Tallinn Manual 2.0 on the International Law Applicable to Cyber Operations (Tallinn Manual), 2nd ed. (Cambridge University Press, 2017).Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg, International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals, vol. II: The Law of Armed Conflict (Steves and Sons Limited, 1968).Google Scholar
Soanes, Catherine and Stevenson, Angus (eds.), Concise Oxford English Dictionary, 11th ed. (Oxford University Press, 2008).Google Scholar
Solf, Waldemar A., ‘Protection of civilians against the effects of hostilities under customary international law and under Protocol I’, American University International Law Review, vol. 1, no. 1 (1986): 117–35.Google Scholar
Solis, Gary D., The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (Cambridge University Press, 2010).Google Scholar
Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe, ‘Allied Command Operations Comprehensive Operations Planning Directive (COPD V2.0)’ (2013).Google Scholar
Taylor, Claire, ‘Military operations in Libya’, SN/IA/5909 (House of Commons Library, 2011).Google Scholar
Trooboff, Peter D., Law and Responsibility in Warfare: The Vietnam Experience (The University of North Carolina Press, 1975).Google Scholar
Tuck, Richard, The Rights of War and Peace: Political Thought and the International Order from Grotius to Kant (Oxford University Press, 1999).Google Scholar
UK Ministry of Defence, The Manual of the Law of Armed (UK Manual) (Oxford University Press, 2005).Google Scholar
US Department of Defence (DOD), Joint Publication 1–02, Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (US Department of Defence, 2001, amended 2009).Google Scholar
US Department of Defence (DoD), Law of War Manual (US DoD Manual) (2015, as amended 2016), Department of Defense Directive 2311.0lE, DoD Law of War Program (9 May 2006).Google Scholar
US DoD Dictionary of Military and Associated Terms (amended May 2017), www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/dictionary.pdf (accessed 7 June 2017).Google Scholar
US Law of Armed Conflict Deskbook, 5th ed., 2015, www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/LOAC-Deskbook-2015.pdf (accessed 19 April 2017).Google Scholar
Venturini, Gabriella, ‘Necessity in the law of armed conflict and in international criminal law’, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, vol. 41 (2010): 45–78.Google Scholar
Verri, Pietro, Dictionary of International law of armed conflict (International Committee of the Red Cross, 1992).Google Scholar
von Holtzendorff, Franz, Handbuch des Völkerrechts: auf Grundlage Europäischer Staatspraxis (Habel, 1885).Google Scholar
von Ullmann, E., ‘Völkerrecht: Neuarbeitung auf der Grundlage der 1.Auflage’, in Handbuch des Offentlichen Rechts (Mohr, 1908).Google Scholar
Walne, George, ‘AFP 110–31: international law – the conduct of armed conflict and air operations and the Linebacker bombing campaigns of the Vietnam War’ (Center for Naval Analyses, 1987).Google Scholar
Watkin, Kenneth, ‘Assessing proportionality: moral complexity and legal rules’, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, vol. 8 (2005).Google Scholar
Watkin, Kenneth, ‘Opportunity lost: organized armed groups and the ICRC “Direct Participation in Hostilities” Interpretive Guidance’, International Law and Politics, vol. 42 (2009/2010):641–95.Google Scholar
Weiler, Joseph and Abby, Deshman, ‘Far be it from thee to slay the righteous with the wicked: an historical and historiographical sketch of the bellicose debate concerning the distinction between jus ad bellum and jus in bello’, European Journal of International Law, vol. 24, no. 1 (2013): 25–61.Google Scholar
Wright, Jason D., ‘Excessive ambiguity: analysing and refining the proportionality standard’, International Review of the Red Cross, vol. 94, no. 886 (2012): 819–54.Google Scholar