Proportionality and discrimination are key concepts for jus in bello Essay

Proportionality and discrimination are key concepts for jus in bello. Examine the practical consequences of these concepts in th - Essay Example It differs from jus ad bellum in the sense that while the former refers to regulations and decrees issued during a war, the latter deals with legal justification and legitimate reasons for commencing a war (Orend, n.d. p. 105). This paper examines the principles of proportionality and discrimination and their present practices with respect to principles of jus in bello. Jus in bello According to war theorists, ‘jus in bello’ refers to the rights and regulations that are followed after commencement of a war. It is a Latin term, which for a large part also evaluates and justifies a nation’s reasons for entering into warfare. At the same time, it also justifies whether the war is conducted on a just manner or not. Under any circumstance, nations are not allowed to adopt perverse means to meet their objectives. Due to this reason, jus in bello is often referred to be an ethical parameter. Thus, principles of jus in bello function with the sole objective of maintaining a coherence between the means and outcome of an armed conflict. Added to these, jus in bello performs another important function. Its principle task is to limit warfare. This is a measure to control the ever- escalating destruction and cost of war (Henderson, 2009, pp. 3-4). Principle of proportionality: jus in bello The term ‘proportionality’ refers to adoption of methods which will not only be proportional to the ends of the war, but will also help in achieving just goals. From a narrower perspective, war theorists define ‘proportionality’ as the method that is adopted by combatants for fulfilling their respective goals, without inducing mass- massacre of enemy troops. Proportionality has often become a controversial issue for it often justifies violence to a certain degree. Though the principles of proportionality are pitted against general sense of humanity, it ensures that basic respect is paid for lives and privacy. Thus, the principle of proportiona lity demands the war commanders not to chase unattainable objectives or which were relatively unimportant by paying with lives of their own military troops. This brings the principles of proportionality in line with the codes of jus in bello (Shapcott, 2013 ). Though not itself the key consideration, the principles of proportionality hugely influences one of the key concepts- humanness, and is directed towards ensuring basic human rights. Proportionality imposes severe limitations on activities of States, especially when it adopts extreme means to save few soldiers by claiming more lives. It aims at saving more lives compared to those risked at war. This makes it a ‘consequentialist concern’. Three chief principles of proportionality are- firstly, when any aspect or objective has provisions for both good and bad, the ‘good’ must be chosen. Secondly, the effectiveness of good must be taken into consideration. Lastly, in case they are unequal, effectiveness b ecomes the decisive factor (May, 2008, pp. 117- 120). Principle of discrimination Civilian immunity is central to principles of discrimination which insist that when at war, discrimination must be practiced between the combatants and the ones who are not. Irrespective of war objectives, under no circumstances the military is supposed to make the civilian population a permissible target. The principles also incorporate certain chivalric codes of conduct and customary practices, in respect to the material characteristics of armed combat. The immunity