Asymmetric War and Jus in Bello Principles
The transformation of war today has challenged long-adapted jus in bello principles in just war tradition. The most frequently seen form of modern warfare is asymmetric warfare/conflict, which is a result of armed conflict between parties with unequal military position. Within an asymmetric warfare, traditional jus in bello principles are questioned on their application to each side of combatants and noncombatants based on the uneven resources and military advantages. In this essay, I would like to compare and contrast two different arguments regarding jus in bello principles in asymmetric warfare.
In his book, Lee uses civil war as an example of asymmetric warfare as civil war usually involves “disparity …show more content…
He argues that “the close-quarters conditions of asymmetric war, widespread civilian participation, the inability to distinguish combatants from noncombatants, and the prospect that each side can adopt tactics without fear of ‘payment in kind’” (Gross 233) has led belligerent to adopt a different paradigm in modern warfare. Such paradigm Gross examines include use of nonlethal weapons and targeted killings, which are debatable under just war tradition regarding their adherence to the major jus in bello principles. Therefore, instead of applying jus in bello principles, Gross categorizes such activities to be justifiable, excusable and neither, which is an exceptionalism method of examining war actions. A justifiable action vindicates the aggressor’s rights without violating the victim’s. A mere excusable action vindicates the aggressor’s right by violating the victim’s rights, which is wrong but an “understandable though regrettable human reaction”. (Gross 235) However, such argument lacks specific distinction between justifiable and excusable actions. It also needs to provide definition and limitation of “understandable” actions or support from existing conventional rules before we apply it to any modern asymmetric warfare or …show more content…
The principle of discrimination includes both civilian immunity and combatant liability. Using the guerrilla war as an example, even though the guerrillas are at military disadvantage comparing to the counterinsurgency in terms of military power and resource, they have the advantage of mobility and camouflaging themselves among the civilians to reduce the risk of being attacked. Therefore, such an asymmetric war can advantage either side. Therefore, the principles are symmetrically adhered by either party, even though the actual application may benefit one party over the other. Therefore, in modern asymmetric warfare, states or groups should adhere to the three major jus in bello principles symmetrically and the asymmetric outcomes are results of modern application of these principles (effective
The transformation of war today has challenged long-adapted jus in bello principles in just war tradition. The most frequently seen form of modern warfare is asymmetric warfare/conflict, which is a result of armed conflict between parties with unequal military position. Within an asymmetric warfare, traditional jus in bello principles are questioned on their application to each side of combatants and noncombatants based on the uneven resources and military advantages. In this essay, I would like to compare and contrast two different arguments regarding jus in bello principles in asymmetric warfare.
In his book, Lee uses civil war as an example of asymmetric warfare as civil war usually involves “disparity …show more content…
He argues that “the close-quarters conditions of asymmetric war, widespread civilian participation, the inability to distinguish combatants from noncombatants, and the prospect that each side can adopt tactics without fear of ‘payment in kind’” (Gross 233) has led belligerent to adopt a different paradigm in modern warfare. Such paradigm Gross examines include use of nonlethal weapons and targeted killings, which are debatable under just war tradition regarding their adherence to the major jus in bello principles. Therefore, instead of applying jus in bello principles, Gross categorizes such activities to be justifiable, excusable and neither, which is an exceptionalism method of examining war actions. A justifiable action vindicates the aggressor’s rights without violating the victim’s. A mere excusable action vindicates the aggressor’s right by violating the victim’s rights, which is wrong but an “understandable though regrettable human reaction”. (Gross 235) However, such argument lacks specific distinction between justifiable and excusable actions. It also needs to provide definition and limitation of “understandable” actions or support from existing conventional rules before we apply it to any modern asymmetric warfare or …show more content…
The principle of discrimination includes both civilian immunity and combatant liability. Using the guerrilla war as an example, even though the guerrillas are at military disadvantage comparing to the counterinsurgency in terms of military power and resource, they have the advantage of mobility and camouflaging themselves among the civilians to reduce the risk of being attacked. Therefore, such an asymmetric war can advantage either side. Therefore, the principles are symmetrically adhered by either party, even though the actual application may benefit one party over the other. Therefore, in modern asymmetric warfare, states or groups should adhere to the three major jus in bello principles symmetrically and the asymmetric outcomes are results of modern application of these principles (effective