The Proportions of War

Paul Robinson writes an excellent piece in this week's Spectator about proportionality in waging war. An excerpt:

"In Just War theory, proportionality has a role in both ‘jus ad bellum’ (the rules which determine whether you may wage war at all) and ‘jus in bello’ (the rules which determine what you may do during the war). In the first category, the theorists postulate that it cannot be just to wage war when the possible harm done by the war is disproportionate to the possible good which will result. In the second category, it is impermissible to attack a specific target of the opponent’s when the possible collateral damage will be disproportionate to the military value of the target.

"That does not mean that any attack which causes collateral damage is deemed to be unjust. The first test is whether you deliberately target non-combatants. If you do so, your action is automatically unjust. If you do not, but non-combatants are nevertheless harmed, the next test rests on the doctrine of double effect. Every action has both intended and unintended effects. If the unintended collateral damage was proportionate to the payoff, or was disproportionate due to unforeseeable factors, the action may yet be called just. If the collateral damage was disproportionate and you knew that it would be before launching the attack, then the action was unjust.

"This reasoning balances moral judgments based on intentions with those based on consequences. As long as your intentions are good, some unintended negative consequences are permitted — although not unlimited ones."

"Let's get a sense of proportion about disproportion," Paul Robinson, The Spectator, 12 August 2006 (www.spectator.co.uk) (free registration required).