Georgetown University

explore.georgetown.edu

Home

Blogs

Exploring International Law

Bainbridge on Just War Doctrine and Israel

Bainbridge on Just War Doctrine and Israel

Jul-18-06 06:40 pm

My good friend Steve Bainbridge has an outstanding post in TCS. Entitled Just War for the Sake of Argument,
Bainbridge analyzes Israel's use of force against Lebanon using just war doctrine. For the sake of argument, he assumes that Israel meets the criteria of the jus ad bellum-- the norms relating to the recourse to force-- and then goes on to explore Israel's actions from the perspective of the jus in bello-- the norms concerning the conduct of hostilities.

Bainbridge's conclusion: Israel may be failing to comply with the jus in bello by using force disproportionately and by intentionally targeting civilians. He notes:

Israel clearly is targeting not just Hezbollah, but also Lebanon's official military, and, most important for our purposes, Lebanon's basic civilian infrastructure. The Beirut airport has been closed by Israeli attacks. Bridges, ports, roads, and power stations are all being targeted. As this column was being written, more than 100 civilian fatalities -- including some citizens of neutral countries, most notably Canada -- already had been reported. More surely will have occurred before this column is published.
In short, even a just war must be waged justly. Israel is entitled to defend itself, but is not entitled to do so disproportionately or to wage war on civilians. Yet, that is precisely what Israel appears to be on the brink of doing.

Based on my reading of the facts, I believe that Bainbridge is correct in his analysis. And -- to reinforce Steve's point-- if Israel were to continue with these actions, Israel would also be on the brink of violating positive international law dealing with armed conflict, as well as just war doctrine.

Tags: use of force laws of war

About the editor:

Anthony Clark Arend

Professor

Commentary and analysis at the intersection of international law and politics.

» Contact the editor

» Learn more about the M.A. in International Law and Government at Georgetown University.

Tags

9/11 Commission aggression Alien Tort Statute censorship CIA civil liberties civil rights civil war climate change compensation Congress contractors crimes against humanity customary international law cyber security democracy detainee detainees detainess development diplomatic immunity electronic surveillance enemy combatant enemy combatants enviromental law environmental law expropriation extradition foreign law game theory genocide global economy habeas corpus human right human rights humanitarian assistance intelligence International Court of Justice international courts International Criminal Court international criminal law international environmental law international finance international health international law international legal theory international trade just war doctrine law of the sea law of war laws of war military commission military commissions military law multilateral negotiations nationalization natural law North Korea nuclear nonproliferation nuclear proliferation nuclear weapons Outer Space peacekeeping piracy poverty preemption prisoner of war prisoners of war rendition rule of law self-executing separation of powers sovereign wealth fund sovereignty Supreme Court SWF terrorism torture treaties United Nations universal jurisdiction use of force war crimes