Book contents
- Military Necessity
- Military Necessity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Treaties and Associated Instruments
- Table of Cases
- Abbreviations
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Military Necessity in Its Material Context
- Part III Military Necessity in Its Normative Context
- Part IV Military Necessity in Its Juridical Context
- Part V Conclusion
- Select Bibliography
- Index
- References
Select Bibliography
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 May 2020
Book contents
- Military Necessity
- Military Necessity
- Copyright page
- Dedication
- Contents
- Acknowledgements
- Treaties and Associated Instruments
- Table of Cases
- Abbreviations
- Part I Introduction
- Part II Military Necessity in Its Material Context
- Part III Military Necessity in Its Normative Context
- Part IV Military Necessity in Its Juridical Context
- Part V Conclusion
- Select 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
- Military NecessityThe Art, Morality and Law of War, pp. 391 - 404Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2020
References
Select Bibliography
Adler, Gerald J., ‘Targets in War: Legal Considerations’ (1970–71) 8 Houston Law Review, pp. 1–46Google Scholar
af Jochnik, Chris and Normand, Roger, ‘The Legitimation of Violence: A Critical History of the Laws of War’ (1994) 35 Harvard International Law Journal, pp. 49–95Google Scholar
Akande, Dapo, ‘Clearing the Fog of War? The ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on Direct Participation in Hostilities’ (2010) 59 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp. 180–92Google Scholar
Akhavan, Payam, ‘Reconciling Crimes against Humanity with the Laws of War: Human Rights, Armed Conflict, and the Limits of Progressive Jurisprudence’ (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice, pp. 21–37Google Scholar
Ambrose, Stephen E., D-Day, June 6, 1944: The Climactic Battle of World War II (New York, London, Toronto and Sydney: Simon & Schuster, 1994)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 Baetens, Freya and Chinkin, Christine (eds.), Sovereignty, Statehood and State Responsibility: Essays in Honour of James Crawford (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015), pp. 325–39Google Scholar
Bartels, Rogier, ‘Dealing with the Principle of Proportionality in Armed Conflict in Retrospect: The Application of the Principle in International Criminal Trials’ (2013) 46 Israel Law Review, pp. 271–315Google Scholar
Baxter, R. R., ‘Asylum to Prisoners of War’ (1953) 30 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 489–98Google Scholar
Beer, Yishai, ‘Humanity Considerations Cannot Reduce War’s Hazards Alone: Revitalizing the Concept of Military Necessity’ (2015) 26 European Journal of International Law, pp. 801–28Google Scholar
Benvenisti, Eyal, ‘Human Dignity in Combat: The Duty to Spare Enemy Civilians’ (2006) 39 Israel Law Review, pp. 81–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Best, Geoffrey, Humanity in Warfare: The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflicts (New York: Columbia University Press, 1983)Google Scholar
Best, Geoffrey, ‘The Restraint of 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 (Dordrecht: Martinus Nijhoff, 1991), pp. 3–26Google Scholar
Bill, Brian J., ‘The Rendulic “Rule”: Military Necessity, Commander’s Knowledge, and Methods of Warfare’ (2009) 12 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 119–55Google Scholar
Blank, Laurie, ‘A New Twist on an Old Story: Lawfare and the Mixing of Proportionalities’ (2010–11) 43 Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, pp. 707–38Google Scholar
Blank, Laurie and Noone, Gregory P., International Law and Armed Conflict: Fundamental Principles and Contemporary Challenges in the Law of War (New York: Wolters Kluwer Law & Business, 2013)Google Scholar
Blix, Hans, ‘Means and Methods of Combat’, in Institute, Henri Dunant and UNESCO (eds.), International Dimensions of Humanitarian Law (Geneva, Paris and Dordrecht: Henri Dunant Institute, UNESCO and Martinus Nijhoff, 1988), pp. 135–51Google Scholar
Blum, Gabriella, ‘The Laws of War and the “Lesser Evil”’ (2010) 35 Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 1–69Google Scholar
Blumenson, Martin, Kasserine Pass: Rommel’s Bloody, Climactic Battle for Tunisia (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1967)Google Scholar
Blumenson, Martin, The Mediterranean Theater of Operations: Salerno to Cassino (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1969)Google Scholar
Boothby, William H., Weapons and the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Brandt, R. B., ‘Utilitarianism and the Rules of War’ (1972) 1 Philosophy and Public Affairs, pp. 145–65Google Scholar
Brigety, Reuben E. II, ‘Moral Ambiguities in the Bombing of Monte Cassino’ (2005) 4 Journal of Military Ethics, pp. 139–41Google Scholar
Camins, Emily, ‘The Past as Prologue: The Development of the “Direct Participation” Exception to Civilian Immunity’ (2008) 90 International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 853–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carnahan, Burrus M., ‘Lincoln, Lieber and the Laws of War: The Origins and Limits of the Principle of Military Necessity’ (1998) 92 American Journal of International Law, pp. 213–31Google Scholar
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences Translation of the Official Texts: The Conference of 1899 (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920)Google Scholar
Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, The Proceedings of the Hague Peace Conferences Translation of the Official Texts: The Conference of 1907, 3 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1921)Google Scholar
Cassese, Antonio, ‘The Martens Clause: Half a Loaf or Simply Pie in the Sky?’ (2000) 11 European Journal of International Law, pp. 187–216Google Scholar
Che Guevara, Ernesto, Guerrilla Warfare, Morray, J. P. (trans.) (New York: Vintage Books, 1961)Google Scholar
Churchill, Winston S., The Second World War, 6 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1951–53)Google Scholar
Cole, Hugh M., The Ardennes: Battle of the Bulge (Washington, D.C.: Chief of Military History, Department of the Army, 1965)Google Scholar
Coleman, Stephen, ‘Discrimination and Non-lethal Weapons: Issues for the Future Military’, in Lovell, David W. and Primoratz, Igor (eds.), Protecting Civilians during Violent Conflict: Theoretical and Practical Issues for the 21st Century (Surrey: Ashgate, 2012), pp. 215–29Google Scholar
Corn, Geoffrey S. and Colonel, Lieutenant Corn, Gary P., ‘The Law of Operational Targeting: Viewing the LOAC through an Operational Lens’ (2012) 47 Texas International Law Journal, pp. 337–98Google Scholar
Corn, Geoffrey S. and Colonel, Lieutenant Corn, Gary P., et al., ‘Belligerent Targeting and the Invalidity of a Least Harmful Means Rule’ (2013) 89 International Law Studies, pp. 536–626Google Scholar
Cornish, Paul, ‘Clausewitz and the Ethics of Armed Force’ (2003) 2 Journal of Military Ethics, pp. 213–26Google Scholar
Crawford, Emily, Identifying the Enemy: Civilian Participation in Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar
Crawford, Emily, The Treatment of Combatants and Insurgents under the Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2010)Google Scholar
David, Eric, Principes de Droit de conflits armés, 3rd ed. (Bruxelles: Bruylant, 2002)Google Scholar
Davidson, Donald, Essays on Actions and Events, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2001)Google Scholar
Davis, Paul K., Aggregation, Disaggregation, and the 3:1 Rule in Ground Combat (Santa Monica: RAND, 1995)Google Scholar
Dehn, John C., ‘Permissible Perfidy? Analysing the Colombian Hostage Rescue, the Capture of Rebel Leaders and the World’s Reaction’ (2008) 6 Journal of International Criminal Justice, pp. 627–53Google Scholar
Deptula, David A., Effects-Based Operations: Change in the Nature of Warfare (Arlington: Aerospace Education Foundation, 2001)Google Scholar
Desierto, Diane A., Necessity and National Emergency Clauses: Sovereignty in Modern Treaty Interpretation (Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers, 2012)Google Scholar
de Lee, Nigel, ‘Moral Ambiguities in the Bombing of Monte Cassino’ (2005) 4 Journal of Military Ethics, pp. 129–38Google Scholar
de Mulinen, Frédéric, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1987)Google Scholar
Dill, Janina and Shue, Henry, ‘Limiting the Killing in War: Military Necessity and the St. Petersburg Assumption’ (2013) 26 Ethics & International Affairs, pp. 311–33Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Military Necessity’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2015)Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, ‘Siege Warfare and the Starvation of Civilians’, in Delissen, Astrid and Tanja, Gerard (eds.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict, pp. 145–52Google Scholar
Dinstein, Yoram, The Conduct of Hostilities under the Law of International Armed Conflict, 3rd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)Google Scholar
Dixon, Norman F., On the Psychology of Military Incompetence (London: Jonathan Cape, 1976)Google Scholar
Dörmann, Knut, et al. (eds.), Commentary on the First Geneva Convention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2016)Google Scholar
Dörmann, Knut, et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Second Geneva Convention (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2017)Google Scholar
Dörmann, Knut, et al. (eds.), Elements of War Crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: Sources and Commentary (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar
Doswald-Beck, Louise (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1995)Google Scholar
Downey, William Gerald Jr., ‘The Law of War and Military Necessity’ (1953) 47 American Journal of International Law, pp. 251–62Google Scholar
Draper, G. I. A. D., ‘Military Necessity and Humanitarian Imperatives’ (1973) 12 Military Law and Law of War Review, pp. 129–42Google Scholar
Ducheine, Paul A. L., et al. (eds.), Targeting: The Challenges of Modern Warfare (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2016)Google Scholar
Duffy, Helen, The ‘War on Terror’ and the Framework of International Law, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dunbar, N. C. H., ‘Military Necessity in War Crimes Trials’ (1952) 29 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 442–52Google Scholar
Dunbar, N. C. H., ‘The Significance of Military Necessity in the Law of War’ (1955) 67 Juridical Review, pp. 201–12Google Scholar
Duncan, James C., Lieutenant Colonel, ‘A Primer on the Employment of Non-lethal Weapons’ (1998) 45 Naval Law Review, pp. 1–55Google Scholar
Federal Political Department, Final Record of the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva of 1949, 3 vols. (Berne: Federal Political Department, 1949)Google Scholar
Federal Political Department, Official Records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, 17 vols. (Berne: Federal Political Department, 1978)Google Scholar
Fenrick, W. J., ‘Targeting and Proportionality during the NATO Bombing Campaign against Yugoslavia’ (2001) 12 European Journal of International Law, pp. 489–502Google Scholar
Fleck, Dieter (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 3rd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2013)Google Scholar
French, Shannon E., ‘Sergeant Davis’s Stern Charge: The Obligation of Officers to Preserve the Humanity of Their Troops’ (2009) 8 Journal of Military Ethics, pp. 116–26Google Scholar
Fuller, Lon L., The Morality of Law, rev. ed. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1969)Google Scholar
Galula, David, Counterinsurgency Warfare: Theory and Practice (Westport and London: Praeger Security International, 1964)Google Scholar
Gardam, Judith, Necessity, Proportionality and the Use of Force by States (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2004)Google Scholar
Garner, James Wilford, International Law and the World War, 2 vols. (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1920)Google Scholar
Geiß, Robin, ‘Military Necessity: A Fundamental “Principle” Fallen into Oblivion’, in Fabri, Hélène Ruiz et al. (eds.), Select Proceedings of the European Society of International Law (Oxford: Hart Publishing, 2010), pp. 554–68Google Scholar
Gershel, Bradley, ‘Applying Double Effect in Armed Conflicts: A Crisis of Legitimacy’ (2013) 27 Emory International Law Review, pp. 741–54Google Scholar
Giladi, Rotem M., ‘Reflections on Proportionality, Military Necessity and the Clausewitzian War’ (2012) 45 Israel Law Review, pp. 323–40Google Scholar
Gill, Terry, ‘Chivalry: A Principle of the Law of Armed Conflict?’, in Matthee, Mariëlle et al. (eds.), Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face Liber Amicorum in Memory of Avril McDonald (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), pp. 33–51Google Scholar
Gill, Terry, ‘Some Considerations Concerning the Role of Ius ad Bellum in Targeting’, in Ducheine, Paul A. L. et al. (eds.), Targeting: The Challenges of Modern Warfare (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2016), pp. 101–19Google Scholar
Goodman, Ryan, ‘The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants’ (2013) 24 European Journal of International Law, pp. 819–53Google Scholar
Green, Leslie C., The Contemporary Law of Armed Conflict, 3rd ed. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2008)Google Scholar
Greenwood, Christopher, ‘Historical Development and Legal Basis’, in Fleck, Dieter (ed.), The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 1–43Google Scholar
Greenwood, Christopher, ‘The Law of Weaponry at the Start of the New Millennium’, in Greenwood, Christopher, Essays on War in International Law (London: Cameron May, 2006), pp. 223–73Google Scholar
Gutteridge, J. A. C., ‘The Repatriation of Prisoners of War’ (1953) 2 International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp. 207216Google Scholar
Hampson, Françoise J., ‘The Relationship between International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights Law from the Perspective of a Human Rights Treaty Body’ (2008) 90 International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 549–72Google Scholar
Hampson, Françoise J., ‘The Scope of the Obligation Not to Return Fighters under the Law of Armed Conflict’, in Cantor, David James and Durieux, Jean-François (eds.), Refuge from Inhumanity? War Refugees and International Humanitarian Law (Leiden and Boston: Brill Nijhoff, 2014), pp. 373–85Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., ‘Essays in Jurisprudence and Philosophy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1983)Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A., ‘Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals’ (1958) 71 Harvard Law Review, pp. 593–629Google Scholar
Hart, H. L. A. and Honoré, Tony, Causation in the Law, 2nd ed. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1985)Google Scholar
Hayashi, Mika Nishimura, ‘The Martens Clause and Military Necessity’, in Hensel, Howard M. (ed.), The Legitimate Use of Military Force: The Just War Tradition and the Customary Law of Armed Conflict (Hampshire and Burlington: Ashgate, 2008), pp. 135–59Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, ‘Contextualizing Military Necessity’ (2013) 27 Emory International Law Review, pp. 189–287Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, ‘Military Necessity as Normative Indifference’ (2013) 44 Georgetown Journal of International Law, pp. 675–82Google Scholar
Hayashi, Nobuo, ‘Requirements of Military Necessity in International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law’ (2010) 28 Boston University International Law Journal, pp. 39–140Google Scholar
Henckaerts, Jean-Marie and Doswald-Beck, Louise, Customary International Humanitarian Law, 2 vols. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005)Google Scholar
Henry, Etienne, Le Principe de nécessité militaire: Histoire et actualité d’une norme fondamentale du droit international humanitaire (Paris: Pedone, 2016)Google Scholar
Hohfeld, Wesley Newcomb, ‘Fundamental Legal Concepts as Applied in Judicial Reasoning’ (1919) 26 Yale Law Journal, pp. 710–70Google Scholar
Honoré, Tony, ‘The Basic Norm of a Society’, in Paulson, Stanley L. and Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski (eds.), Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1998), pp. 89–112Google Scholar
Howard, Michael (ed.), Restraints on War: Studies in the Limitation of Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1979)Google Scholar
Hull, Isabel V., ‘“Military Necessity” and the Laws of War in Imperial Germany’, in Kalyvas, Stathis N. et al. (eds.), Order, Conflict, and Violence (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2008), pp. 352–77Google Scholar
Imseis, Ardi, ‘Critical Reflections on the International Humanitarian Law Aspects of the ICJ Wall Advisory Opinion’ (2005) 99 American Journal of International Law, pp. 102–18Google Scholar
International Committee of the Red Cross, Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 2009)Google Scholar
Jeutner, Valentin, Irresolvable Norm Conflicts in International Law: The Concept of a Legal Dilemma (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017)Google Scholar
Kalshoven, Frits, ‘Grotius’ Jus in Bello, with Special Reference to Ruses of War and Perfidy’, in Frits Kalshoven, Reflections on the Law of War: Collected Essays (Leiden and Boston: Martinus Nijhoff, 2007), pp. 327–38Google Scholar
Kalshoven, Frits, ‘Reprisals and the Protection of Civilians: Two Recent Decisions of the Yugoslavia Tribunal’, in Vohrah, Lal Chand et al. (eds.), Man’s Inhumanity to Man: Essays on International Law in Honour of Antonio Cassese (The Hague: Kluwer Law International, 2003), pp. 481–509Google Scholar
Keegan, John, The Face of Battle: A Story of Agincourt, Waterloo and the Somme (London: Jonathan Cape, 1976)Google Scholar
Keenan, James F., ‘The Function of the Principle of Double Effect’ (1993) 54 Theological Studies, pp. 294–315Google Scholar
Keijzer, Nico, ‘Réponses à la Question 2’ (2000) 33 Revue belge de droit international, pp. 440–45Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans, General Theory of Law and State, Wedberg, Anders (trans.) (Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press, 1949)Google Scholar
Kelsen, Hans, Pure Theory of Law, Knight, Max (trans.) (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967)Google Scholar
Kleemeier, Ulrike, ‘Moral Forces in War’, in Strachan, Hew and Herberg-Rothe, Andreas (eds.), Clausewitz in the Twenty-First Century (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007), pp. 107–21Google Scholar
Kleffner, Jann K., ‘Friend or Foe? On the Protective Reach of the Law of Armed Conflict: A Note on the SCSL Trial Chamber’s Judgment in the Case of Prosecutor v. Sesay, Kallon and Gbao’, in Matthee, Mariëlle et al. (eds.), Armed Conflict and International Law: In Search of the Human Face Liber Amicorum in Memory of Avril McDonald (The Hague: T. M. C. Asser Press, 2013), pp. 285–302Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert, ‘La nécessité militaire dans le droit des conflits armés: essai de clarification conceptuelle’, in Sociéte française pour le droit international, Colloque de Grenoble, La nécessité en droit international (Paris: Pedone, 2007), pp. 151–86Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert, ‘The Main Epochs of Modern International Humanitarian Law Since 1864 and Their Related Dominant Legal Constructions’, in Larsen, Kjetil Mujezinović et al. (eds.), Searching for a ‘Principle of Humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013), pp. 23–71Google Scholar
Kolb, Robert and Hyde, Richard, An Introduction to the International Law of Armed Conflict (Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2008)Google Scholar
Koskenniemi, Martti, ‘Faith, Identity, and the Killing of the Innocent: International Lawyers and Nuclear Weapons’ (1997) 10 Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 137–62Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew H., et al., A Debate over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998)Google Scholar
Kramer, Matthew H., et al., ‘Rights without Trimmings’, in Kramer, Matthew H. et al., A Debate over Rights: Philosophical Enquiries (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1998), pp. 7–91Google Scholar
Kretzmer, David, ‘The Law of Belligerent Occupation in the Supreme Court of Israel’ (2012) 94 International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 207–36Google Scholar
Larsen, Kjetil Mujezinović, et al. (eds.), Searching for a ‘Principle of Humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2013)Google Scholar
Lauterpacht, Hersch, ‘The Problem of the Revision of the Law of War’ (1952) 29 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 360–82Google Scholar
Liivoja, Rain, ‘Chivalry without a Horse: Military Honour and the Modern Law of Armed Conflict’, in Liivoja, Rain and Saumets, Andres (eds.), The Law of Armed Conflict: Historical and Contemporary Perspectives (Tartu: Tartu University Press, 2012), pp. 75–100Google Scholar
Lindroos, Anja, ‘Addressing Norm Conflicts in a Fragmented Legal Order: The Doctrine of Lex Specialis’ (2005) 74 Nordic Journal of International Law, pp. 27–66Google Scholar
Lonsdale, David J., ‘A View from Realism’, in Whetham, David (ed.), Ethics, Law and Military Operations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 29–43Google Scholar
Luban, David, ‘Military Necessity and the Cultures of Military Law’ (2013) 26 Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 315–49Google Scholar
Luban, David, ‘Risk Taking and Force Protection’, in Benbaji, Yitzhak and Sussmann, Naomi (eds.), Reading Walzer (London and New York: Routledge, 2014), pp. 277–301Google Scholar
MacDonald, Charles B., The European Theater of Operations: The Siegfried Line Campaign (Washington, D.C.: Center of Military History, United States Army, 1963)Google Scholar
Mangan, Joseph T., ‘An Historical Analysis of the Principle of Double Effect’ (1949) 10 Theological Studies, pp. 41–61Google Scholar
Margulies, Peter, ‘Valor’s Vices: Against a State Duty to Risk Forces in Armed Conflict’ (2012) 37 Vermont Law Review, pp. 271–307Google Scholar
Mayda, Jaro, ‘The Korean Repatriation Problem and International Law’ (1953) 47 American Journal of International Law, pp. 414–38Google Scholar
McCoubrey, Hilaire, ‘The Nature of the Modern Doctrine of Military Necessity’ (1991) 30 Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, pp. 215–52Google Scholar
McDougal, Myres S. and Feliciano, Florentino P., Law and Minimum World Public Order: The Legal Regulation of International Coercion (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1961)Google Scholar
McKeogh, Colm, Innocent Civilians: The Morality of Killing in War (London: Palgrave Macmillan, 2002)Google Scholar
McMahan, Jeff, ‘The Morality of War and the Law of War’, in Rodin, David and Shue, Henry (eds.), Just and Unjust Warriors: The Moral and Legal Status of Soldiers (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008), pp. 19–43Google Scholar
Melzer, Nils, ‘Keeping the Balance between Military Necessity and Humanity: A Response to Four Critiques of the ICRC’s Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities’ (2010) 42 New York University Journal of International Law and Politics, pp. 831–916Google Scholar
Melzer, Nils, Targeted Killing in International Law (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Melzer, Nils, ‘Targeted Killing or Less Harmful Means? Israel’s High Court Judgment on Targeted Killing and the Restrictive Function of Military Necessity’ (2006) 9 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 87–113Google Scholar
Meron, Theodor, ‘The Humanization of Humanitarian Law’ (2000) 94 American Journal of International Law, pp. 239–78Google Scholar
Meron, Theodor, ‘The Martens Clause, Principles of Humanity, and Dictates of Public Conscience’ (2000) 94 American Journal of International Law, pp. 78–89Google 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’ (1994) 34 International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 98–112CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Milanović, Marko, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties: Law, Principles, and Policy (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2011)Google Scholar
Mill, J. S., On Liberty and Considerations on Representative Government (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1948)Google Scholar
Miyazaki, Shigeki, ‘The Martens Clause and International Humanitarian Law’, in Swinarski, Christophe (ed.), Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles in Honour of Jean Pictet (Geneva and The Hague: International Committee of the Red Cross and Martinus Nijhoff, 1984), pp. 432–44Google Scholar
Moussa, Jasmine, ‘Can Jus ad Bellum Override Jus in Bello? Reaffirming the Separation of the Two Bodies of Law’ (2008) 90 International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 963–90Google Scholar
Munzer, Stephen, ‘Validity and Legal Conflicts’ (1973) 82 Yale Law Review, pp. 1140–74Google Scholar
Nagl, John A., Counterinsurgency Lessons from Malaya and Vietnam: Learning to East Soup with a Knife (Westport and London: Praeger Publications, 2002)Google Scholar
Neuman, Noam, ‘Applying the Rule of Proportionality: Force Protection and Cumulative Assessment in International Law and Morality’ (2004) 7 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 79–112Google Scholar
Newton, Michael A., ‘Reconsidering Reprisals’ (2009–10) 20 Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law, pp. 361–88Google Scholar
Nicholson, Joanna, Fighting and Victimhood in International Criminal Law (Oxford: Routledge, 2018)Google Scholar
O’Brien, William V., ‘The Meaning of “Military Necessity” in International Law’ (1957) 1 World Polity, pp. 109–76Google Scholar
O’Connell, Robert L., Of Arms and Men: A History of War, Weapons, and Aggression (New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1989)Google Scholar
Office of General Counsel, Department of Defense, Department of Defense Law of War Manual (2015)Google Scholar
Office of the Judge Advocate General, Canadian Forces, Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels (2000)Google Scholar
Office of US Chief of Counsel for Prosecution of Axis Criminality, Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression, 8 vols. (Washington, D.C.: United States Government Printing Office, 1946)Google Scholar
O’Keefe, Roger, The Protection of Cultural Property in Armed Conflict (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2006)Google Scholar
Okimoto, Keiichiro, The Distinction and Relationship between Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello (Oxford and Portland: Hart Publishing, 2011)Google Scholar
Olásolo, Héctor, Unlawful Attacks in Combat Situations: From the ICTY’s Case Law to the Rome Statute (Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff, 2008)Google Scholar
Ohlin, Jens D. and May, Larry, Necessity in International Law (New York: Oxford University Press, 2016)Google Scholar
Parks, W. Hays, ‘Conventional Weapons and Weapon Reviews’ (2005) 8 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 55–142Google Scholar
Pauwelyn, Joost, Conflict of Norms in Public International Law: How WTO Law Relates to Other Rules of International Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2003)Google Scholar
Pertile, Marco, ‘Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory: A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?’ (2004) 14 Italian Yearbook of International Law, pp. 121–61Google Scholar
Phillipson, Coleman, International Law and the Great War (London: T. Fisher Unwin, 1915)Google Scholar
Pictet, Jean S., Development and Principles of International Humanitarian Law (Dordrecht, Boston and Manchester: Martinus Nijhoff, 1985)Google Scholar
Pictet, Jean S. (ed.), Commentary I Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1952)Google Scholar
Pictet, Jean S. (ed.), Commentary II Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1960)Google Scholar
Pictet, Jean S. (ed.), Commentary III Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1960)Google Scholar
Pictet, Jean S. (ed.), Commentary IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1958)Google Scholar
Provost, René, International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002)Google Scholar
Rabkin, Jeremy, ‘Proportionality in Perspective: Historical Light on the Law of Armed Conflict’ (2015) 16 San Diego International Law Journal, pp. 263–340Google Scholar
Rasiah, Nathan, ‘The Court-Martial of Corporal Payne and Others and the Future Landscape of International Criminal Justice’ (2009) 7 Journal of International Criminal Justice, pp. 177–99Google Scholar
Raz, Joseph, ‘Kelsen’s Theory of the Basic Norm’, in Paulson, Stanley L. and Paulson, Bonnie Litschewski (eds.), Normativity and Norms: Critical Perspectives on Kelsenian Themes (Oxford: Clarendon Press,1998), pp. 47–67Google Scholar
Reeves, Shane R. and Thurnher, Jeffrey S., ‘Are We Reaching a Tipping Point? How Contemporary Challenges Are Affecting the Military Necessity-Humanity Balance’ (2014) Harvard National Security Journal Features, pp. 1–12Google Scholar
Reynolds, Michael, ‘Massacre at Malmédy during the Battle of the Bulge’, World War II Magazine (February 2003), p. 43Google Scholar
Richards, Frank, Old Soldiers Never Die (New York: Berkeley Publishing Corporation, 1966)Google Scholar
Roberts, Adam, ‘The Equal Application of the Laws of War: A Principle under Pressure’ (2008) 90 International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 931–62Google Scholar
Robertson, Geoffrey, Crimes against Humanity: The Struggle for Global Justice, 3rd ed. (London: Penguin Books, 2006)Google Scholar
Rogers, A. P. V., Law on the Battlefield, 2nd ed. (Huntington: Juris Publishing, 2004)Google Scholar
Rogers, A. P. V., ‘What Is a Legitimate Military Target?’, in Burchill, Richard et al. (eds.), International Conflict and Security Law: Essays in Memory of Hilaire McCoubrey (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2005), pp. 160–84Google Scholar
Rogers, A. P. V., ‘Zero-Casualty Warfare’ (2000) 82 International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 165–81Google Scholar
Rowe, Peter, ‘Members of the Armed Forces and Human Rights Law’, in Clapham, Andrew and Gaeta, Paola (eds.), The Oxford Handbook of International Law in Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2014), pp. 521–42Google Scholar
Rowe, Peter, ‘The Obligation of a State under International Law to Protect Members of Its Own Armed Forces during Armed Conflict or Occupation’ (2006) 9 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 3–24Google Scholar
Salter, Michael, ‘Reinterpreting Competing Interpretations of the Scope and Potential of the Martens Clause’ (2012) 17 Journal of Conflict & Security Law, pp. 403–37Google Scholar
Sandoz, Yves, et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross and Martinus Nijhoff, 1987)Google Scholar
Schabas, William A., Genocide in International Law: The Crime of Crimes, 2nd ed. (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
Schapiro, L. B., ‘Repatriation of Deserters’ (1952) 29 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 310–24Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Discriminate Warfare: The Military Necessity-Humanity Dialectic of International Humanitarian Law’, in Lovell, David W. and Primoratz, Igor (eds.), Protecting Civilians during Violent Conflict (London: Routledge, 2012), pp. 85-102Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Effects-Based Operations and the Law of Aerial Warfare’ (2006) 5 Washington University Global Studies Law Review, pp. 265–93Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Military Necessity and Humanity in International Humanitarian Law: Preserving the Delicate Balance’ (2010) 50 Virginia Journal of International Law, pp. 795–839Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘The Interpretive Guidance on the Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities: A Critical Analysis’ (2010) 1 Harvard National Security Journal, pp. 5–44Google Scholar
Schmitt, Michael N., ‘Wound, Capture, or Kill: A Reply to Ryan Goodman’s “The Power to Kill or Capture Enemy Combatants”’ (2013) 24 European Journal of International Law, pp. 855–61Google Scholar
Schwarzenberger, Georg, International Law as Applied by International Courts and Tribunals: The Law of Armed Conflict, 4 vols. (London: Stevenson and Sons, 1968), vol. IIGoogle Scholar
Schwelb, Egon, ‘Crimes against Humanity’ (1946) 23 British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 178–81Google Scholar
Shue, Henry, ‘Civilian Protection and Force Protection’, in Whetham, David (ed.), Ethics, Law and Military Operations (Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2011), pp. 135–47Google Scholar
Sidgwick, Henry, The Elements of Politics (London and New York: Macmillan and Co., 1891)Google Scholar
Simmonds, N. E., Central Issues in Jurisprudence: Justice, Law and Rights, 2nd ed. (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2002)Google Scholar
Sivakumaran, Sandesh, The Law of Non-international Armed Conflict (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012)Google Scholar
Sloane, Robert D., ‘Puzzles of Proportion and the “Reasonable Military Commander”: Reflections on the Law, Ethics, and Geopolitics of Proportionality’ (2015) 6 Harvard National Security Journal, pp. 299–343Google Scholar
Solf, Waldemar A., ‘Protection of Civilians against the Effects of Hostilities under Customary International Law and Protocol I’ (1986) 1 American University Journal of International Law and Policy, pp. 117–35Google Scholar
Solis, Gary D., ‘The Gotovina Acquittal: A Sound Appellate Course Correction’ (2013) 215 Military Law Review, pp. 78–107Google Scholar
Solis, Gary D. The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2010)Google Scholar
Steinhoff, Uwe, ‘Moral Ambiguities in the Bombing of Monte Cassino’ (2005) 4 Journal of Military Ethics, pp. 142–43Google Scholar
Stone, Julius, Legal Controls of International Conflict: A Treatise on the Dynamics of Disputes- and War-Law (London: Stevens and Sons, 1954)Google Scholar
Taylor, Telford, Nuremberg and Vietnam: An American Tragedy (Chicago: Quadrangle Books, 1970)Google Scholar
UK Ministry of Defence, JSP 383 The Joint Service Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict (2004)Google Scholar
United Nations War Crimes Commission, Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals, 15 vols. (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1949)Google Scholar
US Department of the Navy et al., The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations (2007)Google Scholar
van Baarda, Th. A., ‘Moral Ambiguities Underlying the Laws of Armed Conflict: A Perspective from Military Ethics’ (2008) 11 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 3–49Google Scholar
van Creveld, Martin, The Changing Face of War: Lessons of Combat, from the Marne to Iraq (New York: Presidio Press, 2006)Google Scholar
Venturini, Gabriella, ‘Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict and International Criminal Law’ (2010) 41 Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, pp. 45–78Google Scholar
Verri, Pietro, Dictionary of the International Law of Armed Conflict (Geneva: International Committee of the Red Cross, 1992)Google Scholar
von Bernstorff, Jochen, ‘Martens Clause’, Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law (Oxford: Oxfrord University Press, 2009)Google Scholar
von Clausewitz, Carl, On War, Howard, Michael and Paret, Peter (eds. and trans.) (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1976)Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg Henrik ‘Ought to Be – Ought to Do’, in Meggle, Georg (ed.), Actions, Norms, Values: Discussions with Georg Henrik von Wright (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 3–10Google Scholar
von Wright, Georg Henrik ‘Value, Norm, and Action in My Philosophical Writings’, in Meggle, George (ed.), Actions, Norms, Values (Berlin and New York: Walter de Gruyter, 1999), pp. 11–33Google Scholar
Vranes, Erich, ‘The Definition of “Norm Conflict” in International Law and Legal Theory’ (2006) 17 European Journal of International Law, pp. 395–418Google Scholar
Waluchow, W. J., ‘The Many Faces of Legal Positivism’ (1998) 48 University of Toronto Law Journal, pp. 387–449Google Scholar
Walzer, Michael, Just and Unjust Wars: A Moral Argument with Historical Illustrations, 4th ed. (New York: Basic Books, 2006)Google Scholar
Watkin, Kenneth, ‘Assessing Proportionality: Moral Complexity and Legal Rules’ (2005) 8 Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, p. 3–53Google Scholar
Watts, Sean, ‘Under Siege: International Humanitarian Law and Security Council Practice Concerning Urban Siege Operations’ (2014) Harvard Law School Brookings Project on Law and Security: Counterterrorism and Humanitarian Engagement ProjectGoogle Scholar
Waxman, Matthew, ‘Siegecraft and Surrender: The Law and Strategy of Cities as Targets’ (1998) 39 Virginia Journal of International Law, pp. 353–423Google Scholar
Zimmermann, Andreas, ‘Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and the Issue of Proportionality’ (2007) 11 Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, pp. 99–141Google Scholar