Military, War, and Peace Commons^™

Strategic Proportionality: Limitations On The Use Of Force In Modern Armed Conflicts, Noam Lubell, Amichai Cohen

International Law Studies

The nature of modern armed conflicts, combined with traditional interpretations of proportionality, poses serious challenges to the jus ad bellum goal of limiting and controlling wars. In between the jus ad bellum focus on decisions to use force, and the international humanitarian law (IHL) regulation of specific attacks, there is a far-reaching space in which the regulatory role of international law is bereft of much needed clarity. Perhaps the most striking example is in relation to overall casualties of war. If the jus ad bellum is understood as applying to the opening moments of the conflict, then it cannot provide …

The Unlawfulness Of A “Bloody Nose Strike” On North Korea, Kevin Jon Heller

International Law Studies

The United States has reportedly been debating whether to "react to some nuclear or missile test with a targeted strike against a North Korean facility to bloody Pyongyang’s nose and illustrate the high price the regime could pay for its behavior." This article asks a simple question: would such a “bloody nose strike” (BNS) violate the jus ad bellum?

Providing a coherent answer is complicated by the lack of clarity surrounding the United States’ planning. In particular, the U.S. government has not specified what kind of provocation it believes would justify launching a BNS, has not identified precisely what …