to be both the degree of intensity of coercion which must be applied and the level of destruction effected to achieve such objective, for the greater will be the use of target’s resistance.” Any force intended to go beyond countering the threat is unnecessary, for among the “prominent motivations of participants is, of course, a desire not to provoke retaliatory destruction which necessarily raises the costs of of achieving an objective. Coercion and destruction in excess of the amount necessary to reconstruct the expectation structure of the enemy elite represent inefficient and wasted expenditure of force and constitute a invitation to costly retaliation.” What use of force is unnecessary? Any use of force beyond that which is necessary to bring about the partial or complete submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time, life and physical resources is unnecessary and be avoided to the extent possible and, consistent with mission “must accomplishment and the security of the force, unnecessary The law human suffering avoided.” of armed conflict recognizes that it is unrealistic to expect acts of self-defense to be undertaken with exactly and only that quantum of force necessary to tactically counter an attack aggressor’s in can be expected some attacks will almost inevitably lead to civilian deaths in the – fact, “it long so it instead additionally permits that amount of force necessary to allow that attack term” – to be tactically countered. When the injury from such force be avoided can “unnecessary” – when its application does not actually enable the acting State to further its legitimate political objective of self-defense with a minimum expenditure of time, life and physical resources it – be avoided. Additional Protocol I requires that all loss of civilian life, injury should “incidental to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage be avoided. Accordingly, anticipated” when a State has the opportunity to choose between several different military objectives offering
to be both the degree of intensity of coercion which must be applied and the level of destruction effected to achieve such objective, for the greater will be the target’s resistance.” Any use of force intended to go beyond countering the threat is unnecessary, for “prominent among the motivations of participants is, of course, a desire not to provoke retaliatory destruction which necessarily raises the costs of of achieving an objective. Coercion and destruction in excess of the amount necessary to reconstruct the expectation structure of the enemy elite represent inefficient and wasted expenditure of force and constitute a invitation to costly retaliation.” What use of force is unnecessary? Any use of force beyond that which is necessary to bring about the partial or complete submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time, life and physical resources is unnecessary and “must be avoided to the extent possible and, consistent with mission accomplishment and the security of the force, unnecessary human suffering avoided.” The law of armed conflict recognizes that it is unrealistic to expect acts of self-defense to be undertaken with exactly and only that quantum of force necessary to tactically counter an aggressor’s attack – in fact, “it can be expected some attacks will almost inevitably lead to civilian deaths in the long term” – so it instead additionally permits that amount of force necessary to allow that attack to be tactically countered. When the injury from such “unnecessary” force can be avoided – when its application does not actually enable the acting State to further its legitimate political objective of self-defense with a minimum expenditure of time, life and physical resources – it should be avoided. Additional Protocol I requires that all “incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated” be avoided. Accordingly, when a State has the opportunity to choose between several different military objectives offering
Graham_Law-of-Armed-Conflict.docx