Printable View
What ways are there to determine whether or not the civilian casualties of military operations are proportional to the military objectives?
Are there legal or traditional standards?
What are their strengths and weaknesses?
Are there rational guidelines?
Is it meaningful to try to ascertain proportionality?
Surely one can just set wider military objectives to justify higher civilian casualties. :noob:
Okay and if that is the case how do we determine the appropriate relationship between the objectives and the acceptable civilian casualties?
Do we really need 5 Gaza threads?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Regardless, there's no official way to weigh these. It's always a judgment call. In general, militaries tend to focus on 'procedures' - e.g. the US' teams of lawyers who would approve each drone strike based on the value of the target and anticipated casualties. The IDF has similar procedures for rules of engagement - detailed rules for engaging enemies from a variety of avenues depending on the circumstances. Sometimes these rules change on a day to day basis because of changing circumstances on the ground. The IAF, for instance, has detailed protocols for airstrikes, with many strikes being aborted each day if they determine that civilian casualties are likely to be too high. The ground forces have rules as well that depend on the circumstance - are you or nearby troops under fire? Is the area cleared of civilians? Etc.
Obviously sometimes these rules and calculations err in either direction. Even if they are scrupulously followed, there can also be mistakes - bombs or shells can go awry or 'skip' from their target, misidentification happen, etc. In general, though, procedures exist to provide a consistent framework through which to evaluate a potential military action. This means you don't need to have each and every soldier carry out a philosophical analysis of the situation prior to engaging a target - they can rely on rules of engagement they have been given, which have been vetted by the appropriate brass/lawyers/etc.
Rules-based systems fail all the time - people break the rules, the rules can be insufficiently clear, the rules can draw the lines in the wrong place - but the mere fact of having such a systematic approach to the problem suggests that the issues of proportionality and distinction have been carefully evaluated. I'd say the two countries that spend the most time on this (because they're both Western and involved in these kinds of wars) are the US and Israel, and the calculations are rarely straightforward. We've seen ample evidence in both Israel/Palestine and Iraq/AfPak that sometimes these procedures fail to achieve ideal results. But I think the exercise itself is illuminating, and means that the basic ethos permeates decision making in the military in question.
There are no hard-and-fast rules to this, and people who think they can label a specific act as 'disproportionate' rarely have enough information to do so.
This is not a Gaza thread. As you noted yourself, this is something pertinent to other wars and conflicts as well, especially the ones fought by the US and by Israel.
I do not think there are hard-and-fast rules, nor do I think there are many hard-and-fast answers. I'd like to know what legitimate and somewhat well-established approaches there may be to even guess at proportionality and have a discussion about it, but I suspect there are none that pass muster, not least because those approaches would be trying to approximate something that has no real existence.
As you say, determining proportionality comes down to judgement-calls. To me, that's a way to gloss over the possibility of arbitrariness. You say that people who believe they can label a specific act as being disproportionate rarely have "enough information" to do so. Even if we accept that statement--and the implicit assumptions on which it rests--as being true, it leaves us with the question of whether or not the people who think they can label a specific act as being proportionate have "enough information" or the good judgement required to make a good decision. If there is uncertainty, should we prefer to spare civilian lives or should we prefer to achieve our military goals? How great should the margin be on either side?
In the end, we're left with a single non-standard test of proportionality: "Did it happen? If so, it must have been proportionate to our objectives and in accordance with the standards of ethics to which we adhere." Accepting the results of this test requires a tremendous leap of faith for those rational observers that are not solidly in the right camp. Frequently it may require us to ignore ethical axioms such as the primacy and the equal worth of human life, and what does that say about our ethics?
The process through which a military power arrives at decisions about proportionality wrt the cost of a military operation in civilian lives is a process with one primary purpose: to absolve those who participate in making the decisions of any moral culpability that arises from deliberately choosing a course of action that causes the deaths of civilians. The entity that makes these decisions has no moral sensibilities. It has no conscience of its own.
What factors are considered in arriving at a decision? Conscience? Public opinion and election-outcomes? International opinion? Domestic and international law? Security? If you have no conscience, if you have public opinion on your side, if you are untouchable by domestic laws, if you can wilfully disregard international law (such as it is) and are relatively confident in your security, what reasons do you have for sparing the lives of "enemy" civilians at the expense of even your smallest military and political objectives? What reason would you have to be cautious or even to remain well-calibrated to any "correct answer" that you may believe exists? What's the point of wasting any time or energy on those calculations?
No, seriously: what is the point?
Proportionality is not something I support at all.
If Canada decides to execute three Americans visiting there in protest to some imagined wrong doing - do we crush their government yes or no? Regardless of the loss of life the idea that another government execute our citizens for no other crime than being American would be intolerable.
Don't say this often but Lewk's right. In matters of warfare trying to keep to some sort of parity or draw is not the goal. The goal is to win, to crush the opposition and end the war ASAP. A short brief fight is better than a long drawn out proportional one.
Keeping to the law of war (ie Geneva Convention etc) should be done, but there is no need whatsoever to be proportional. The Geneva Convention shouldn't be broken just because the other side are doing so. Nor do you need to lower your force to your oppositions.
Proportionality shouldn't be even attempted.
That's a tough question. :noob: I think we still weigh things from World War I and II (and Viet Nam) perspectives....when there were so many millions of civilians killed, entire cities/states destroyed, and hope that never happens again. We made some strides with things like the Geneva Convention, the UN, SALTs, nuclear arms treaties and such. But there's still an escalation of weapons globally. :(
It's 'agreed' that assassinating official world leaders is taboo, but it's ok to use drones to kill un-official terrorist leaders. It gets stickier when militaries use other nation's airspace or seaports, not to mention international waters, or the whole of cyber space. "Superpowers" have more money and power, and along with that comes more responsibility to act ethically.
<That said, I'll use this space to say it's proportionately unethical for the US to spend so much money on military endeavors that benefit other nations, and skimp on our own domestic needs.>
No, Lewk is not right. At least his example sucked -- we wouldn't declare war on Canada or try to "crush" their government. :rolleyes:
But it does open that can of worms regarding Gitmo detainees, and whether that's considered a violation of international norms....
I believe you are speaking of another kind of proportionality.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
Its obviously not a realistic scenario but lets play out the hypothetical. Canada arrests 3 US citizens on vacation. They publicly execute them due to America's stance on drilling for oil. (Or make something else up I don't care). What is America's response? Kill 3 Canadian citizens? No that would be stupid (but proportional!) Ask for an apology? Impose sanctions? What would be your planned response?Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT
Here's one attempt to clarify the issue:
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.c...act_id=1837642
Canada doesn't arrest tourists without cause, or deny them due process....and they certainly don't "execute" people. :picard:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
I can't really answer your "hypothetical" since it's so weird. But it sounds like you should be questioning US policy, since we're the ones who routinely arrest and detain criminal suspects, force them into legal limbo, and put them on Death Row. :confused:
edit, for that matter I'm not sure you're using "proportionality" as it was intended. It's not just an eye-for-an-eye mentality, or 3 American lives in exchange for 3 other lives.
Another aspect of "proportionality" is how many legislator's children enlist in the military. Since less than 1% of the US general populace is "active military", but a majority have extended "veteran" family members.....those are important numbers to consider. Especially compared to other big nations like China or Russia.
You seem to be talking about the just war principle of proportionality, which argues that the amount of "harm" carried out to achieve an objective must be in proportion to the importance of that objective. If a given operation saves your country from certain ruin, you might be justified in killing tens of thousands of people. If you're facing a minor threat, you shouldn't kill tens of thousands to get rid of it. The problem with this idea of proportionality is who decides how much you were threatened? The Israelis will argue that they are facing an existential threat, which would justify far more than a few thousand casualties. The Palestinians and their supporters would argue that the Israelis are facing no threat at all, meaning that the killing of even a handful of Palestinians would not be justified. This is why international law generally focuses on specific acts (which are fairly objective) instead of on political motives (which are not).Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
How does that "principle" apply to Terrorism in the 21st century?
I don't claim to know the answers. I'm a butkin who relies on "experts" within their fields of expertise. Not sure why Economists aren't licensed and registered like other professionals, especially since they get important positions...and create policies under entities like the Federal Reserve or Department of Justice.
The only thing I "know" is that Terrorism is fucking everything up. :(
What relation economists have to terrorism, I do not know...Can't you even stick to one topic in a three-sentence post?
This may give us some fascinating reading on the topic: http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomac...emium-1.608513
(there's a paywall but it's easy to tunnel under, undetected, as might be expected)
I disagree; this is not arbitrary. As your own link attests, the issue is not so delicate as we would like to think - only 'excessive' civilian casualties are illegal, so there's lots of scope for civilian casualties in the context of a concrete military target. Nuking a city to kill one man is obviously off the table, but the difference between 10 and 20 civilian deaths in an attack on a military target is negligible (not to the civilians, of course; this is merely a legal discussion) - hence, the law generally suggests that there's plenty of wiggle room, and that military objectives can be favored over civilian casualties when they appear to be closely balanced. In that context, the lengths gone to by the Israelis and the Americans are far in excess of their legal requirement - they are less concerned with the legal issues, but the ethical and moral challenges of this type of fighting - as well as the political fallout from failures. The only real litmus test is probably if less force could have been used that would reasonably be expected to achieve the same military objective with less collateral damage. That's why both the US and Israel have developed new weapons and techniques specifically for these environments - 'warning shots' to move people (civilian and otherwise) from structures deemed to be military targets, smaller munitions for anti-personnel warfare with less blast radius, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
As for the question of information, I only suggest that the operational details are almost always not known to people who immediately decry an attack as 'disproportionate'. Sometimes it's entirely legal (and possibly even moral) to bomb a hospital. Sometimes it's not. It depends on the circumstances. Ex post facto, you can have all sorts of detailed investigations (none of which happen by the time you get international bodies, foreign ministers, and the press raising a ruckus), but at the time the people with the best information to make that decision are the soldiers involved and their superiors. They could be wrong or biased, of course - that's they it's good to have a system of rules and a culture of rule-following. But they're better situated to make that call than anyone else. If they're wrong, see below for my thoughts on enforcement.
I disagree strongly that the simple fact of taking proportionality into account means the actions were proportional. I also disagree that these procedures exist to strip moral dimensions from these actions, and that they absolve the consciences of those involved.Quote:
In the end, we're left with a single non-standard test of proportionality: "Did it happen? If so, it must have been proportionate to our objectives and in accordance with the standards of ethics to which we adhere." Accepting the results of this test requires a tremendous leap of faith for those rational observers that are not solidly in the right camp. Frequently it may require us to ignore ethical axioms such as the primacy and the equal worth of human life, and what does that say about our ethics?
The process through which a military power arrives at decisions about proportionality wrt the cost of a military operation in civilian lives is a process with one primary purpose: to absolve those who participate in making the decisions of any moral culpability that arises from deliberately choosing a course of action that causes the deaths of civilians. The entity that makes these decisions has no moral sensibilities. It has no conscience of its own.
What factors are considered in arriving at a decision? Conscience? Public opinion and election-outcomes? International opinion? Domestic and international law? Security? If you have no conscience, if you have public opinion on your side, if you are untouchable by domestic laws, if you can wilfully disregard international law (such as it is) and are relatively confident in your security, what reasons do you have for sparing the lives of "enemy" civilians at the expense of even your smallest military and political objectives? What reason would you have to be cautious or even to remain well-calibrated to any "correct answer" that you may believe exists? What's the point of wasting any time or energy on those calculations?
No, seriously: what is the point?
I know several hundred current or former members of the two militaries in question that actually worry about this stuff. One thing that strikes me is that while many of them are little more than kids - silly at times, often immature, and frequently holding with rather unsophisticated political positions - almost all of them treat the use of deadly force with a great deal of respect and sober professionalism. This is because they exist in an organization that approaches these issues carefully, and the deliberations done by their superiors filter down through the ranks in a culture of accountability and care in the employment of deadly force. These rules of engagement are not there to absolve the soldiers of responsibility or moral culpability to their actions; rather, they exist to (successfully) inculcate in them the necessary attitude towards the use of force - that it should always be done in a measured and precise manner, following a strict code. These rules only emphasize the moral quandaries, rather than eliminating them. Even if one's superior tells you to carry out an action, it is still the responsibility of the soldier to evaluate on the basis of their own knowledge if the action passes the 'smell test'. That's why you get approved airstrikes being aborted by Israeli and American pilots (very frequently in the case of Gaza), and soldiers cancelling artillery strikes as they see the situation on the ground change. At times, soldiers have violated their rules of engagement because of moral concerns - e.g. they will refrain from attacking someone rushing at their position even if they might be a suicide bomber, because they think said individual is a civilian. These judgment calls are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but they are almost certainly legal because they are trying to meet the (relatively low) demands of proportionality... and they may even be moral if they are trying to work beyond the letter of the law to meet a higher personal or institutional standard.
Okay, you might say, these considerations have merit in informing institutional and individual decisions with an overarching ethic. So what? Even the best intentions of people may still hide underlying biases that render such considerations grossly incorrect. Soldiers can also be 'bad apples' who will willfully disregard such rules and carry out disproportionate attacks. How can we remedy such issues? I think this is where we really need to improve our procedures. Enforcement is a very challenging issue - countries and armies rarely want to discipline their own for violations - both because of loyalty and because it would entail admitting a war crime, even if the institutions themselves are judged blameless. The obvious alternative suggested is the likes of the ICC - an unbiased international body that can pursue such violations after the fact. In theory it's a great idea, but in practice it's a nightmare - prosecutions are almost entirely motivated by political considerations, and we've seen the absurd double standards, confused thinking, and naked biases that reign when you get international groups like the Human Rights Council dabbling in these issues. I honestly don't know what the best solution is for this problem - ideally, stronger independent internal measures (akin to an IA department in a police force) would do most of the heavy lifting. Yet realistically this can't happen in many organizations, even ones that care about these issues - in countries where not even lip service is paid to IHL, it's even worse.
I really don't have a great solution to enforcement; I'd welcome some thoughts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lewkowski
Lewk, RB: This is not what we're talking about. From an international law perspective, 'proportionality' governs the use of force during a conflict, arguing that any harm caused to civilians should not be in great excess of the expected military advantage gained from a specific attack. This is NOT about 'keeping score' between the damage done to one side vs. another; that has no place in this discussion. International law allows for lopsided conflicts.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
I thought Minx was focusing less on the 'just war' argument and more on the 'conduct of war' argument. I think he is not using an expansive definition of 'objectives' but rather a specific definition of 'objectives' to refer to a specific action or attack.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Not really fascinating...?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
Political economists 'inform' the legislators and policy-makers who then decide whether to fund military initiatives, 'arm rebels', give financial aid for schools/hospitals/infrastructure, or enact economic sanctions. There's a relationship between bad economies and desperation....since it fuels civil unrest and jihadist recruitment. :bored:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
Snipped the part about Israel since this isn't just another Gaza thread ;) to remind everyone about MH17 being shot down. Nearly 300 civilians killed is 'excessive' and disproportionate, even if it was done by Ukrainian rebels during an internal conflict (or civil war)....but legal wiggle room is part of the problem.Quote:
Originally Posted by wiggin
Again, how do we hold militant rebels, guerillas, or terrorists, accountable? It's not like they have designated military command, HQs or official bases like sovereign nations. They don't follow the same rules of engagement, but bypass them on purpose. And it's nothing new -- drug cartels, mafia, groups like the IRA etc. have used these tactics for generations. What's different is that Islamic jihad is happening on so many continents at the same time, without a coordinated structure (snake with many heads).Quote:
They could be wrong or biased, of course - that's they it's good to have a system of rules and a culture of rule-following. But they're better situated to make that call than anyone else. If they're wrong, see below for my thoughts on enforcement.
I disagree strongly that the simple fact of taking proportionality into account means the actions were proportional. I also disagree that these procedures exist to strip moral dimensions from these actions, and that they absolve the consciences of those involved.
At times, soldiers have violated their rules of engagement because of moral concerns - e.g. they will refrain from attacking someone rushing at their position even if they might be a suicide bomber, because they think said individual is a civilian. These judgment calls are sometimes right and sometimes wrong, but they are almost certainly legal because they are trying to meet the (relatively low) demands of proportionality... and they may even be moral if they are trying to work beyond the letter of the law to meet a higher personal or institutional standard.
How can Asymmetrical Wars use traditional rules when one side doesn't give a shit....and part of their mission is to purposely thumb their nose at international bodies and organized western institutions? We've already know what happens when militaries occupy and bomb for a decade, with the idea that it's justifiably killing "terrorist cells", even if it destroys towns and generations of families in the process -- blowback.Quote:
Okay, you might say, these considerations have merit in informing institutional and individual decisions with an overarching ethic. So what? Even the best intentions of people may still hide underlying biases that render such considerations grossly incorrect. Soldiers can also be 'bad apples' who will willfully disregard such rules and carry out disproportionate attacks. How can we remedy such issues? I think this is where we really need to improve our procedures. Enforcement is a very challenging issue - countries and armies rarely want to discipline their own for violations - both because of loyalty and because it would entail admitting a war crime, even if the institutions themselves are judged blameless. The obvious alternative suggested is the likes of the ICC - an unbiased international body that can pursue such violations after the fact. In theory it's a great idea, but in practice it's a nightmare - prosecutions are almost entirely motivated by political considerations, and we've seen the absurd double standards, confused thinking, and naked biases that reign when you get international groups like the Human Rights Council dabbling in these issues. I honestly don't know what the best solution is for this problem - ideally, stronger independent internal measures (akin to an IA department in a police force) would do most of the heavy lifting. Yet realistically this can't happen in many organizations, even ones that care about these issues - in countries where not even lip service is paid to IHL, it's even worse.
I really don't have a great solution to enforcement; I'd welcome some thoughts.
Back to what I said to Loki about economics: IMO it's a better strategy to help improve civilian lives, and prevent desperation turning into anger and violence. That's why energy policy, and economic sanctions are so damn tricky. While we're trying to wean ourselves off fossil fuels, those petrol-states (Russia, the middle east, Africa) need to have modern options available in that future, too. Can they be convinced that Human Rights are part of that? I don't know. :bulb: