Understanding the Principle of Proportionality in International Armed Conflict: Legal Justifications vs. Human Costs

"I came to a realization while watching a debate on Piers Morgan Uncensored yesterday: under international humanitarian law, civilian casualties are not automatically illegal. Instead, the principle of proportionality dictates that these casualties are permissible as long as they are not excessive in relation to the direct and concrete military advantage gained. It's a sobering reminder of just how complex and morally challenging our world can be."

Understanding the Principle of Proportionality in International Armed Conflict: Legal Justifications vs. Human Costs

In the heart of every war-torn zone—whether Gaza, Ukraine, Lebanon, or beyond—there exists a common sentiment shared by many around the world: it is unfair that innocent civilians are caught in the crossfire. The images of homes reduced to rubble, families displaced, and the growing toll of civilian deaths evoke deep empathy and raise a moral dilemma that cuts across political and ideological lines. How can such loss be justified? The principle of proportionality, a cornerstone of international law, offers a framework for understanding this, but it also exposes the complexities and limitations of regulating modern warfare.

What is Proportionality?

The principle of proportionality in international humanitarian law (IHL) aims to strike a balance between military necessity and the imperative to protect civilians. It requires that military actions not cause excessive harm to civilians or civilian infrastructure relative to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated. This does not mean that civilian casualties are illegal per se—it means that their loss must not be disproportionate to the legitimate military objective being pursued.

In practice, this is where things become exceedingly complicated, especially in densely populated areas like Gaza, where combatants often live among civilians, turning every strike into a potential humanitarian crisis.

The Complexity of Proportionality in Modern Warfare

Let’s take Israel’s operations in Gaza as an example, a conflict that draws significant attention for its high civilian casualty rates. Israel argues that its military operations are aimed at neutralizing threats from Hamas, a group that operates from within civilian areas, storing weapons in schools, hospitals, and residential neighborhoods. Under international law, Israel is permitted to target military objectives, even if civilians are nearby, provided the anticipated harm is proportional to the military advantage gained. This principle applies not only to Israel but to any state engaged in armed conflict.

However, in these densely populated areas, the line between civilian and combatant often blurs. Hamas, for instance, has been accused of using human shields, embedding their military infrastructure within civilian zones to complicate Israel’s efforts to target them. This forces Israel, or any military force in a similar situation, to make difficult decisions—balancing the imperative to neutralize a threat against the likelihood of civilian harm.

Precautions in Attack

International law mandates that combatants take all feasible precautions to avoid or minimize civilian harm. Israel often points to its policy of issuing warnings before airstrikes—through leaflets, phone calls, or “roof-knocking” (dropping non-lethal munitions as a final warning)—as evidence that it adheres to these rules. Precision-guided munitions are also used to limit collateral damage.

Despite these precautions, the sheer scale of destruction in places like Gaza often raises questions about whether the harm to civilians is truly proportional to the military advantage gained. Critics, including human rights organizations, argue that the high death tolls and widespread damage to civilian infrastructure suggest violations of proportionality. They call for investigations into potential war crimes, citing instances where attacks may have caused excessive civilian harm.

The Legal Shield of Proportionality

Despite these criticisms, as long as Israel (or any state) adheres to the principles of necessity, distinction (between military and civilian targets), and proportionality, its actions are technically covered under international law. This doesn’t mean civilian casualties won’t occur—they do, often in heartbreaking numbers—but as long as the casualties are not excessive in relation to the military advantage, they are deemed legally justified.

The Morality of Acceptable Losses

This brings us to a profound ethical dilemma. While international law may deem civilian casualties as "acceptable losses" under the principle of proportionality, the human toll—children, families, entire communities—remains a stark reality that challenges the moral foundations of warfare. Can a civilian death ever be truly justified? The legal framework provides an answer, but for those on the ground, the loss of life is deeply personal and often irreparable.

Accountability and Ongoing Debates

International humanitarian law was crafted in the aftermath of World War II, an era of conventional warfare. Today’s conflicts, however, are often asymmetric, with non-state actors like Hamas or Hezbollah using unconventional methods to fight state militaries. The evolving nature of warfare raises important questions: Can these laws still adequately regulate modern conflicts? And how do we ensure accountability when both sides of a conflict accuse the other of violations?

Critics argue that current laws are ill-suited to address the complexities of urban warfare, where civilians are often forced into the line of fire. They call for stricter enforcement mechanisms and clearer definitions of proportionality to ensure that civilian lives are better protected.

On the other hand, supporters of Israel and other states engaged in similar conflicts argue that they face unprecedented challenges. As long as militant groups embed themselves within civilian populations and use civilians as shields, it becomes nearly impossible to avoid collateral damage. These states claim that they are doing everything feasible under the law to minimize harm.

The Lasting Impact

The principle of proportionality is a tool designed to ensure that even in the chaos of war, there are limits to how much civilian suffering is permissible. But as wars continue to be fought in densely populated cities, and as the distinction between combatant and civilian becomes increasingly blurred, the application of this principle will remain a subject of intense scrutiny and debate. Ultimately, while international law offers a framework for balancing military action with humanitarian concerns, the moral and ethical questions surrounding civilian casualties often persist long after the battles have ended.

Conclusion

Understanding the principle of proportionality helps explain why civilian casualties in places like Gaza, Ukraine, or Lebanon can occur within the bounds of international law, even when those casualties seem unjust or excessive. While the legal framework seeks to limit harm, the human cost of war—whether legally justified or not—remains a tragic and deeply unsettling reality.

This is the paradox at the heart of modern warfare: legal justifications may exist, but the human toll often leaves a lasting scar on the moral conscience of the global community.

Thank you.

Aderogba Otunla, Ph.D.