Which LOAC principle ensures that force is not excessive in relation to the objective?

Which LOAC principle ensures that force is not excessive in relation to the objective?

• A. Military Necessity
• B. Proportionality
• C. Unnecessary Suffering
• D. Discrimination

Answer: (B)

Proportionality requires that the force used to achieve a military objective not be excessive in relation to that objective. It means you must weigh the expected harm to civilians and civilian objects against the concrete military objective you’re trying to achieve. If the anticipated civilian harm would be disproportionate to the gain, the attack would be disallowed. For example, choosing a highly destructive method that would cause widespread civilian casualties when a less harmful method could achieve the same objective would be disproportionate. Military necessity provides the rationale to engage, but proportionality ensures the level of force remains commensurate with the objective. Unnecessary suffering and discrimination govern other aspects (avoiding needless suffering and distinguishing civilians from combatants), but they don’t address the balance between harm and objective the way proportionality does.

Proportionality requires that the force used to achieve a military objective not be excessive in relation to that objective. It means you must weigh the expected harm to civilians and civilian objects against the concrete military objective you’re trying to achieve. If the anticipated civilian harm would be disproportionate to the gain, the attack would be disallowed. For example, choosing a highly destructive method that would cause widespread civilian casualties when a less harmful method could achieve the same objective would be disproportionate. Military necessity provides the rationale to engage, but proportionality ensures the level of force remains commensurate with the objective. Unnecessary suffering and discrimination govern other aspects (avoiding needless suffering and distinguishing civilians from combatants), but they don’t address the balance between harm and objective the way proportionality does.