Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T08:15:44.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Proportionality and Necessity in the Gulf Conflict

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 February 2017

Francoise J. Hampson
Francoise J. Hampson*
Affiliation:
Department of Law and Human Rights Center, University of Essex
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An abstract is not available for this content so a preview has been provided. Please use the Get access link above for information on how to access this content.
Image of the first page of this content. For PDF version, please use the ‘Save PDF’ preceeding this image.'
Type
Implementing Limitations on the Use of Force: The Doctrine of Proportionality and Necessity
Information
Proceedings of the ASIL Annual Meeting , Volume 86 , 1992 , pp. 45 - 54
Copyright
Copyright © American Society of International Law 1988

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 See generally Middle East Watch, Needless Deaths in the Gulf War (1991); GREENPEACE, ON IMPACT (1991); Dilip Hiro, Desert Shield to Desert Storm (1992).

2 See Theodor Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary International Law 62-78 (1989); Antonio Cassese, The Geneva Protocols of 1977 on the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict and Customary International Law, 3 U.C.L.A. PAC. BASIN L. J. 55 (1984); A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols, 2 AM. U.J. INTL L. & POLY’Y 415 (1987).

3 For statements at signature and text of all conventions cited, see Adam Roberts & Richard Guelff, Documents on the Laws of War, (2d ed. 1989). For commentary on Protocol I, see Michael Bothe ET AL., New Rules for Victims Of Armed Conflicts (1992) and Claude Pilloud ET AL., COMMENTARY ON THE ADDITIONAL PROTOCOLS (1987).

4 Michael Walzer, Just and Unjust Wars 151-56 (1980).

5 Roberts & Guelff, supra note 3; this represents the codification of the Rendulic rule, United States v. List, XI Trials of War Criminals Before the Nuremberg Military Tribunals, 1296-97 (1947-1948).

6 Frits Kalshoven, Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts: The Diplomatic Conference, Geneva, 1974-1977, Part II, 9 NYIL 107, at 118-19(1978).

7 W. H. PARKS, Linebacker and the Law of War, 34 Air University Review 2, at 16-20 (1983); see generally W. H. Parks, Air War and the Law of War, 32 A.F.L.REV. 1, at 154-56 (1990), hereinafter Parks (1990).

8 Parks (1990), 184-91.

9 Middle East Watch, supra note 1, at 100.

10 Id.; see generally, id., 114-17 and Greenpeace, supra note 1, at 79.

11 Kalshoven, supra note 6, at 111.

12 Cited in PILLOUD., supra note 3, at 632-33 (emphasis added).

13 Supra note 1, at 186.

14 House of Commons Defence Committee, 10th Report, Preliminary Lessons of Operation Granby, (HC No. 287/1) HMSO, at 38 (1991).

15 W. Hays Parks, Rules of Engagement: no more Vietnams, 117/3 PROC. U.S. Naval Inst. 27 (1991), cited in Greenpeace, supra note 1, at 171 n. 710.

16 William V. O’Brien (ed.), The Meaning of “Military Necessity” in International Law, 1 World Polity 109, at 148-49 (1957).

17 Parks (1990), supra note 7, at 170.

18 Greenpeace, supra note 1, at 111.

19 J. Simpson, From the House of War xiii, 350 (1991).