There is much talk today about the transformation of war or new wars or changing paradigms of war. Observers point to asymmetric war as a prime arena for changing rules as two sides, one strong and one relatively weak, fight one another while undermining many of the conventions of war that the international community cultivated so assiduously. In many ways, the arguments of the previous chapters support this contention. Fighting asymmetric war leads participants to discount the idea of combatant equality while ascribing criminal behavior and moral liability to many of their adversaries. The close-quarters conditions of asymmetric war, widespread civilian participation, the inability to distinguish combatants from noncombatants, and the prospect that each side can adopt tactics without fear of “payment in kind” has brought belligerents to consider nonlethal weapons (NLWs), targeted killings, and a narrow view of noncombatant immunity, that puts previously protected civilians in the line of fire.

At the same time, however, the international community is scrutinizing rogue and despotic regimes for gross human rights violations, acts of genocide, and crimes against humanity. Eventually, these acts prompt calls for military intervention. As states wage asymmetric war, longstanding interpretations of “superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering,” proportionality, collateral damage, and state sovereignty fall by the wayside. For some nations, targeted killing, enhanced interrogation techniques, attacks on associated targets, and humanitarian intervention are legitimate exceptions to standing conventions, for others they are signs of entirely new rules.