1. Introduction 2. What is Proportionality? 3. Proportionality: A Multiplicity of Meanings 4. Proportionality in the Just War Tradition 5. Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law 6. Proportionality in Human Rights Law and Morality 7. The Uniqueness of Jus in Bello Proportionality 8. Countermeasures and Counterinsurgency 9. Human Shields and Risk 10. Targeted Killings and Proportionality in Law: Two Models 11. The Nature of War and the Idea of "Cyberwar" 12. Thresholds of Jus in Bello Proportionality Bibliography Index.

The main objective of this study is to present a comparative legal analysis of proportionality. It provides a close examination of the key areas in which this principle has been applied, both at the national and supranational levels. The whole work is placed in the context of transformation of public law in the twentieth century. As many important general principles of law as applied by the Court of Justice have been borrowed from German and French law, a comparative study of the various forms which this principle has assumed in both German and French public law is presented. The book then offers an in-depth analysis of the application and impact of the principle of proportionality in EC law. The introduction and development of this principle by the Court of Justice represents one of the most striking examples of the interaction between the Community and national legal systems. It also illustrates the character of Community law as developed by the Court and the law-making function of the latter.

This book of essays,the product of a conference held at the University of Birmingham in the spring of 1998, contains contributions from a group of extremely distinguished scholars in the fields of both public and private law. The meaning of proportionality is examined in a number of different contexts, including those of EC law, the domestic law of the Member States of the EU and the law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Its substantive content and procedural implications are analysed and contrasted, in particular, with the concept of Wednesbury unreasonableness. Its use in criminal and anti-discrimination law is also examined, as is its future likely impact in the UK after incorporation of the European Convention. Contributors: Paul Craig, Evelyn Ellis, David Feldman, Nicholas Green QC, Lord Hoffmann, Francis G. Jacobs, Jeremy McBride, Takis Tridimas, Walter van Gerven.

The principle of proportionality is one of the cornerstones of International Humanitarian Law. Almost all states involved in armed conflicts recognize that it is prohibited to launch an attack that is expected to cause incidental harm to civilians that exceeds the direct military advantage anticipated from the attack. This prohibition is included in military manuals, taught in professional courses, & accepted as almost axiomatic. Yet, the exact meaning of this principle is vague. Almost every issue is in dispute. Controversy is especially rife regarding asymmetrical conflicts, in which many modern democracies are involved. How exactly should proportionality be implemented when the enemy is not an army, but a non-state actor embedded within a civilian population? What does it mean to use precautions in attack, when almost every attack is directed at objects that are used for both military & civilian purposes?

The book applies the principle of proportionality to a number of conventional wisdoms in the social sciences, such as in dubio pro reo and the assumption that a crime is always a crime; that you must go to war if instructed to do so. Individuals and states are not obliged to come to the aid of stricken individuals and states. The book is organised in seven chapters, each dealing with a self-standing theme related to proportionality.

The ECJ has applied fundamental rights and the principle of proportionality for decades. This book tries to elucidate the Court's approach to these fundamental tenets of Community law. It starts with establishing a firm theoretical foundation. Then, the book analyzes the case law of the ECJ and other constitutional courts to find out which method courts actually apply. Next, it is discussed why the courts follow a particular approach. Then, it is considered whether the approach fulfils constitutional requirements. Finally, a rationalizing model of balancing is developed. The book is useful for the practitioner as well as for the researcher. It does not present a mere summary of the Court's case law but a systematization of the underlying rationales.

This book addresses the principle of proportionality, which is currently one of the most important instruments of judicial review, from both analytical and theory of law perspectives. As such, the analysis provided is far more comprehensive and can be applied to all areas of law, not just constitutional law. On the one hand, the volume offers a broad perspective on several aspects related to proportionality, such as its structure, the balancing methodology and the distinction between rules and principles. On the other, it provides an innovative, normativist and analytical approach to proportionality, helping readers understand its structure and behaviour.

The proportionality principle has become ever more important in European law and elsewhere. The career of the principle has attracted considerable attention from legal practitioners, legal theorists and political scientists alike, but the debate so far has been quite fragmented. In this new book the author offers a broad and systematic analysis of the proportionality principle. Discussing and comparing proportionality analysis as applied by European courts in part one of the book, the author proceeds to contrast proportionality analysis with alternative assessment schemes. In the third part of the book the author reaches beyond doctrinal reconstructions as he deciphers the functions of proportionality jurisprudence. In view of the various facets of proportionality analysis the author departs from the asserted infringement of a legally protected position by some regulatory act, proceeds to discuss the legitimacy of this intervention and undertakes an analysis of its suitability, appropriateness and necessity. According to the author, the safe grounds of proportionality means-ends rationality do not suffice where the legitimacy of an infringement has to be assessed, where conflicting values have to be “balanced” or where courts engage in a proportionality analysis “stricto sensu”. In the concluding remarks, the author proposes how proportionality analysis may be structured in order to better secure the legitimacy of the analysis.

There has been considerable debate in the international community as to the legality of the forceful actions in Kosovo in 1999, Afghanistan in 2002 and Iraq in 2003 under the United Nations Charter. There has been consensus, however, that the use of force in all these situations had to be both proportional and necessary. Against the background of these recent armed conflicts, this 2004 book offers the first comprehensive assessment of the twin requirements of proportionality and necessity as legal restraints on the forceful actions of States. It also provides a much-needed examination of the relationship between proportionality in the law on the use of force and international humanitarian law.