How Consistent are Interpretations of the Principle of Proportionality in Situations of Asymmetric Conflicts?: A Legal Analysis of Proportionality Balancing in Drone Operations

Scheithauer, Anna

ISBN 10: 366837760X / ISBN 13: 9783668377608

Published by Grin Verlag, 2017

About this Item

Print on Demand pp. 72.

Seller Inventory # 402043067

Bibliographic Details

• Title: How Consistent are Interpretations of the Principle of Proportionality in Situations of Asymmetric Conflicts?: A Legal Analysis of Proportionality Balancing in Drone Operations
• Publisher: Grin Verlag
• Publication Date: 2017
• Language: English
• ISBN 10: 366837760X
• ISBN 13: 9783668377608
• Binding: Soft cover
• Condition: New

About this title

Synopsis

Master's Thesis from the year 2015 in the subject Politics - International Politics - Topic: Peace and Conflict Studies, Security, grade: 69 (Merit) - UK System, University College London (School of Public Policy), course: Human Rights, language: English, abstract: In this paper I present a holistic approach to identify how consistent interpretations of jus in bello proportionality regarding precision strikes in the context of counterinsurgency operations are by examining both consistency in substance and process. I hypothesize that there is high inconsistency in proportionality balancing, and will illustrate that it is both a theoretical and practical problem by using a mixed-methods design of empirical and theoretical analysis. Doing so, I will move beyond a positivist reading of the law to present my argument though a normative framework. I will argue that to fully comprehend this inconsistency one needs to understand the normative relationship between IHL and IHRL. Structurally, I begin the thesis with an empirical analysis of case law and of the counterinsurgency policy of the US to demonstrate (in)consistency by rethinking it in four specific categories: scope, content, time, certainty. The purpose of this section is to evidence variance in interpretations of the proportionality variables and of the balancing act in ex-post (jurisprudence) and ex-ante (policy) assessments. Secondly, I will engage in a purposive analysis of the legal framework presenting theoretical approaches on the relationship of IHL with IHRL. This is to dismiss inconsistency in proportionality balancing as a ROL problem by showing that there is a higher (normative) purpose behind it. In the final chapter, I will apply the theoretical findings to the empirical discoveries to demonstrate that inconsistency is due to a "proportionality continuum". This section will illustrate that inconsistency is not inherently bad as long as it serves the protective purpose intrinsic to both IHL and IHRL,