Event Reports
Nearly all states which are involved in armed conflicts recognize the concept of proportionality as a legal and ethical-moral backup for their military activities and actions. But an attacking unit will not be able to justify collateral damage if the number of civil victims is not in proportion with the actual military goal. Nevertheless, the exact interpretation of the principle of proportionality in the light of modern asymmetrical warfare has recently led to discussions on a philosophical, diplomatic and judicial level. Controversies especially appear with regard to asymmetrical conflicts in which nation states, among also liberal democracies, lead an armed conflict against non-state actors such as terror organizations. This issue particularly raised attention among the Israeli public when the final report of the “UN Independent Commission of Inquiry” to the Gaza conflict in 2014 (Operation “Protective Edge”) was published and proposed that many Israeli attacks against targets in Gaza during the conflict had hurt the principal of proportionality.
The first panel discussion started with a placement of the principle of proportionality in the normative, religious and philosophical context. The definition of “targeted killing” and the challenges to the democratic system as a consequence thereof were of particular importance. During the introduction round, it was presented that the principal of proportionality often serves as an effective instrument; but when facing the challenges of global terrorism it confronts political decision makers with difficult moral choices. Afterwards the participants aimed at seeking to find solutions of how to develop reliable instruments in order to guarantee proportionality. In this course, it was pointed out that in reality facts are often mixed up with assumptions and that incidents of collateral damages oftentimes lead to further radicalization amongst groups in the environment of the target. The Christian-religious aspect was also thoroughly analyzed when the question was being raised: Does the principle “an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth” apply? Further, it was stated that the evaluation of proportionality -especially when it comes to the act of “targeted killing” - is often led by emotions of the person in charge. Because of that, it is highly important to establish mechanisms which make rational decisions more likely.
The following panel with the topic “Morality and Reciprocity in Proportionality Analysis” started with a presentation of actions which were considered to be morally right and morally detestable. With regard to this, the participants took a look at the current state of “International Humanitarian Law” which states that civil damage must be avoided at all times. Thereafter, the discussion covered the interpretation of the international law and it became obvious that there is no rational decision-making model for “targeted killing”. Instead, the given facts have to be weighted in each individual situation. In this sense, the definition of asymmetrical warfare was explained and analyzed. When talking about military-strategic operations it is of particular importance that the military forces agree with the overall objectives and act according to it.
The succeeding panel covered the difficult issue of the justification of casualties. The experts discussed in this context also the question in how far pre-emptive strikes are acceptable and stand in accordance with international law. Furthermore, the panelists were concerned with the moral problem of whether pre-emptive strikes are justified in order to protect the lives of own soldiers. These subjects were covered in great detail with the result that prevention must always be ‘concrete’ and must not be expressed vaguely.
The next discussion dealt with military strategies and overall military concepts. The leading questions in this discourse were whether military-strategic goals against enemies such as armed groups and terrorist organizations are legitimate and if negotiations with representatives of these (non-state actors) groups should be led. How can the life of individual soldiers be protected and what kind of influence does the “targeting killing” have on those soldiers who are responsible for giving instructions and on those who in the end execute the attack? Following this, the difference between an armed conflict of low military intensity and a great and lengthy battle was presented. In the course of the discussion, it was deeply evaluated what is meant by “concrete military progress”.
The second day of the seminar started with a controversy about the current situation in Israel and Europe with respect to the accumulation of terrorist attacks. The manner of how democracy is able to encounter terrorism while at the same time perpetuating its values was intensely discussed. It was also remarked that the character of warfare has developed to a “new kind”. Through social media and mobile applications, civilians often become part of the acts of war, almost in real-time. For example, the consumers of programs that spread “leaked” material are in the position to decide what is good and what is evil. But while doing so, the overall strategy of the military battle is not being considered and properly evaluated and there is oftentimes a lack of awareness that there might be important information be missing in the recorded sequences. Moreover, during the round table discussion, it was agreed upon that Israel is currently not in a direct state of warfare but faces an ongoing violent and armed confrontation. Moreover, nowadays strategic goals and successes play a much more decisive role than the achievement of implementing a “new political system” or a “political improvement”. However, these strategic goals are difficult to identify and always depend on an individual perception. In the ongoing dialogue, it became clear that in many conflicts a solution cannot be reached by military means. This frequently leads to frustration within the military forces. This is especially the case when facing the challenges of hybrid warfare.
The afternoon of the second day covered the topic “changed warfare” by looking at the example of the exchange of prisoners in 2011 when the Israeli soldier Gilad Shalit was exchanged for 1027 Palestinian prisoners. The conversations showed that conflicts are moving away from political towards ideological ones in which symbols and pictures gain more importance than pure military facts. This notion also changes the definition of fight and military victory. Afterwards, it was recognized that the military decision-makers cannot think about philosophical, morale and normative aspects when they are under stress and in the middle of combat. Accordingly, this has to be the task of politicians and research institutes. The different evaluations and perspectives between the military persons in charge and the theorists can partly explain the origin of the discussion on proportionality and “targeted killing”.
The round tables offered a platform for interdisciplinary exchange with regard to the principle of proportionality in asymmetrical conflicts. It was summed up that the discussions of the event must be intensified on the international level and that further analyses on this topic are necessary. In addition, the participants agreed to work together on a publication which should be published this year.