"This book asserts that, under international humanitarian law (IHL), military necessity neither obligates nor prohibits. Rather, it merely - and therefore indifferently - permits. This new theory challenges two influential views that currently exist on the subject. According to one, IHL bans unnecessary acts even if they do not violate any of its specific rules. Although IHL endeavours to accommodate war necessities, it does not make it its business to save incompetent belligerents from themselves. The other view holds that neither military necessity nor humanity justifies breaches of unqualified IHL rules. Military necessity clearly does not, but humanitarian imperatives may. Conversely, gross inhumanity may become unlawful even where no IHL rule specifically prohibits it"-- Provided by publisher.

Cover -- Half-title -- Title page -- Copyright information -- Dedication -- Contents -- Acknowledgements -- List of Treaties and Associated Instruments -- Table of Cases -- List of Abbreviations -- Part I Introduction -- 1 Introduction -- 1.1 Towards a New Theory of Military Necessity -- 1.2 Structure -- 1.3 Theoretical Underpinnings -- Part II Military Necessity in Its Material Context -- 2 Fitness of Means and Vocational Competence -- 2.1 Ends, Means and Circumstances -- 2.2 No Need to Show But-for Causation -- 2.2.1 No Causation Required -- 2.2.2 No But-for Required. 2.3 Military Non-necessities -- 2.3.1 Non-necessities Per Se: Futility and Purposelessness -- 2.3.2 Relative Non-necessities -- 2.3.2.1 Wastefulness -- 2.3.2.2 Excessiveness -- 2.3.2.3 Inappositeness -- 2.4 Conclusion -- 3 Objections and Responses -- 3.1 Military Competence vs. Ethical Competence -- 3.2 Military Competence as Ethical Competence -- 3.3 Ethical Competence as Military Competence -- 3.4 Conclusion -- Part III Military Necessity in Its Normative Context -- 4 Military Necessity and Legitimacy Modification -- 4.1 From Materiality to Normativity -- 4.2 Necessity, Evil and Legitimacy 4.3 Purpose vis-à-vis Conduct -- 4.3.1 Where the Purpose Sought Is Illegitimate -- 4.3.2 Where the Purpose Sought Is Legitimate -- 4.4 Conduct vis-à-vis Purpose -- 4.4.1 The Conduct Is Deemed Evil -- 4.4.1.1 The Conduct Is Deemed Evil yet Necessary -- 4.4.1.2 The Conduct Is Deemed Evil and Unnecessary -- 4.4.1.3 Preamble of the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration: Evil Conduct Is Illegitimate if It Is Unnecessary -- 4.4.2 The Conduct Is Deemed Un-evil -- 4.4.2.1 The Conduct Is Deemed Un-evil and Necessary -- 4.4.2.2 The Conduct Is Deemed Un-evil and Unnecessary 4.4.2.3 Preamble of the 1868 St. Petersburg Declaration: Is Un-evil Conduct Illegitimate if It Is Unnecessary? -- 4.5 Special Cases: Conduct Considered Evil in an Exclusively Self-Inflicted Way -- 4.5.1 Minding One's Own Business? -- 4.5.2 Are All War Crimes the Enemy's Crimes? -- 4.5.3 Life of a Soldier -- 4.5.4 Delegitimising Self-Inflicted Evil in War -- 4.6 Conclusion -- 5 Inevitable Conflict Thesis -- 5.1 Overview -- 5.2 Inevitability of Norm Conflicts -- 5.2.1 Non-coincidence of Military Necessity and Humanity in Their Material Sense 5.2.2 Military Necessity and Humanity as Generators of Imperatives -- 5.2.2.1 Obligating Materially Necessary Acts -- 5.2.2.2 Prohibiting Materially Unnecessary Acts -- 5.2.3 Inevitable Conflict between Imperatives of Military Necessity and Imperatives of Humanity -- 5.2.3.1 Norm Conflicts and Their Pre-emption Generally -- 5.2.3.2 Norm Conflicts between Military Necessity and Humanity, and Their Pre-emption in IHL Norm-Creation -- 5.3 Inadmissibility of Military Necessity and Humanity Pleas vis-à-vis All Unqualified IHL Rules -- 5.3.1 Excluding Military Necessity and Humanity Pleas Alike