The Proportionality Rule and Mental Harm in War

The foundational international humanitarian law rule of proportionality—that parties to an armed conflict may not attack where civilian harm would be excessive in relation to the anticipated military advantage—is normally interpreted to encompass civilian physical injuries only. Attacks may cause significant mental harms also, yet current interpretations of the law lag behind science in understanding and recognizing these kinds of harms. This article analyzes legal, public health, psychology, and neuroscience research to assess the extent to which mental health harms should and could be taken into account in proportionality assessments.

Black Holes and Complexity via Constructible Universe

The relation of randomness and classical algorithmic computational complexity is a vast and deep subject by itself. However, already, 1-randomness sequences call for quantum mechanics in their realization. Thus, we propose to approach black hole’s quantum computational complexity by classical computational classes and randomness classes. The model of a general black hole is proposed based on formal tools from Zermelo–Fraenkel set theory like random forcing or minimal countable constructible model Lα. The Bekenstein–Hawking proportionality rule is shown to hold up to a multiplicative constant. Higher degrees of randomness and algorithmic computational complexity are derived in the model. Directions for further studies are also formulated. The model is designed for exploring deep quantum regime of spacetime.

Famine as a Collateral Damage of War

This contribution intends to assess the interplay between the proportionality rule and the prohibition of starvation, detailing how proportionality assessments undertaken by warring parties prior to launching attacks must take into consideration the food security situation of the affected civilian population, and the possibility of causing starvation. The article provides and analysis of the prohibition of starvation included in the Additional Protocols, outlining its inherent limitations. It then argues the need of evaluating the so-called “conflict-induced hunger” under the lens of the proportionality rule and gives an overview of how parties can include the evaluation of food insecurity and malnutrition levels in their assessment of collateral damages.

Attack Decision-Making

Proportionality is one of the most important civilian protection rules in the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). In an era when combat almost always occurs in areas with substantial civilian populations, the proportionality rule is critical to protecting civilians and civilian property from the incidental and collateral consequences of attacks directed at otherwise lawful targets. The proportionality rule, however, prohibits attacks against otherwise lawful military objectives only when the attacker anticipates that civilian casualties or destruction to civilian property will be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from the attack. Application of the proportionality rule has triggered ongoing debates over the meaning of its constituent terms: What is a military advantage? How is military advantage to be valued? What qualifies as a concrete and direct advantage? When does the knowing infliction of civilian harm qualify as excessive? Considering criminal accountability adds another layer of complexity: What is the proper standard of assessing criminal responsibility based on a violation of this obligation? This chapter explores the relationship between the duty of obedience and the implementation of the proportionality obligation at the tactical level. Given that deliberate attack planning and dynamic targeting arise in different operational contexts, each requires a different implementation focus.

Measuring portfolio salience using the Bradley–Terry model: An illustration with data from Brazil

How do political actors value different portfolios? We propose a new approach to measuring portfolio salience by analysing paired comparisons using the Bradley–Terry model. Paired-comparison data are easy to collect using surveys that are user-friendly, rapid, and inexpensive. We implement the approach with serving legislators in Brazil, a particularly difficult case to assess portfolio salience due to the large number of cabinet positions. Our estimates of portfolio values are robust to variations in implementation of the method. Legislators and academics have broadly similar views of the relative worth of cabinet posts. Respondent valuations of portfolios deviate considerably from what would be predicted by objective measures such as budget, policy influence, and opportunities for patronage. Substantively, we show that portfolio salience varies greatly and affects the calculation of formateur advantage and coalescence/proportionality rule measures.

Proportionality and Autonomous Weapons Systems

Given the swift technologic development, it may be expected that the availability of the first truly autonomous weapons systems is fast approaching. Once they are deployed, these weapons will use artificial intelligence to select and attack targets without further human intervention. Autonomous weapons systems raise the question of whether they could comply with international humanitarian law. The principle of proportionality is sometimes cited as an important obstacle to the use of autonomous weapons systems in accordance with the law. This article assesses the question whether the rule on proportionality in attacks would preclude the legal use of autonomous weapons. It analyses aspects of the proportionality rule that would militate against the use of autonomous weapons systems and aspects that would appear to benefit the protection of the civilian population if such weapons systems were used. The article concludes that autonomous weapons are unable to make proportionality assessments on an operational or strategic level on their own, and that humans should not be expected to be completely absent from the battlefield in the near future.

Emoties en distributieve rechtvaardigheid in organisaties: De rol van coördinatieregels

Emotions and distributive justice in organizations: The role of coordination rules Emotions and distributive justice in organizations: The role of coordination rules J. Stouten, Gedrag & Organisatie, Volume 19, November 2006, nr. 4, pp. 387-402 Distributive justice is an important factor in the emergence of emotional reactions in organizations. The present paper argues that two distributive coordination rules (the equality and proportionality rule) are especially related to people's emotions in situations in which there is a conflict between the individual and collective interests. If these coordination rules (or the conditions that give rise to these rules) are violated people react with negative emotions because important values are broken. In addition, it is shown that these emotional reactions induce retributive reactions, such as excluding or punishing the person who is responsible. A better understanding of these distributive coordination rules is needed in order to create a more complete picture of the influence of emotional reactions on behavior in organizations.

REACH Reviewed under WTO Law

This contribution analyses the comprehensive chemicals legislation proposed by the EU Commission, "REACH", from the perspective of WTO law. First, it inquires whether the treatment of foreign substances and foreign articles in REACH can be reconciled with one of WTO's key requirements, i.e., non-discrimination. Second, it tests specific aspects of the registration obligation established by REACH (i.e., the "volumes-driven" approach, the follow-up to the registration process, the underlying foundations of REACH's cost-benefit analysis) against the proportionality rule embodied in the WTO's Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade. Third, it asks whether the protection of confidential business information in REACH is compatible with the WTO rules on intellectual property protection (notably, the TRIPS Agreement). It results from the present analysis that REACH poses considerable challenges not only under EU law, but also under WTO law.