Protection of civilians in armed conflict: the importance of the principle of proportionality

Abstract

War, like all relations between human communities, is subject to legal regulation. During armed conflict, many individual rights are restricted, and international humanitarian law becomes applicable. This legal regime regulates the conduct of hostilities, provides minimum protection for war victims, particularly civilians, and limits the methods and means of warfare. Certain violations of international humanitarian law may constitute genocide, crimes against humanity or war crimes.

The principle of proportionality is a universal legal concept applicable in various branches of law; however, in international humanitarian law it acquires a specific meaning, as it governs decisions concerning the permissibility of military actions and the acceptable extent of civilian harm. This article analyses the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention and Additional Protocol I, examines the concept of proportionality, and explains its relationship with other fundamental principles of international humanitarian law, including precaution, distinction between civilians and combatants, and the prohibition of unnecessary suffering.

The article qualifies violations of the principle of proportionality as war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court and the Geneva Conventions. It also analyses the jurisprudence of the International Criminal Court and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, demonstrating the decisive role of judicial interpretation in shaping the application of proportionality. This analysis reveals significant challenges in modern armed conflicts, particularly the lack of clear criteria to assess whether civilian harm can be considered “excessive” in relation to anticipated military advantage.

These difficulties are especially evident in contemporary conflicts, where hostilities frequently occur in densely populated urban areas and involve advanced military technologies. The Israeli - Palestinian and Russian - Ukrainian conflicts are examined as case studies illustrating persistent allegations of war crimes and violations of the proportionality principle. The analysis shows that technological progress does not automatically enhance civilian protection, as even precision weapons may be used in a manner incompatible with proportionality, especially where adequate precautions and planning are lacking.

The article advances the hypothesis that although international humanitarian law establishes a legal framework for the protection of civilians, the principle of proportionality is not applied effectively enough in practice, particularly in modern military operations. The ongoing atrocities against civilians underscore the importance of assessing the legality of hostilities and examining how proportionality is applied in concrete conflict situations. Persistent difficulties in ensuring accountability, especially for high-ranking officials, further highlight the need to strengthen the practical implementation of this principle.