The Danger of a Perfect Strike: The Unintended Consequences of Restrictive Targeting Regimes
Abstract
This paper examines the inherent dangers in a new normative framework proscribing civilian casualties. Driven by political fear of alienating domestic audiences, damaging foreign relations, and, media rebuke, States have instituted restrictive targeting regimes. These regimes, while noble, have oft forgotten unintended consequences. The global community aspires to a utopian world of zero civilian casualties. Unfortunately, this is both a dangerous and unrealistic expectation. While targeting restrictions are morally and politically enticing, there are four primary unintended consequences: (1) increased brutality against civilians; (2) amplified civilian endangerment; (3) unrealistic expectations of a perfect war; and, (4) the development of a new norm of proportionality under customary international law (CIL). States must be cognizant of the inherent dangers of positing a policy doctrine of a perfect strike. Because a perfect strike may ultimately be imperfect to a States ability to protect civilians and defeat an adversary. States comply with IHL even when their adversaries do not; but war remains imperfect and civilian casualties are inevitable. Civilians are subject to the perils of war so long as wars exist. States simply cannot restrict targeting to the extent that it further endangers civilian populations around the globe; it is hypocritical at best and devastating at worst.
Document Details
- Document Type
- Technical Report
- Publication Date
- May 30, 2019
- Accession Number
- AD1080101
Entities
People
- Sara P. Neugroschel
Organizations
- Naval Postgraduate School