Akehurst, M., ‘Custom as a source of international law’ (1977) vol. 47, British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 1–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Aldrich, G. H., ‘Some reflections on the origins of the 1977 Geneva Protocols’ in Swinarski, C. (ed.) Studies and essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles in honour of Jean Pictet, Nijhoff, 1984, pp. 129–137.Google Scholar

Aldrich, G. H., ‘The work of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission’ (2003) vol. 6, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 435–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Alexy, R., A theory of constitutional rights, Oxford University Press, 2002.Google Scholar

Amerasinghe, C. F., ‘History and sources of the law of war’ (2004) vol. 16, Sri Lanka Journal, pp. 263–287.Google Scholar

Andresen, J., ‘Challenging the perplexity over jus in bello proportionality’ (2014) vol. 7, no. 2, European Journal of Legal Studies, pp. 19–35.Google Scholar

Arai-Takahashi, Y., ‘Excessive collateral civilian casualties and military necessity: awkward crossroads in international humanitarian law between state responsibility and individual criminal liability’ in Chinkin, C. and Baetens, F. (eds.) Sovereignty, statehood and state responsibility: essays in honour of James Crawford, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 325–339.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Arancibia, J., ‘The intensity of judicial review in the commercial context: defence and proportionality’ in Forsyth, C. (ed.) Effective judicial review: a cornerstone of good governance, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 287–299.Google Scholar

Ariav, R., ‘Hardly the “Tadić” of targeting: missed opportunities in the ICTY’s “Gotovina” judgements’ (2015) vol. 48, no. 3, Israel Law Review, pp. 329–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Backstrom, A. and Henderson, I., ‘New capabilities in warfare: an overview of contemporary technological developments and the associated legal and engineering issues in Article 36 weapons reviews’ (2012) vol. 94, no. 886, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 483–514.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Baker, R. B., ‘Customary international law in the 21st century: old challenges and new debates’ (2010) vol. 21, no. 1, European Journal of International Law, pp. 173–204.Google Scholar

Barber, P., ‘Scuds, shelters and retreating soldiers: the laws of aerial bombardment in the Gulf War’ (1993) vol. 31, no. 4, Alberta Law Review, pp. 662–691.Google Scholar

Barber, R. J., ‘The proportionality equation: balancing military objectives with civilian lives in the armed conflict in Afghanistan’ (2010) vol. 15, no. 3, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, pp. 467–500.Google Scholar

Barnidge, R. P. Jr, ‘The principle of proportionality under international humanitarian law and Operation Cast Lead’ in Banks, W. C. (ed.) New battlefields, old laws: critical debates on asymmetric warfare, Columbia University Press, 2011, pp. 171–189.Google Scholar

Bartels, R. J., ‘Timelines, borderlines and conflicts: the historical evolution of the legal divide between international and non-international armed conflicts’ (2009a) vol. 91, no. 873, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 35–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bartels, R. J., ‘Humanitarian intervention after 9/11: the link between ius ad bellum and ius in bello’ in van Genugten, W. J. M et al. (eds.) Criminal jurisdiction 100 years after The 1907 Hague Peace Conference: proceedings of The Eighth Hague Joint Conference held in The Hague, The Netherlands, 28–30 June 2007, Asser Press (2009b), pp. 219–226.Google Scholar

Bartels, R. J., ‘Dealing with the principle of proportionality in armed conflict in retrospect: the application of the principle in international criminal trials’ (2013) vol. 46, no. 2, Israel Law Review, pp. 271–315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bassiouni, M. C., ‘A functional approach to “general principles of international law”’ (1990) vol. 11, no. 3, Michigan Journal of International Law, pp. 768–818.Google Scholar

Bellinger, J. B. and Haynes, W. J., ‘A US Government response to the International Committee of the Red Cross Study Customary International Humanitarian Law’ (2007) vol. 89, no. 866, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 443–471.Google Scholar

Benvenuti, P., ‘The ICTY Prosecutor and the review of the NATO Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’ (2001) vol. 12, no. 3, European Journal of International Law, pp. 503–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Besson, S., ‘Theorizing the sources of international law’ in Besson, S. and Tasioulas, J. (eds.) The philosophy of international law, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 163–185.Google Scholar

Best, G. F. A., War and law since 1945, Clarendon Press, 1994.Google Scholar

Bethlehem, D., ‘The methodological framework of the Study’ in Wilmshurst, E. and Breau, S. (eds.) Perspectives on the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 3–14.Google Scholar

Beyerlin, U., ‘Different types of norms in international law: policies, principles, and rules’ in Bodansky, D., Brunée, J. and Hey, E. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of international environmental law, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 425–448.Google Scholar

Bílková, V., ‘Belligerent reprisals in non-international armed conflicts’ (2014) vol. 63, no. 1, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp. 31–65.Google Scholar

Bill, B. J., ‘The Rendulic “Rule”: military necessity, commander’s knowledge, and methods of warfare’ (2009) vol. 12, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 119–155.Google Scholar

Blank, L. R., ‘Operational law experts roundtable on the Gotovina judgment: military operations, battlefield reality and the judgment’s impact on effective implementation and enforcement of international humanitarian law’ (2012) Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 12-186, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1994414.Google Scholar

Blank, L. R. and Guiora, A., ‘Teaching an old dog new tricks: operationalizing the law of armed conflict in New Warfare’ (2010) vol. 1, Harvard National Security Journal, pp. 45–85.Google Scholar

Blix, H., ‘Means and methods of combat’ in Henri Dunant Institute and UNESCO (eds.) International dimensions of humanitarian law, Henri Dunant Institute/UNESCO/Martinus Nijhoff, 1988, pp. 135–151.Google Scholar

Bohlander, M. and Rothe, D. L., ‘Assassination of regime elites versus collateral civilian damage’ in Rothe, D. L and Mullins, C. W. (eds.) State crime: current perspectives, Rutgers University Press, 2011, pp. 245–261.Google Scholar

Bohrer, Z. and Osiel, M., ‘Proportionality in military force at war’s multiple levels: averting civilian casualties vs. safeguarding soldiers’ (2013) vol. 46, no. 3, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 747–822.Google Scholar

Boivin, A., ‘The legal regime applicable to targeting military objectives in the context of contemporary warfare’, Research Paper 2006/2, University Centre for International Humanitarian Law, www.adh-geneve.ch/recherche/pdf/travaux/2/CTR_objectif_militaire.pdf.Google Scholar

Boothby, W. H., The law of targeting, Oxford University Press, 2012.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bothe, M., ‘The protection of the civilian population and the NATO bombing on Yugoslavia: comments on a report to the Prosecutor of the ICTY’ (2001) vol. 12, European Journal of International Law, pp. 531–535.Google Scholar

Bothe, M., ‘Customary international humanitarian law: some reflections on the ICRC study’ (2007a) vol. 8, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 143–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bothe, M., ‘Military activities and the protection of the environment’ (2007b) vol. 37, no. 2/3, Environmental Policy and Law, pp. 232–238.Google Scholar

Bothe, M. et al. (eds.), New rules for victims of armed conflict: commentary to the Two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, 1982.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bouchié de Belle, S., ‘Chained to cannons or wearing targets on their T-shirts: human shields in international humanitarian law’ (2008) vol. 90, no. 872, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 883–906.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Bring, O., ‘International humanitarian law after Kosovo: is lex lata sufficient?’ in Wall, A. (ed.) Legal and ethical lessons of Nato’s Kosovo campaign, International Law Studies, vol. 78, U.S. Naval War College, 2002, pp. 257–272.Google Scholar

Brown, B. L., ‘The proportionality principle in the humanitarian law of warfare: recent efforts at codification’ (1976) vol. 10, no. 1, Cornell International Law Journal, pp. 134–155.Google Scholar

Brownlie, I., International law and the use of force by states, Clarendon Press, 1963.Google Scholar

Buchan, R., ‘The Palmer Report and the legality of Israel’s naval blockade of Gaza’ (2012) vol. 61, no. 1, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp. 264–273.Google Scholar

Byron, C., ‘International humanitarian law and bombing campaigns: legitimate military objectives and excessive collateral damage (2010) vol. 13, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 175–211.Google Scholar

Camins, E., ‘The past as prologue: the development of the “direct participation” exception to civilian immunity’ (2008) vol. 90, no. 872, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 853–881.Google Scholar

Cannizzaro, E., Il principio della proporzionalità nell’ordinamento internazionale, Giuffrè, 2000.Google Scholar

Carcano, A., The transformation of occupied territory in international law, Brill Nijhoff, 2015.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Carnahan, B. M., ‘Linebacker II and Protocol I: the convergence of law and professionalism’ (1982) vol. 31, American University Law Review, pp. 861–870.Google Scholar

Cassese, A., International Law, second edition, Oxford University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Cassese, A., ‘Declaration of Professor Antonio Cassese [on the subject of targeted killing and Gaza]’, 21 April 2006, Center for Constitutional Rights, http://ccrjustice.org/sites/default/files/assets/files/Professor%20Cassese%20declaration.pdf.Google Scholar

Charlton, L. E. O., War from the air, Thomas Nelson and Sons, 1935.Google Scholar

Cheng, B., General principles of law as applied by international courts and tribunals, Stevens and Sons, 1953.Google Scholar

Chetail, V., ‘The contribution of the International Court of Justice to international humanitarian law’ (2003) vol. 85, no. 850, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 235–269.Google Scholar

Clapham, A., ‘Human rights obligations of non-state actors in conflict situations’ (2006) vol. 88, no. 863, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 491–523.Google Scholar

Clark, W. K., Waging modern war: Bosnia, Kosovo and the future of combat, PublicAffairs, 2002.Google Scholar

Clarke, B., ‘Proportionality in armed conflicts: a principle in need of clarification?’ (2012) vol. 3, no. 1, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, pp. 73–123.Google Scholar

Cohen, A., ‘The principle of proportionality in the context of Operation Cast Lead: institutional perspectives’ (2009) vol. 35, Rutgers Law Record, pp. 23–38.Google Scholar

Cohen, A., ‘Proportionality in modern asymmetrical wars’ (2010) Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, www.jcpa.org/text/proportionality.pdf.Google Scholar

Conot, R. E. Justice at Nuremberg, Harper & Row, 1983.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S., ‘Expert Report’, see Defendant Ante Gotovina’s Submission of Expert Report of Professor Geoffrey Corn pursuant to Rule 94 bis, ICTY Prosecutor v. Gotovina et al., IT-06-90-T, 30 June 2009, Appendix A, p. 12.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S., ‘War, law, and the oft overlooked value of process as a precautionary measure’ (2014) vol. 42, Pepperdine Law Review, pp. 419–466, https://digitalcommons.pepperdine.edu/plr/vol42/iss3/2Google Scholar

Corn, G. S. and Corn, G. P., ‘The law of operational targeting: viewing the LOAC through an operational lens’ (2012) vol. 47, no. 2, Texas International Law Journal, pp. 337–380.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S. and Culliver, A., ‘Wounded combatants, military medical personnel, and the dilemma of collateral risk’ (2017) vol. 45, no. 3, Georgia Journal of International and Comparative Law, pp. 445–473.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S. et al. (eds.) The law of armed conflict: an operational approach, Wolters Kluwer, 2012.Google Scholar

Cottier, T. et al., ‘The principle of proportionality in international law: foundations and variations’ (2017) vol. 18, no. 4, The Journal of World Investment and Trade, pp. 628–672.Google Scholar

D’Amato, A. A., The concept of custom in international law, Cornell University Press, 1971.Google Scholar

Darcy, S., ‘Law of belligerent reprisals’ (2003) vol. 175, Military Law Review, pp. 184–251.Google Scholar

David, E., ‘The opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the use of nuclear weapons’ (1997) vol. 37, no. 316, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 21–34.Google Scholar

David, E., Droit des conflicts armés, Bruylant, 2001.Google Scholar

Degan, V. D., ‘General principles of law (A source of general international law)’ (1992) vol. 3, Finnish Yearbook of International Law, pp. 1–102.Google Scholar

Dill, J., ‘Applying the principle of proportionality in combat operations’, Policy paper, December 2010, Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict, www.elac.ox.ac.uk/downloads/Proportionality_policybrief_%20Dec_2010.pdf.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., ‘Air, missile and nuclear warfare’ (1997) vol. 27, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., ‘Protection of the environment in international armed conflict’ (2001) vol. 5, Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, pp. 523–549.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict, Cambridge University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 4th edition, Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., ‘The ICRC customary international humanitarian law study’ (2006) vol. 36, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 1–15.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., ‘Distinction and loss of civilian protection in international armed conflicts’ (2008) vol. 38, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 1–16.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., The international law of belligerent occupation, Cambridge University Press, 2009.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Dinstein, Y., The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2010.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 5th edition, Cambridge University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., ‘The principle of proportionality’ in Mujezinovic Larsen, K. and Guldahl Cooper, C. (eds.) Searching for a ‘principle of humanity’ in International Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, 2013, pp. 72–85.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., The conduct of hostilities under the law of international armed conflict, 3rd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2016.Google Scholar

Dinstein, Y., War, aggression and self-defence, 6th edition, Cambridge University Press, 2017.Google Scholar

Dörmann, K., Elements of war crimes under the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court: sources and commentary, Cambridge University Press (2003a).Google Scholar

Dörmann, K., ‘The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants”’ (2003b) vol. 85, no. 849, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 45–74.Google Scholar

Dörmann, K., ‘The definition of military objectives’ in Beruto, G. L. and Ravasi, G. (eds.) The conduct of hostilities, revisiting the law of armed conflict, Proceedings of the 30th Round Table, San Remo, 6–8 September 2007, International Institute of Humanitarian Law, 2008, pp. 85–90.Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, L., ‘New protocol on blinding laser weapons’ (1996) vol. 36, no. 312, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 272–299.Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, L., ‘International humanitarian law and the Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons’ (1997), vol. 37, no. 321, pp. 35–55.Google Scholar

Doswald-Beck, L., ‘The right to life in armed conflict: does international humanitarian law provide all the answers?’ (2006) vol. 88, no. 864, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 881–904.Google Scholar

Draper, G. I. A. D., ‘Military necessity and humanitarian imperatives’ (1973) vol. 12, Revue de droit pénal militaire et de droit de la guerre, pp. 129–151.Google Scholar

Droege, C., ‘The interplay between international humanitarian law and international human rights law in situations of armed conflict’ (2007) vol. 40, no. 2, Israel Law Review, pp. 310–355.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Droege, C., ‘Elective affinities? Human rights and humanitarian law’ (2008) vol. 90, no. 871, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 501–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ducheine, P. A. L., ‘Non-kinetic capabilities: complementing the kinetic prevalence to targeting’ in Ducheine, P. A. L. et al. (eds.) Targeting: the challenges of modern warfare, Asser Press, 2016, pp. 201–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ducheine, P. A. L. et al., ‘Introduction’ in Ducheine, P. A. L et al. (eds.) Targeting: the challenges of modern warfare, Asser Press, 2016, pp. 1–5.Google Scholar

Dupuy, P.-M., ‘Between the individual and the State: international law at crossroads?’ in Boisson de Chazournes, L. and Sands, P. (eds.) International Law, the International Court of Justice and nuclear weapons, Cambridge University Press, 1999, pp. 449–461.Google Scholar

Dworkin, R., Taking rights seriously, Duckworth, 1977.Google Scholar

Efroni, D., ‘Challenges posed by international law in the context of urban warfare: insights from Operation Pillar of Defense’ (2014) Special Issue, Military and Strategic Affairs, pp. 81–87.Google Scholar

Else, R. C., ‘Proportionality in the law of armed conflict: the proper unit of analysis for military operations’ (2010) vol. 5, no. 1, University of St. Thomas Journal of Law & Public Policy, pp. 195–213.Google Scholar

Fellmeth, A. X., ‘Interpreting proportionality doctrine through the lens of international custom’, Paper presented at the Conference ‘Proportionality in Armed Conflicts’ at the Minerva Center for Human Rights, Jerusalem, Israel, 22 November 2010, http://law.huji.ac.il/upload/7_AaronFellmeth_p.pdf.Google Scholar

Fellmeth, A. X., ‘The proportionality principle in operation: methodological limitations of empirical research and the need for transparency’ (2012) vol. 45, no. 1 Israel Law Review, pp. 125–150.Google Scholar

Fellmeth, A. X. and Sylvester, D. J, ‘Targeting decisions and consequences for civilians in the Colombian civil strife’ (2017) vol. 26, no. 2, Minnesota Journal of International Law, pp. 501–560.Google Scholar

Fenrick, W. J., ‘The rule of proportionality and Protocol I in conventional warfare’ (1982) vol. 98, Military Law Review, pp. 91–127.Google Scholar

Fenrick, W. J., ‘The law applicable to targeting and proportionality after Operation Allied Force: a view from the outside’ (2000) vol. 3, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 53–80.Google Scholar

Fenrick, W. J., ‘Targeting and proportionality during the NATO bombing campaign in Yugoslavia’ (2001) vol. 12, no. 3, European Journal of International Law, pp. 489–502.Google Scholar

Fitzmaurice, G., ‘The general principles of international law considered from the standpoint of the rule of law’ (1958) vol. 92, Recueil des cours, pp. 1–227.Google Scholar

Fortin, K., The accountability of armed groups under human rights law, Oxford University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Friedmann, W., ‘The uses of “general principles” in the development of international law’ (1963) vol. 57, American Journal of International Law, pp. 278–299.Google Scholar

Gardam, J. G., Non-combatant immunity as a norm of international humanitarian law, Martinus Nijhoff, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Gardam, J. G., Necessity, proportionality and the use of force by States, Cambridge University Press, 2004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Garner, J. W., International law and the world war, Longmans, 1920.Google Scholar

Garraway, C., ‘How does existing law address the issue of explosive remnants of war?’ CCW/GGE/XII/WG.1/WP.15 (15 December 2005), available through the online official UN Documents System https://documents.un.org/prod/ods.nsf/home.xsp.Google Scholar

Garraway, C., ‘International humanitarian law in self-defence operations’ in Gill, T. D. and Fleck, D. (eds.) The handbook of the international law of military operations, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 213–215.Google Scholar

Gasser, H.-P. and Dörmann, K., ‘Protection of the Civilian Population’ in Fleck, D. (ed.) The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 231–320.Google Scholar

Gaughan, A. J., ‘Collateral damage and the laws of war: D-Day as a case study’ (2015) vol. 55, no. 3, American Journal of Legal History, pp. 229–285.Google Scholar

Geiss, R., ‘The conduct of hostilities in asymmetric conflicts: reciprocity, distinction, proportionality, precautions’ (2010) vol. 23, no. 3, Humanitäres Völkerrecht, pp. 122–132.Google Scholar

Geiss, R., ‘The principle of proportionality: force protection as a military advantage’ (2012) vol. 45, no. 1, Israel Law Review, pp. 71–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Geiss, R. and Devaney, J. G., ‘Zealots, victims and captives: maintaining adequate protection of human shields in contemporary international humanitarian law’ (2017) vol. 47, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 11–33.Google Scholar

Gill, T. D., ‘The Nuclear Weapons Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice and the fundamental distinction between the jus ad bellum and the jus in bello’ (1999) vol. 12, Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 613–624.Google Scholar

Gill, T. G., ‘The temporal dimension of self-defense: anticipation, pre-emption, prevention and immediacy’ in Schmitt, M. N. and Pejic, J. (eds.) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines: essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein, Nijhoff, 2007, pp. 113–155.Google Scholar

Gill, T. D., ‘Chivalry: a principle of the law of armed conflict?’ in Matthee, M. et al. (eds.) Armed conflict and international law: in search of the human face: liber amicorum in memory of Avril McDonald, Asser Press, 2013, pp. 33–51.Google Scholar

Gill, T. D., ‘Some thoughts on the relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law: a plea for mutual respect and a common sense approach’ in Haeck, Y. et al. (eds.) The realisation of human rights: when theory meets practice: studies in honour of Leo Zwaak, Intersentia, 2014, pp. 335–350.Google Scholar

Gill, T. D., ‘Some considerations concerning the role of the ius ad bellum in targeting’ in Ducheine, P. A. L. et al. (eds.) Targeting: the challenges of modern warfare, Asser Press, 2016, pp. 101–119.Google Scholar

Gillard, M. C., ‘Proportionality in the conduct of hostilities: the incidental harm side of the assessment’, Chatham House Report, Chatham House, 10 December 2018, www.chathamhouse.org/publication/proportionality-conduct-hostilities-incidental-harm-side-assessment.Google Scholar

Gillich, I., ‘The normativity of principles within the positivist theory of international law’ (2015) vol. 41, North Carolina Journal of International Law and Commercial Regulation, pp. 1–30.Google Scholar

Gisel, L., ‘Can the incidental killing of military doctors never be excessive?’ (2013) vol. 95, no. 889, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 215–230.Google Scholar

Green, L. C., The contemporary law of armed conflict, 3rd edition, Manchester University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Greenwood, C. J., ‘Self defense and the conduct of international armed conflict’ in Dinstein, Y. (ed.) International law at a time of perplexity, Nijhoff, 1989a, pp. 273–288.Google Scholar

Greenwood, C. J., ‘The twilight of the law of belligerent reprisals’ (1989b) vol. 20, Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, pp. 35–69.Google Scholar

Greenwood, C. J., ‘Customary law status of the 1977 additional protocols’ in Delissen, A. J. M and Tanja, G. J. (eds.) Humanitarian law of armed conflict: challenges ahead, Martinus Nijhoff, 1991, pp. 93–114.Google Scholar

Greenwood, C. J., ‘The advisory opinion on nuclear weapons and the contribution of the International Court to international humanitarian law’ (1997) vol. 37, no. 316, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Greenwood, C., ‘Historical development and legal basis’ in Fleck, D. (ed.) The handbook of international law, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 15–27.Google Scholar

Gross, A. M., ‘The construction of a wall between The Hague and Jerusalem: the enforcement and limits of humanitarian law and the structure of occupation’ (2006) vol. 19, no. 2, Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 393–440.Google Scholar

Gross, O., ‘The new way of war: is there a duty to use drones?’ (2015) vol. 67, Florida Law Review, pp. 1–71.Google Scholar

Grossgeneralstab of the Kingdom of Prussia, Kriegsbrauch im Landkriege (1902) translated as War Book of the German General Staff by J. H. Morgan, originally published in 1915, reprinted by Stackpole Books, 2005.Google Scholar

Grotius, H., The rights of war and peace (de jure ac bella paci), Book I, first published by in 1625, edited by Tuck, R., republished by Liberty Fund, 2005.Google Scholar

Guisández Gómez, F. J., ‘The law of air warfare’ (1998) vol. 38, no. 323, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 347–363.Google Scholar

Guisández Gómez, J., ‘El principio de la proporcionalidad y los daños colaterales, en enfoque pragmático’ in Prieto Sanjuán, R. A (ed.) Conducción de hostiliades y derecho internacional humanitario: a propósito del Centenario de las Convenciones de La Haya de 1907, Biblioteca Jurídica Diké, 2007, pp. 197–243.Google Scholar

Haines, S., ‘The developing law of weapons: humanity, distinction and the need for proportionality’ in Clapham, A. and Gaeta, P. (eds.) The Oxford handbook of international law in armed conflict, Oxford University Press, 2014, pp. 273–295.Google Scholar

Hall, J. A., The law of naval warfare, 2nd edition, Chapman and Hall, 1921.Google Scholar

Hampson, F. J., ‘Belligerent reprisals and the 1977 Protocols to the Geneva Conventions of 1949’ (1988) vol. 37, International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp. 818–843.Google Scholar

Hampson, F. J., ‘Implementing limitations on the use of force: the doctrine of proportionality and necessity: proportionality and necessity in the Gulf Conflict’ (1992) vol. 86, American Society of International Law Proceedings, pp. 45–54.Google Scholar

Hampson, F. J., ‘Other areas of customary law in relation to the study’ in Wilmshurst, E. and Breau, S. (eds.) Perspectives on the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 50–73.Google Scholar

Hampson, F. J., ‘The relationship between international humanitarian law and international human rights law’ in Sheeran, S. and Rodley, N. (eds.) Routledge handbook of international human rights law, Routledge, 2013, pp. 185–213.Google Scholar

Hayashi, N., ‘Requirements of military necessity in international humanitarian law and international criminal law’ (2010) vol. 28, no. 1, Boston University International Law Journal, pp. 39–140.Google Scholar

Heintschel von Heinegg, W., ‘Naval blockade’ in Schmitt, M. N. (ed.) International law across the spectrum of conflict: essays in honour of Professor L.C. Green on the occasion of his eightieth birthday, Naval War College, 2000, pp. 203–230.Google Scholar

Heintschel von Heinegg, W., ‘The law of naval warfare’ in Fleck, D. (ed.) The handbook of international humanitarian law, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 463–547.Google Scholar

Heintschel von Heinegg, W. and Dreist, P., ‘The 2009 Kunduz air attack: the Decision of the Federal Prosecutor-General on the dismissal of criminal proceedings against members of the German armed forces’ (2010) vol. 53, German Yearbook of International Law, pp. 835–866.Google Scholar

Henckaerts, J.-M., ‘Study on customary international humanitarian law: a contribution to the understanding and respect for the rule of law in armed conflict’ (2005) vol. 87, no. 857, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 175–212.Google Scholar

Henckaerts, J.-M., ‘Customary international humanitarian law: a response to US comments’ (2007) vol. 89, no. 866, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 473–488.Google Scholar

Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L, Customary IHL, Volume 1, Rules, Cambridge University Press (2005a).Google Scholar

Henckaerts, J.-M. and Doswald-Beck, L., Customary IHL, Volume 2, Practice, Cambridge University Press (2005b).Google Scholar

Henderson, I., The contemporary law of targeting, Martinus Nijhoff, 2009.Google Scholar

Henderson, I. and Cavanagh, B., ‘Military members claiming self-defence during armed conflict: often misguided and unhelpful’ in Petrovic, J. (ed.) Accountability for violations of international humanitarian law: essays in honour of Tim McCormack, Routledge, 2016, pp. 73–94.Google Scholar

Henderson, I. and Reece, K., ‘Proportionality under IHL: the “reasonable military commander” standard and reverberating effects’ (2018) vol. 51, no. 3, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 1–22.Google Scholar

Henn, E. V., ‘The development of German jurisprudence on individual compensation for victims of armed conflicts: the “Kunduz” Case’ (2014) vol. 12, no. 3, Journal of International Criminal Justice, pp. 615–637.Google Scholar

Jachec-Neale, A., The concept of military objectives in international law and practice, Routledge, 2015.Google Scholar

Jensen, E. T., ‘Precautions against the effects of attacks in urban areas’ (2016) vol. 98, no. 1, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 147–175.Google Scholar

Kalshoven, F., Belligerent reprisals, Martinus Nijhoff, 1971, reprinted in 2005.Google Scholar

Kalshoven, F., ‘Implementing limitations on the use of force: the doctrine of proportionality and necessity, Remarks by Frits Kalshoven’ (1992) vol. 86, American Society of International Law Proceedings, pp. 40–45.Google Scholar

Kalshoven, F., ‘The respective roles of custom and principle in the international armed conflict’ (2006) Acta Societatis Martensis, on file with author (previously available online at http://acta.martens.ee/article/view/288/49), pp. 48–68.Google Scholar

Kalshoven, F., ‘Bombardment: from Brussels 1874 to Sarajevo 2003’ in Doria, J., Gasser, H.-P. and Bassiouni, M. C. (eds.) The legal regime of the International Criminal Court: essays in honour of Professor Igor Blishchenko: in memoriam Professor Igor Pavlovich Blishchenko (1930–2000), 2009, pp. 103–139. Reprinted in F. Kalshoven, Reflections on the law of war, Collected essays, Martinus Nijhoff, 2007, pp. 431–463.Google Scholar

Kalshoven, F. and Zegveld, L., Constraints on the waging of war: an introduction to international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press and International Committee of the Red Cross, 2011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kammerhofer, J., ‘International legal positivism’ in Kammerhofer, J. and D’Aspremont, J. (eds.) International legal positivism in a post-modern world, Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 81–113.Google Scholar

Kelsen, H., Principles of international law, Rinehart & Company, 1952.Google Scholar

Kelsen, H., The pure theory of law, 2nd edition, 1967, translated by M. Knight, original German text Reine Rechtslehre, 1960.Google Scholar

Khalfaoui, A., ‘The curious case of civilians working in munitions factories: civilian assumption of risk in armed conflict and the United States DoD Law of War Manual’ (2017–2018) vol. 56, no. 2, The Military Law and the Law of War Review, pp. 251–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Kleffner, J. K., ‘Section IX of the ICRC Interpretive Guidance on direct participation in hostilities: the end of jus in bello proportionality as we know it’ (2012) vol. 45, no. 1, Israel Law Review, pp. 35–52.Google Scholar

Kleffner, J. K., ‘Sources of the law of armed conflict’ in Liivoja, R. and McCormack, T. (eds.) Routledge handbook on the law of armed conflict, Routledge, 2016, pp. 71–88.Google Scholar

Kleffner, J. K., ‘Military collaterals and ius in bello proportionality’ (2018) vol. 48, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 43–62.Google Scholar

Kolb, R., ‘Origin of the twin terms jus ad bellum/jus in bello’ (1997) vol. 37, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 553–562.Google Scholar

Kolb, R., ‘Principles as sources of international law (with special reference to good faith)’ (2006) vol. 53, no. 1, Netherlands International Law Review, pp. 1–36.Google Scholar

Kolb, R., ‘Gotovina and the ICTY’ (2017) vol. 27, no. 4, Swiss Review of International and European Law, pp. 483–487.Google Scholar

Kolb, R. and Hyde, R., An introduction to the international law of armed conflicts, Hart, 2008.Google Scholar

Koppe, E. V., ‘The use of depleted uranium and the direct protection of the natural environment under jus in bello’ in McDonald, A., Kleffner, J. K. and Toebes, B. (eds.) Depleted uranium weapons and international law: a precautionary approach, Asser Press, 2008, pp. 161–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Koskenniemi, M., From apology to utopia, Cambridge University Press, 2005.Google Scholar

Kravetz, D., ‘The protection of civilians in war: the ICTY’s Galić Case’ (2004) vol. 17, no. 3, Leiden Journal of International Law, pp. 521–536.Google Scholar

Krieger, H., ‘A conflict of norms: the relationship between humanitarian law and human rights law in the ICRC Customary Law Study’ in Cryer, R. and Henderson, C. (eds.) Law and the use of force and armed conflict, vol. 3, Edward Elgar, 2017.Google Scholar

Krüger-Sprengel, F., ‘Le concept de proportionnalité dans le droit de guerre’, Military Law and Law of War Review, 1980, pp. 179–197.Google Scholar

Krupiy, T., A toolbox for the application of the rules of targeting, Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2016.Google Scholar

Kunz, J. L., ‘The laws of war’ (1956) vol. 50, American Journal of International Law, pp. 313–337.Google Scholar

Lachenmann, F., ‘Legal positivism’, in Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law, Oxford University Press, 2011.Google Scholar

Lammers, J. G., ‘General principles of law recognised by civilised nations’ in Kalshoven, F., Kuyper, P. J. and Lammers, J. G. (eds.) Essays on the development of the international legal order: in memory of Haro F. van Panhuys, Sijthoff & Noordhoff, 1980, pp. 53–75.Google Scholar

Laursen, A., ‘NATO, the war over Kosovo, and the ICTY investigation’ (2002) vol. 17, no. 4, American University International Law Review, pp. 765–782.Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H., ‘War’ in Oppenheim, L. (ed.) International law: a treatise; Vol. 2: Disputes, war and neutrality, 5th edition, Longmans, 1935.Google Scholar

Lauterpacht, H., ‘War’ in Oppenheim, L. (ed.) International law: a treatise; Vol. 2: Disputes, war and neutrality, 6th edition, Longmans, 1944.Google Scholar

Lieblich, E., ‘Beyond life and limb: exploring incidental mental harm under international humanitarian law’ in Jinks, D. et al. (eds.) Applying international humanitarian law in judicial and quasi-judicial bodies: international and domestic aspects, Asser Press, 2014, pp. 185–218.Google Scholar

Lubell, N., ‘Parallel application of international humanitarian law and international human rights law: an examination of the debate’ (2007) vol. 40, no. 2, Israel Law Review, pp. 648–660.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Lubell, N. and Cohen, A., ‘Strategic proportionality’ (2020) International Legal Studies, https://digital-commons.usnwc.edu/ils/vol96/iss1/6/.Google Scholar

Margalit, A., ‘The duty to investigate civilian casualties during armed conflict and its implementation in practice’ (2012) vol. 15, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 155–186.Google Scholar

Matheson, M., ‘Additional Protocol I as an expression of customary international law’ (1987) vol. 2, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, pp. 419–436.Google Scholar

Maxwell, M. D. and Meyer, R. V., ‘The principle of distinction: probing the limits of its customaries’ (2007) March, The Army Lawyer, pp. 1–11, www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/03-2007.pdf.Google Scholar

McCormack, T. L. H. and Mtharu, P. B, ‘Cluster munitions, proportionality and the foreseeability of civilian damage’ in Engdal, W. and Wrange, P. (eds.) Law at war, the law as it was and the law as it should be, liber amicorum Ove Bring, Koninklijke Brill BV, 2008, pp. 191–206.Google Scholar

McCormack, T. L. H. et al., ‘Report on States Parties’ responses to the IHL questionnaire on international humanitarian law and explosive remnants of war’ (2006) Asia Pacific Centre for Military Law, p. 17.Google Scholar

McDougal, M. S. and Feliciano, F. P., Law and minimum world order: the legal regulation of international coercion, Yale University Press, 1961.Google Scholar

McNair, A., ‘War’ in Oppenheim, L. (ed.) International law: a treatise; Vol. 2: Disputes, war and neutrality, 4th edition, Longmans, 1926.Google Scholar

McNeal, G. S., ‘The U.S. practice of collateral damage estimation and mitigation’ (2011) on file with the author.Google Scholar

McPherson, L. K., ‘Excessive force in war: a golden rule test’ (2006) vol. 7, no. 1, Theoretical Inquiries in Law, pp. 81–95.Google Scholar

Medenica, O., ‘Protocol I and Operation Allied Force: did NATO abide by principles of proportionality?’ (2001) vol. 23, no. 3, Loyola of Los Angeles International & Comparative Law Review, pp. 329–426.Google Scholar

Melzer, N., ‘Summary expert meeting on the notion of direct participation in hostilities’, Summary report, ICRC 2005, www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/other/2005-09-report-dph-2005-icrc.pdfGoogle Scholar

Melzer, N., ‘Targeted killing or less harmful means? Israel’s High Court Judgment on targeted killing and the restrictive function of military necessity’ (2006) vol. 9, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 87–113.Google Scholar

Melzer, N., Targeted killing in international law, Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Melzer, N., ‘Interpretive guidance on the notion of direct participation in hostilities under international humanitarian law’, International Committee of the Red Cross, 2009.Google Scholar

Melzer, N., ‘Conceptual distinction and overlaps between law enforcement and the conduct of hostilities’ in Gill, T. D and Fleck, D (eds.) Handbook of the international law of military operations, Oxford University Press, 2010a, pp. 33–49.Google Scholar

Melzer, N., ‘Targeted killings in operational law perspective’ in Gill, T. D and Fleck, D (eds.) Handbook of the international law of military operations, Oxford University Press, 2010b, pp. 277–301.Google Scholar

Meron, T., Human rights and humanitarian norms as customary law, Clarendon Press, 1989.Google Scholar

Meron, T., ‘Revival of customary humanitarian law’ (2005) vol. 99, no. 4, American Journal of International Law, pp. 817–834.Google Scholar

Mitchell, A. D., ‘Law of reprisals: does one illegality merit another?’ (2001) vol. 170, Military Law Review, pp. 158–161.Google Scholar

Moneta, F., ‘Direct attacks on civilians and indiscriminate attacks as war crimes’ in Pocar, F. et al. (eds.) War crimes and the conduct of hostilities: challenges to adjudication and investigation, Edward Elgar, 2013, pp. 59–77.Google Scholar

Mosler, H., ‘General principles of law’ in Bernhardt, R. (ed.) Encyclopedia of public international law, Elsevier, 1995, vol. II, pp. 511–527.Google Scholar

Mumford, P. S., Humanity, air power and war, Jarrolds, 1936.Google Scholar

Murphy, J. F., ‘Some legal (and a few ethical) dimensions of the collateral damage resulting from Nato’s Kosovo campaign’ (2002) vol. 31, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 51–77.Google Scholar

Nasser, S. H., Sources and norms of international law: a study on soft law, Galda + Wilch, 2008.Google Scholar

Neuman, N., ‘Applying the rule of proportionality: force protection and cumulative assessment in international law and morality’ (2004) vol. 7, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 79–112.Google Scholar

Newton, M. A., ‘Modern military necessity: the role & relevance of military lawyers’ (2007) vol. 12, no. 3, Roger Williams University Law Review, pp. 877–903.Google Scholar

Nirmal, B. C., ‘International humanitarian law in Ancient India’ in Mani, V. S. (ed.) Handbook of international humanitarian law in South Asia, Oxford University Press, 2007, pp. 25–38.Google Scholar

Oeter, S., ‘Methods and means of combat’ in Fleck, D. (ed.) The handbook of international humanitarian law, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2008, pp. 119–235.Google Scholar

Oeter, S., ‘Collateral damages: military necessity and the right to life’ in Tomuschat, C et al. (eds.) The right to life, Nijhoff, 2010, pp. 167–193.Google Scholar

Oeter, S., ‘Methods and means of combat’ in Fleck, D. (ed.) The handbook of international humanitarian law, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2013, pp. 115–230.Google Scholar

Olasolo, H., Unlawful attacks in combat situations: from the ICTY’s case law to the Rome Statute, Martinus Nijhoff, 2008.Google Scholar

Oppenheim, L., International law, a treatise, Vol. II, Disputes, war and neutrality, 7th edition, Longmans, Green and Co, 1952.Google Scholar

Orford, A., The Oxford handbook of the theory of international law, Oxford University Press, 2016.Google Scholar

Osinga, F. P. B. and Roorda, M. P. ‘From Douhet to drones, air warfare, and the evolution of targeting’ in Ducheine, P. A. L. et al. (eds.) Targeting, the challenges of modern warfare, Springer/Asser Press, 2016, pp. 27–76.Google Scholar

Parks, W. H., ‘Rolling thunder and the law of war’ (1982) vol. 22, Air University Review, www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1982/jan-feb/parks.html.Google Scholar

Parks, W. H., ‘Linebacker and the law of war’ (1983) vol. 15, Air University Review, www.airpower.maxwell.af.mil/airchronicles/aureview/1983/jan-feb/parks.html.Google Scholar

Parks, W. H., ‘Air war and the law of war’ (1990) vol. 32, Air Force Law Review, pp. 1–226.Google Scholar

Parks, W. H., ‘The protection of civilians from air warfare’ (1997) vol. 27, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 65–112.Google Scholar

Pedrazzi, M., ‘Using human shields as a war crime’ in Pocar, F. et al. (eds.) War crimes and the conduct of hostilities: challenges to adjudication and investigation, Edward Elgar, 2013, pp. 98–116.Google Scholar

Penna, L. R., ‘Customary international law and Protocol I: an analysis of some provisions’ in Swinarski, C. (ed.) Studies and essays on international humanitarian law and Red Cross principles in honour of Jean Pictet, Nijhoff, 1984, pp. 201–225.Google Scholar

Pertile, M., ‘Beit Sourik Village Council v. The Government of Israel: a matter of principle (and neglected rules)’ (2005) vol. 65, Heidelberg Journal of International Law, pp. 677–734.Google Scholar

Petersen, N., ‘Customary law without custom? Rules, principles, and the role of State practice in international norm creation’ (2008) vol. 23, no. 2, American University International Law Review, pp. 275–310.Google Scholar

Petrovic, J., The Old Bridge of Mostar and increasing respect for cultural property in armed conflict, Nijhoff, 2013.Google Scholar

Philippe, X., ‘Brèves réflexions sur le principe de proportionnalité en droit humanitaire’ in Delperée, F. et al. (eds.) En Hommage à Francis Delpérée: itinéraires d’un constitutionnaliste, Bruylant, 2007, pp. 1183–1196.Google Scholar

Pictet, J. S., The principles of international humanitarian law, ICRC, 1966.Google Scholar

Pictet, J. S., Development and principles of international humanitarian law: course given in July 1982 at the University of Strasbourg as part of the courses organized by the International Institute of Human Rights, Nijhoff, 1985.Google Scholar

PoKempner, D. et al., ‘Off Target on the Iraq Campaign: a response to Professor Schmitt’ (2006) vol. 6, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 111–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Ponti, C., ‘The crime of indiscriminate attack and unlawful conventional weapons: the legacy of the ICTY Jurisprudence’ (2015) vol. 6, no. 1, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, pp. 118–146.Google Scholar

Porat, I. and Bohrer, Z., ‘Preferring one’s own civilians: may soldiers endanger enemy civilians more than they would endanger their state’s civilians’ (2015) vol. 47, no. 1, The George Washington International Law Review, pp. 99–158.Google Scholar

Pouw, E. H., ‘International human rights law and the law of armed conflict in the context of counterinsurgency’, dissertation, NLDA, 2013.Google Scholar

Pratzner, P. R., ‘The current targeting process’ in Ducheine, P. A. L et al. (eds.) Targeting: the challenges of modern warfare, Springer/Asser Press, 2016, pp. 77–97.Google Scholar

Prud’homme, N., ‘Lex specialis: oversimplifying a more complex and multifaceted relationship?’ (2007) vol. 40, no. 2, Israel Law Review, pp. 356–395.Google Scholar

Quéguiner, J.-F., ‘Precautions under the law governing the conduct of hostilities’ (2006) vol. 88, no. 864, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 793–821.Google Scholar

Ratner, S. R., ‘Sources of international humanitarian law and international criminal law: war/crimes and the limits of the doctrine of sources’ in D’Aspremont, J. and Besson, S. (eds.) Oxford handbook of the sources of international law, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 912–935.Google Scholar

Redse Johansen, S., ‘On military necessity and the commander’s assessment of military necessity under the international law of armed conflict during conduct of hostilities’, PhD dissertation, University of Oslo, 2017.Google Scholar

Reed, W., ‘Laws of war: the developing law of armed conflict: some current problems’ (1977) vol. 9, no. 1, Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, pp. 17–38.Google Scholar

Reynolds, J. D., ‘Collateral damage on the 21st century battlefield: enemy exploitation of the law of armed conflict and the struggle for a moral high ground’ (2005) vol. 56, Air Force Law Review, pp. 1–108.Google Scholar

Roberts, A. and Guelff, R., Documents on the laws of war, 3rd edition, Oxford University Press, 2000.Google Scholar

Robinson, I. and Nohle, E., ‘Proportionality and precautions in attack: the reverberating effects of using explosive weapons in populated areas’ (2016) vol. 98, no. 1, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 107–145.Google Scholar

Rogers, A. P. V., ‘Zero-casualty warfare’ (2000) vol. 82, no. 837, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 165–181.Google Scholar

Rogers, A. P. V., Law on the battlefield, 2nd edition, Manchester University Press, 2004.Google Scholar

Rogers, A. P. V., ‘The principle of proportionality’ in Hensel, H. M. (ed.) The legitimate use of military force: the Just War tradition and the customary law of armed conflict, Ashgate, 2008, pp. 189–218.Google Scholar

Rogers, A. P. V., Law on the battlefield, 3rd edition, Manchester University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Ronen, Y., ‘International humanitarian law’ in Kammerhofer, J. and D’Aspremont, J. (eds.) International legal positivism in a post-modern world, Cambridge University Press, 2014, pp. 475–497.Google Scholar

Ronzitti, N., ‘The codification of law of air warfare’ in Ronzitti, N. and Venturini, G. (eds.) The law of air warfare: contemporary issues, Eleven International Publishing, 2006, pp. 3–15.Google Scholar

Roscini, M., ‘Targeting and contemporary aerial bombardment’ (2005) vol. 54, no. 2, The International and Comparative Law Quarterly, pp. 411–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Rowe, P., ‘Kosovo 1999: the air campaign: have the provisions of Additional Protocol I withstood the test?’ (2000) vol. 82, no. 837, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 147–164.Google Scholar

Royse, M. W., Aerial bombardment and the international regulation of warfare, Harold Vinal Publishers, 1928.Google Scholar

Salmon, J., Dictionaire de droit international public, Bruylant/AUF, 2001.Google Scholar

Sandoz, Y., ‘Advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice on the legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons: preliminary remarks’ (1997) vol. 37, no. 316, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 6–8.Google Scholar

Sandoz, Y., ‘Commentary’ in Wall, A. E. (ed.) Legal and ethical lessons of NATO’s Kosovo Campaign, US Naval War College’s International Law Studies, vol. 78, Newport, 2002, pp. 273–279.Google Scholar

Sandoz, Y., Swinarski, C and Zimmermann, B, ICRC commentary on the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Martinus Nijhoff, 1987.Google Scholar

Sanger, A., ‘The contemporary law of blockade and the Gaza Freedom Flotilla’ (2010) vol. 13, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 397–446.Google Scholar

Sari, A. and Tinkler, K., ‘Collateral damage and the enemy’ (2019) British Yearbook of International Law, pp. 1–107, doi:10.1093/bybil/brz004.Google Scholar

Sassòli, M., ‘Targeting: the scope and utility of the concept of “military objectives” for the protection of civilians in contemporary armed conflicts’ in Wippman, D. and Evangelista, M. (eds.) New wars, new laws?: applying the laws of war in 21st century conflicts, Transnational, 2005, pp. 181–210.Google Scholar

Sassòli, M., ‘Ius ad bellum and ius in bello: the separation between the legality of the use of force and humanitarian rules to be respected in warfare: crucial or outdated?’ in Schmitt, M. and Pejic, J. (eds.) International law and armed conflict: exploring the faultlines: essays in honour of Yoram Dinstein, Nijhoff, 2007, pp. 241–264.Google Scholar

Sassòli, M. and Cameron, L., ‘The protection of civilian objects: current state of the law and issues de lege ferenda’ in Ronzitti, N. and Venturini, G. (eds.) Current issues in the international humanitarian law of air warfare, Eleven International Publishing, 2006, pp. 63–64.Google Scholar

Sassòli, M. and Olson, L. M., ‘The relationship between international humanitarian and human rights law where it matters: admissible killing and internment of fighters in non-international armed conflicts’ (2008) vol. 90, no. 871, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 599–627.Google Scholar

Sassòli, M. and Quintin, A., ‘Active and passive precautions in air and missile warfare’ (2014) vol. 44, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 69–123.Google Scholar

Sassòli, M. et al., How does law protect in war? Proportionality, https://casebook.icrc.org/casebook/doc/glossary/proportionality-glossary.htm.Google Scholar

Schindler, D. and Toman, J., The laws of armed conflict: a collection of conventions, resolutions and other documents, 4th revised and completed edition, Martinus Nijhoff, 2004.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Green war: an assessment of the environmental law of international armed conflict’ (1997) vol. 22, Yale Journal of International Law, pp. 1–109.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Fault lines in the law of attack’ in Breau, S. C. and Jachec-Neale, A. (eds.) Testing the boundaries of international humanitarian law, The British Institute of International and Comparative Law (2006a), pp. 277–307.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘The conduct of hostilities during Operation Iraqi Freedom: an international humanitarian law assessment’ (2006b) vol. 6, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 73–109.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘The law of targeting’ in Wilmshurst, E. and Breau, S. C. (eds.) Perspectives on the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 131–168.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Human shields in international humanitarian law’ (2008) vol. 38, Israel Yearbook on Human Rights, pp. 17–59.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Human shields in international humanitarian law’ (2009) vol. 47, no. 2, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 292–338.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Foreword’ in Boothby, W. H., The law of targeting, Oxford University Press, 2012, pp. vii–ix.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N., ‘Targeting in operational law’ in Gill, T. D. and Fleck, D. (eds.) The handbook of the international law of military operations, 2nd edition, Oxford University Press, 2016, pp. 269–306.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N. and Highfill, C. E., ‘Invisible injuries: concussive effects and international humanitarian law’ (2018) vol. 9, Harvard National Security Journal, pp. 72–99.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N. and Thurnher, J. S., ‘Out of the loop: autonomous weapon systems and the law of armed conflict’ (2013) vol. 4, no. 2, Harvard National Security Journal, pp. 231–281.Google Scholar

Scobbie, I., ‘The approach to customary international law in the study’ in Wilmshurst, E. and Breau, S. (eds.) Perspectives on the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 15–49.Google Scholar

Scott, J. B., The reports to the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907, Clarendon Press, 1917.Google Scholar

Scott Adams, R., ‘Lancelot in the sky: protecting wounded combatants from incidental harm’ (8 August 2017) https://harvardnsj.org/2017/08/08/lancelot-in-the-sky-protecting-wounded-combatants-from-incidental-harm/.Google Scholar

Shamash, M. E., ‘How much is too much? An examination of the principle of ius in bello proportionality’ (2005–2006) vol. 2, IDF Law Review, pp. 104–148.Google Scholar

Shaw, M. N., International law, 7th edition, Cambridge University Press, 2014.Google Scholar

Shue, H. and Wippmann, D., ‘Limiting attacks on dual-use facilities performing indispensable civilian functions’ (2002) vol. 35, no. 3, Cornell International Law Journal, pp. 559–579.Google Scholar

Simma, B. and Alston, P., ‘The sources of human rights law: custom, jus cogens and general principles’ (1992) vol. 12, Australian Yearbook of International Law, pp. 82–108.Google Scholar

Sivakumaran, S., ‘International humanitarian law’ in Moeckli, D. et al. (eds.) International human rights law, Oxford University Press, 2010, pp. 521–539.Google Scholar

Sivakumaran, S., The law of non-international armed conflict, Oxford University Press, 2012.Google Scholar

Slaughter, A.-M. and Ratner, S. R, ‘Appraising the methods of international law: a prospectus for readers’ (1999) vol. 93, no. 2, American Journal of International Law, pp. 291–302.Google Scholar

Sloane, R. D., ‘Puzzles of proportion and the reasonable military commander: reflections on the law, ethics, and geopolitics of proportionality’ (2015) vol. 6, no. 2, Harvard National Security Journal, pp. 299–343.Google Scholar

Solis, G. D., The law of armed conflict: international humanitarian law in war, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2016.Google Scholar

Spaight, J. M., Air power and war rights, Longmans, Green and Co, 1924.Google Scholar

Spaight, J. M., Air power and the cities, Longmans, Green and Co, 1930.Google Scholar

Spaight, J. M., Air power and war rights, 2nd edition, Longmans, Green and Co, 1933.Google Scholar

Spaight, J. M., Bombing vindicated, Geoffrey Bles, 1944.Google Scholar

Stahn, C., ‘The International Committee of the Red Cross’ influence on related areas of international law’ in Geiss, R. et al. (eds.) Humanizing the laws of war: the Red Cross and the development of international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, 2017, pp. 139–212.Google Scholar

Stone, R. W., ‘Protecting civilians during operation allied force: the enduring importance of the proportional response and NATO’s use of armed force in Kosovo’ (2001) vol. 50, Catholic University Law Review, pp. 501–537.Google Scholar

Stürchler, N., The threat of force in international law, Cambridge University Press, 2007.Google Scholar

Turns, D., ‘At the “vanishing point” of international humanitarian law: methods and means of warfare in non-international armed conflicts’ (2002) vol. 45, German Yearbook of International Law, pp. 115–148.Google Scholar

van den Boogaard, J. C., ‘Fighting by the principles: principles as a source of international humanitarian law’ in Matthee, M. et al. (eds.) Armed conflict and international law: in search of the human face: Liber Amicorum in memory of Avril McDonald, Asser Press, 2013, pp. 3–31.Google Scholar

van den Boogaard, J. C., ‘Proportionality and autonomous weapons systems’ (2015) vol. 6, Journal of International Humanitarian Legal Studies, pp. 247–283.Google Scholar

van den Boogaard, J. C., ‘Knock on the roof: legitimate warning or method of warfare?’ (2018a) vol. 19, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 183–209.Google Scholar

van den Boogaard, J. C., ‘Laser weapons’ in Djukić, D. and Pons, N. (eds.) The companion to international humanitarian law, Brill Nijhoff, 2018b, pp. 462–464.Google Scholar

van den Boogaard, J. C. and Vermeer, A., ‘Precautions in attack and urban and siege warfare’ (2019) vol. 20, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 163–198.Google Scholar

van Dijk, B., ‘Human rights in war: on the entangled foundations of the 1949 Geneva Conventions’ (2018) vol. 112, no. 4, American Journal of International Law, pp. 553–582.Google Scholar

van Engeland, A., ‘When two visions of a just world clash: international humanitarian law and Islamic humanitarian law’ (2006) vol. 100, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting (American Society of International Law), pp. 155–156.Google Scholar

van Hoof, G. J. H., ‘Rethinking the Sources of International Law’, dissertation, 1983.Google Scholar

van Houtte, H., ‘The Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission and international humanitarian Law’ in Venturini, G. and Bariatti, S. (eds.) Individual Rights and International Justice, Liber Fausto Pocar, Giuffrè, 2009, pp. 383–398.Google Scholar

van Schaak, B., ‘The Law and Policy of Human Shielding’ in C. M. Ford, and W. S. Williams, (eds) Complex battlespaces: the law of armed conflict and the dynamics of modern warfare, Oxford University Press, 2018, pp. 463–514.Google Scholar

van Steenberghe, R., ‘Sources of international humanitarian law and international criminal law: specific features’ in D’Aspremont, J. and Besson, S. (eds.) Oxford handbook of the sources of international law, Oxford University Press, 2017, pp. 891–911.Google Scholar

Vité, S., ‘Typology of armed conflicts in international humanitarian law: legal concepts and actual situations’ (2009) vol. 91, no. 873, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 69–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

von der Groeben, C., ‘Criminal responsibility of German soldiers in Afghanistan: the case of Colonel Klein’ (2010) vol. 11, no. 5, German Law Journal, pp. 469–492.Google Scholar

Voon, T., ‘Pointing the finger: civilian casualties of NATO bombing in the Kosovo Conflict’ (2001) vol. 16, no. 4, American University International Law Review, pp. 1083–1113.Google Scholar

Wall, A. E. (ed.) Legal and ethical lessons of NATO’s Kosovo Campaign, International Law Studies, vol. 78, U.S. Naval War College, 2002.Google Scholar

Walzer, M. L., Just and unjust wars: a moral argument with historical illustrations, Basic Books, 1977 (4th edition, 2006).Google Scholar

Watkin, K., ‘Controlling the use of force: a role for human rights norms in contemporary armed conflict’ (2004) vol. 98, no. 1, American Journal of International Law, pp. 1–34.Google Scholar

Watkin, K., ‘Assessing proportionality: moral complexity and legal rules’ (2007) vol. 8, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 3–53.Google Scholar

Watson, G. R., ‘Humanitarian law: law of belligerent occupation: proportionality of security measures taken in occupied territory: self-defense against terrorism: effect of ICJ decisions in domestic courts’ (2006) vol. 100, no. 4, American Journal of International Law, pp. 895–901.Google Scholar

Weill, S., ‘The targeted killing of Salah Shehadeh: from Gaza to Madrid’ (2009) vol. 7, Journal of International Criminal Justice, pp. 617–631.Google Scholar

Wells-Greco, M., ‘Operation “Cast Lead”: jus in belli proportionality’ (2010) vol. 57, no. 3, Netherlands International Law Review, pp. 397–422.Google Scholar

Werres, B., ‘Der Targeting-Prozess in der NATO: die Methode Collateral-Damage-Estimation (CDE)’ in Gillner, M. and Stümke, V. (eds.) Kollateralopfer: die Tötung von Unschuldigen als rechtliches und moralisches Problem, Nomos, 2014, pp. 47–50.Google Scholar

Whittemore, L. A., ‘Proportionality decision making in targeting: heuristics, cognitive biases, and the law’ (2016) vol. 7, Harvard National Security Journal, pp. 577–636.Google Scholar

Wilmshurst, E., ‘Conclusions’ in Wilmshurst, E. and Breau, S. (eds.) Perspectives on the ICRC study on customary international humanitarian law, Cambridge University Press, 2007, pp. 401–413.Google Scholar

Winter, E., ‘Pillars not principles: the status of humanity and military necessity in the law of armed conflict’ (2020) vol. 25, no. 1, Journal of Conflict & Security Law, pp. 1–31.Google Scholar

Wood, M., ‘The evolution and identification of the customary international law of armed conflict’, vol. 51, Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law, pp. 727–736.Google Scholar

Wright, J. D., ‘“Excessive” ambiguity: analysing and refining the proportionality standard’ (2012) vol. 94, no. 886, International Review of the Red Cross, pp. 819–854.Google Scholar

Zimmermann, M., ‘Hinterhalt am Baghlan River in Afghanistan: eine Tagebuchaufzeichnung’ in Gillner, M. and Stümke, V. (eds.) Kollateralopfer: die Tötung von Unschuldigen als rechtliches und moralisches Problem, Nomos, 2014, pp. 31–38.Google Scholar

Zöckler, M. C., ‘Commentary on Protocol IV on blinding laser weapons’ (1998) vol. 1, Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law, pp. 333–340.Google Scholar

Anderson, K., ‘Who owns the rules of war?’, The New York Times Magazine, 13 April 2003, pp. 38–43, www.nytimes.com/2003/04/13/magazine/who-owns-the-rules-of-war.html or www.faculty.umb.edu/gary_zabel/Courses/Morals%20and%20Law/M+L/news-iraq6.html.Google Scholar

BBC News, ‘Saddam’s Iraq: key events’, 2003, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/spl/hi/middle_east/02/iraq_events/html/ground_war.stm.Google Scholar

Friedman, R., ‘Deaths in 2002 Shehadeh killing came from faulty intel’, The Jerusalem Post, 28 February 2011, www.jpost.com/National-News/Deaths-in-2002-Shehadeh-killing-came-from-faulty-intel.Google Scholar

Human Rights Watch, ‘Sudan: Southern Kordofan civilians tell of air strike horror’, 30 August 2011, www.hrw.org/news/2011/08/30/sudan-southern-kordofan-civilians-tell-air-strike-horror.Google Scholar

Hyland, T., ‘Lost in the fog of war’, The Sydney Morning Herald, 12 February 2012, www.smh.com.au/national/lost-in-the-fog-of-war-20120211-1sybr.html.Google Scholar

Information Directorate, Wright-Patterson Air Force Base, ‘Joint targeting toolbox successfully integrated at JEFX 2006’, 5 December 2006, https://www.wpafb.af.mil/News/Article-Display/Article/401562/joint-targeting-toolbox-successfully-integrated-at-jefx-2006/.Google Scholar

Niv, A., ‘The disproportion in the Shehadeh Commission’s proportionality test’, Association for the Promotion of International Humanitarian Law, 29 November 2012, https://sites.google.com/site/almaihl2010en/opeds/the-disproportion-in-the-shehadeh-commission-s-proportionality-test.Google Scholar

Northrop Grumman, ‘Rainstorm: advanced precision targeting’, 2014, www.northropgrumman.com/Capabilities/RainStorm/Documents/RainStorm.pdf.Google Scholar

Roth, K., ‘Barrel bombs, not ISIS, are the greatest threat to Syrians’, Human Rights Watch, 5 August 2015, www.hrw.org/news/2015/08/05/barrel-bombs-not-isis-are-greatest-threat-syrians.Google Scholar

Schmitt, R. J., ‘U.S. Army buried Iraqi soldiers alive in Gulf War’, New York Times, 15 September 1991, www.nytimes.com/1991/09/15/world/us-army-buried-iraqi-soldiers-alive-in-gulf-war.html.Google Scholar

Sloyan, P. J., ‘What I saw was a bunch of filled-in trenches with people’s arms and legs sticking out of them. For all I know, we could have killed thousands’, The Guardian, 14 February 2003, www.theguardian.com/world/2003/feb/14/iraq.features111Google Scholar

The Guardian, ‘Israeli jets attack Hamas’, 23 July 2002, www.theguardian.com/world/2002/jul/23/israel.Google Scholar

Wikipedia, ‘Marc Garlasco’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marc_Garlasco.Google Scholar

Yonah, J. B., ‘Meet the godfather of Israeli experts on international law and war crimes’, The Jerusalem Post, 24 April 2016, www.jpost.com/Israel-News/Meet-the-godfather-of-Israeli-experts-on-international-law-and-war-crimes-452131.Google Scholar

YonHap News Agency, ‘(2nd LD) Military suggests counterfire caused “many casualties” in N. Korea’, 2 December 2010, http://english.yonhapnews.co.kr/national/2010/12/02/83/0301000000AEN20101202009100315F.HTML?2181af00.Google Scholar

YouTube, ‘New details on September Kunduz bombing’, Kunduz Attack Cockpit footage, Al Jazeera English, 4 February 2010, www.youtube.com/watch?v=nexiUdImS68.Google Scholar

Bartels, R. J., ‘Prlić et al.: The destruction of the Old Bridge of Mostar and proportionality’, EJILTALK, 31 July 2013, www.ejiltalk.org/prlic-et-al-the-destruction-of-the-old-bridge-of-mostar-and-proportionality/.Google Scholar

Blank, L. et al., ‘Surveying proportionality: whither the reasonable commander?’ Just Security, 25 March 2015, www.justsecurity.org/21474/surveying-proportionality-reasonable-commander/.Google Scholar

Corn, G. S., ‘Precautions to minimize civilian harm are a fundamental principle of the law of war’, Just Security, 8 July 2015, www.justsecurity.org/24493/obligation-precautions-fundamental-principle-law-war/.Google Scholar

Dill, J., ‘“Proportionate” collateral damage and why we should care about what civilians think’, Just Security, 27 March 2015, www.justsecurity.org/21529/meaning-proportionate-collateral-damage-care-civilians/.Google Scholar

Dill, J., ‘The DoD Law of War Manual and the false appeal of differentiating types of civilians’, Just Security, 1 December 2016, www.justsecurity.org/35068/dod-law-war-manual-false-appeal-differentiating-types-civilians.Google Scholar

Dunlap, C. J., ‘Human shields and the DOD Law of War Manual: can’t we improve the debate?’ Just Security, 25 June 2015, www.justsecurity.org/24199/human-shields-dod-law-war-manual-cant-improve-debate/#more-24199.Google Scholar

Haque, A. A., ‘Human shields in the DOD Manual: a new mistake or an old one?’ Just Security, 29 October 2015, www.justsecurity.org/27173/human-shields-dod-manual-mistake-one/.Google Scholar

Hathaway, O. et al., ‘Two lingering concerns about the forthcoming Law of War Manual amendments’, Just Security, 30 November 2016, www.justsecurity.org/35025/lingering-concerns-forthcoming-law-war-manual-amendments.Google Scholar

Kleffner, J. K., ‘Transatlantic workshop on international law and armed conflict: wounded and sick and the proportionality assessment’, ICRC, Intercross, 12 October 2017, http://intercrossblog.icrc.org/blog/transatlantic-workshop-on-international-law-and-armed-conflict-wounded-and-sick-and-the-proportionality-assessment.Google Scholar

Lederman, M., ‘Is it legal to target ISIL’s oil facilities and cash stockpiles?’ Just Security, 27 May 2016, www.justsecurity.org/31281/legality-striking-isils-oil-facilities-cash-stockpiles/.Google Scholar

Merriam, J., ‘Must military medical and religious personnel be accounted for in a proportionality analysis?’ Just Security, 8 July 2016, www.justsecurity.org/31905.Google Scholar

Milanovic, M., ‘An eventful day in The Hague: channelling Socrates and Goering’, EJILTALK, 30 November 2017, www.ejiltalk.org/an-eventful-day-in-the-hague-channeling-socrates-and-goering/.Google Scholar

Nohle, E. and Robinson, I., ‘War in cities: the “reverberating effects” of explosive weapons’, Humanitarian Law and Policy, ICRC blog, 2 March 2017, http://blogs.icrc.org/law-and-policy/2017/03/02/war-in-cities-the-reverberating-effects-of-explosive-weapons/.Google Scholar

van den Boogaard, J. C., ‘Reimagining IHL principles, Part I: the wrong principles’, Articles of War, 8 December 2020, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/reimagining-ihl-principles-part-i-wrong-principles/.Google Scholar

van den Boogaard, J. C., ‘Reimagining IHL principles, Part II: a new framework’, Articles of War, 11 December 2020, https://lieber.westpoint.edu/reimagining-ihl-principles-part-ii-new-framework/.Google Scholar

Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Joint Doctrine Manual, National Defence Canada, Office of the Judge Advocate, 2001, B-GJ-005-104/FP-021, pp. 2-1–2-3, www.fichl.org/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Canadian_LOAC_Manual_2001_English.pdf.Google Scholar

Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II, 3 August 1992, www.humanitaeres-voelkerrecht.de/ManualZDv15.2.pdf.Google Scholar

Law of Armed Conflict – Manual, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Joint Service Regulation (ZDv) 15/2, May 2013, DSK AV230100262, p. 25.Google Scholar

2006 Israel Military Manual, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, 2nd edition, IDF School of Military Law, 2006.Google Scholar

NATO, 2008, Allied Joint Publication, AJP 3.9, Allied Joint Doctrine for Joint targeting.Google Scholar

NATO Glossary of Terms, www.nato.int/docu/stanag/aap006/aap-6-2010.pdf.Google Scholar

The Military Manual of Norway, Draft-English translation of the Norwegian military manual, on file with the author, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

Military Manual of the Philippines, www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule14.Google Scholar

Basic Military Manual (1987), http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule15.Google Scholar

The Handbook on International Humanitarian Law, VS 27-412/1, Handleiding Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, published by the Royal Netherlands Army, 2005.Google Scholar

The United Kingdom Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, 2004Google Scholar

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln on 24 April 1863, Adjutant General’s Office, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., reprinted in Schindler and Toman, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

1956 US Army Field Manual, Department of the Army Field Manual, The Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10), July 1956.Google Scholar

Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 9 (REV. A)/FMFM 1-10 (1989)Google Scholar

Air Force Pamphlet 14-210 Intelligence, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.8965&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google Scholar

United States Joint Targeting Doctrine, Joint Publication 3-60, published 17 January 2002, page A2 of Appendix A, www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_60(02).pdf.Google Scholar

US Interservice Field Manual FM 3-06 Aviation Urban Operations, July 2005, pp. I–6, www.scribd.com/doc/12777654/fm306.Google Scholar

The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP I-14 M, July 2007 edition.Google Scholar

United States, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-60, Joint Targeting (13 April 2007), Appendix C, p. C-4, www.aclu.org/files/dronefoia/dod/drone_dod_jp3_60.pdf.Google Scholar

US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1-02 2010, available online: US Doctrine, Joint Publication 3-30, the Command and Control of Joint Air Operations, 10 February 2014, www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.Google Scholar

Department of Defense Law of War Manual, DOD Law of War Manual, 2015 and 3rd revised version, December 2016, www.hsdl.org/?view&did=797480.Google Scholar

Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Joint Doctrine Manual, National Defence Canada, Office of the Judge Advocate, 2001, B-GJ-005-104/FP-021, pp. 2-1–2-3, www.fichl.org/fileadmin/_migrated/content_uploads/Canadian_LOAC_Manual_2001_English.pdf.Google Scholar

Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II, 3 August 1992, www.humanitaeres-voelkerrecht.de/ManualZDv15.2.pdf.Google Scholar

Law of Armed Conflict – Manual, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, Joint Service Regulation (ZDv) 15/2, May 2013, DSK AV230100262, p. 25.Google Scholar

2006 Israel Military Manual, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, 2nd edition, IDF School of Military Law, 2006.Google Scholar

NATO, 2008, Allied Joint Publication, AJP 3.9, Allied Joint Doctrine for Joint targeting.Google Scholar

NATO Glossary of Terms, www.nato.int/docu/stanag/aap006/aap-6-2010.pdf.Google Scholar

The Military Manual of Norway, Draft-English translation of the Norwegian military manual, on file with the author, pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

Military Manual of the Philippines, www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule14.Google Scholar

Basic Military Manual (1987), http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule15.Google Scholar

The Handbook on International Humanitarian Law, VS 27-412/1, Handleiding Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, published by the Royal Netherlands Army, 2005.Google Scholar

The United Kingdom Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Oxford University Press, 2004Google Scholar

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, promulgated as General Orders No. 100 by President Lincoln on 24 April 1863, Adjutant General’s Office, prepared by Francis Lieber, LL.D., reprinted in Schindler and Toman, pp. 3–20.Google Scholar

1956 US Army Field Manual, Department of the Army Field Manual, The Law of Land Warfare (FM 27-10), July 1956.Google Scholar

Annotated Supplement to the Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 9 (REV. A)/FMFM 1-10 (1989)Google Scholar

Air Force Pamphlet 14-210 Intelligence, http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.131.8965&rep=rep1&type=pdf.Google Scholar

United States Joint Targeting Doctrine, Joint Publication 3-60, published 17 January 2002, page A2 of Appendix A, www.bits.de/NRANEU/others/jp-doctrine/jp3_60(02).pdf.Google Scholar

US Interservice Field Manual FM 3-06 Aviation Urban Operations, July 2005, pp. I–6, www.scribd.com/doc/12777654/fm306.Google Scholar

The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP I-14 M, July 2007 edition.Google Scholar

United States, Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 3-60, Joint Targeting (13 April 2007), Appendix C, p. C-4, www.aclu.org/files/dronefoia/dod/drone_dod_jp3_60.pdf.Google Scholar

US Joint Chiefs of Staff, Joint Publication 1-02 2010, available online: US Doctrine, Joint Publication 3-30, the Command and Control of Joint Air Operations, 10 February 2014, www.dtic.mil/doctrine/new_pubs/jp1_02.pdf.Google Scholar

Department of Defense Law of War Manual, DOD Law of War Manual, 2015 and 3rd revised version, December 2016, www.hsdl.org/?view&did=797480.Google Scholar

Amnesty International, ‘Lebanon: deliberate destruction or “collateral damage”? Israeli attacks on civilian infrastructure’, Report, 22 August 2006, index no. MDE 18/007/2006, www.amnesty.org/en/documents/mde18/007/2006/en/.Google Scholar

Amnesty International, ‘Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (FRY) /NATO: “collateral damage” or unlawful killings? Violations of the laws of war by NATO during Operation Allied Force’, Report, 5 June 2000, index no. EUR 70/018/2000, www.amnesty.org/en/documents/eur70/018/2000/en/.Google Scholar

Chilcot, J., ‘The Iraq Inquiry’, the Chilcot Report, The National Archives, 6 July 2016, www.iraqinquiry.org.uk.Google Scholar

Deutscher Bundestag, ‘Beschlussempfehlung und Bericht des Verteidigungsausschusses als 1. Untersuchungsausschuss gemäß Artikel 45a Absatz 2 des Grundgesetzes’ Report of the German Parliamentary Investigation Committee (‘PIC Report’), 20 October 2011, http://dip21.bundestag.de/dip21/btd/17/074/1707400.pdf.Google Scholar

House of Commons, Official Report, 2 April 2003, column 738W as quoted in the Chilcot Report, www.iraqinquiry.org.uk, para. 51 on p. 180.Google Scholar

Human Rights Watch, ‘Needless deaths in the Gulf War: civilian casualties during the air campaign and violations of the laws of war’, Report, 1 June 1991, www.hrw.org/reports/1991/gulfwar/INTRO.htmGoogle Scholar

Human Rights Watch, ‘Off-target: the conduct of the war and civilian casualties in Iraq’, Report, 2003, www.hrw.org/reports/2003/usa1203/4.htmGoogle Scholar

Human Rights Watch, ‘Israel and the occupied Palestinian territories: civilians under assault: Hezbollah’s rocket attacks on Israel in the 2006 War’, Report, August 2007, vol. 19, no. 3(E), www.hrw.org/reports/2007/iopt0807/iopt0807web.pdf.Google Scholar

Human Rights Watch, ‘Troops in contact, airstrikes and civilian deaths in Afghanistan’, Report, 8 September 2008, www.hrw.org/report/2008/09/08/troops-contact/airstrikes-and-civilian-deaths-afghanistan#.Google Scholar

Human Rights Watch, ‘Up in flames: humanitarian law violations and civilian victims in the conflict over South Ossetia’, Report, 23 January 2009, www.hrw.org/en/reports/2009/01/22/flames-0Google Scholar

Human Rights Watch, ‘Schools and armed conflict: a global survey of domestic laws and state practice protecting schools from attack and military use’, Report, 20 July 2011, www.hrw.org/sites/default/files/reports/crd0711webwcover.pdf.Google Scholar

International Crisis Group, ‘North Korea: the risks of war in the Yellow Sea, Asia’, Report N°198 – 23 December 2010 (ICG Report), www.crisisgroup.org/en/regions/asia/north-east-asia/north-korea/198-north-korea-the-risks-of-war-in-the-yellow-sea.aspx.Google Scholar

International Law Association, ‘Final Report of the Study Group on the conduct of hostilities under international humanitarian law – challenges of 21st century warfare’ (2011–2017), www.ila-hq.org/en/study-groups/index.cfm/cid/1040. The Final Report of the Study Group, www.ila-hq.org/index.php/study-groups?study-groupsID=58.Google Scholar

International Criminal Court, Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Situation in the Republic of Korea, Article 5 Report’ (ICC Korea Report), June 2014, www.icc-cpi.int/iccdocs/otp/SAS-KOR-Article-5-Public-Report-ENG-05Jun2014.pdfGoogle Scholar

International Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Office of the Prosecutor, ‘Final Report to the Prosecutor by the Committee established to review the NATO bombing campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’ (ICTY OTP Kosovo Report), 13 June 2000, www.icty.org/en/press/final-report-prosecutor-committee-established-review-nato-bombing-campaign-against-federal.Google Scholar

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘The operation in Gaza: cast lead: 27 December 2008 – 18 January 2009, factual and legal aspects’, Report, July 2009, , https://reliefweb.int/report/israel/opt-operation-gaza-27-dec-2008-18-jan-2009-factual-and-legal-aspects.Google Scholar

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘Findings’ Salah Shehadeh-Special Investigatory Commission’ (SIC Report), 27 February 2011, https://mfa.gov.il/MFA/AboutIsrael/State/Law/Pages/Salah_Shehadeh-Special_Investigatory_Commission_27-Feb-2011.aspxGoogle Scholar

Israel Ministry of Foreign Affairs, ‘The 2014 Gaza Conflict (7 July–26 August 2014): factual and legal aspects’, Report, May 2015, https://mfa.gov.il/ProtectiveEdge/Documents/2014GazaConflictFullReport.pdf.Google Scholar

United Nations General Assembly, ‘Human rights in Palestine and other Occupied Arab Territories’ Report of the United Nations Fact-Finding Mission on the Gaza Conflict (‘Goldstone Report’) UN document A/HRC/12/48, 25 September 2009, United Nations Human Rights Council, Twelfth session, Agenda item 7, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G09/158/66/PDF/G0915866.pdf?OpenElement.Google Scholar

United Nations General Assembly, ‘Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic concerning the situation in Aleppo’, 2 February 2017 (A-HRC-34-64), submitted to the Human Rights Council, Thirty-fourth session, 27 February–24 March 2017, Agenda item 4, https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/G17/026/63/PDF/G1702663.pdf?OpenElement.Google Scholar

United Nations Secretary General, ‘Report of the Secretary General’s Panel of Experts on Accountability in Sri Lanka’, 31 March 2011, www.un.org/News/dh/infocus/Sri_Lanka/POE_Report_Full.pdf.Google Scholar

United Nations Secretary General, ‘Report of the Secretary-General’s Panel of Inquiry on the 31 May 2010 Flotilla Incident’, July 2011 (‘Palmer Report’), http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/world/Palmer-Committee-Final-report.pdf.Google Scholar

University Centre for International Humanitarian Law, ‘Targeting military objectives’, Report, 12 May 2005, Expert Meeting, organized by the University Centre for International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, https://docplayer.net/4077128-Expert-meeting-targeting-military-objectives.html.Google Scholar

Blank, L. et al., Amicus Curiae brief, ‘Application and proposed amicus curiae brief concerning the 15 April 2011 Trial Chamber Judgement and requesting that the Appeals Chamber reconsider the findings of unlawful attacks during Operation Storm’, submitted to the ICTY Appeals Chamber, the Prosecutor v. A. Gotovina and M. Markac, Case No. IT-06-90-A, 12 January 2012, http://icr.icty.org/LegalRef/CMSDocStore/Public/English/Application/NotIndexable/IT-06-90-A/MSC7958R0000353013.pdfGoogle Scholar

Copenhagen process on the handling of detainees in international military operation: principles and guidelines, 2014, www.state.gov/documents/organization/211975.pdf.Google Scholar

Cowie, A. P. (ed.), Oxford advanced learners dictionary, 4th edition, Oxford University Press, 1989.Google Scholar

ICRC, Red Cross draft rules for the limitation of the dangers incurred by the civilian population in time of war. International Review of the Red Cross, Supplement IX, 1956, p. 164. For the commentary, see International Review of the Red Cross, 1956, pp. 623–650 and 695–710.Google Scholar

ICRC, Mr. I. Mueller, Final record concerning the draft rules for the limitation of the dangers incurred by the civilian population in time of war, third meeting, 30 October 1957, p. 68, www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC_Final-record-rules-limitation.pdf.Google Scholar

ICRC, April 1958, ‘Final record concerning the draft rules for the limitation of the dangers incurred by the civilian population in time of war’, XIXth International Conference of the Red Cross, New Delhi, October–November 1957, www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC_Final-record-rules-limitation.pdfGoogle Scholar

ICRC, XXVIII Resolution adopted at the XXth Conference of the Red Cross, published in the IRRC, No. 56, November 1965, www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC_Nov-1965.pdf.Google Scholar

ICRC, Official records of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Volume XV, ICRC, 1974–1977, www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/RC-records_Vol-15.pdf.Google Scholar

ICRC, ‘Expert meeting: explosive weapons in populated areas’ Report, 15 June 2015, www.icrc.org/en/document/explosive-weapons-populated-areas-humanitarian-legal-technical-and-military-aspects.Google Scholar

ICRC, Quebec Expert Meeting on the rules governing the conduct of hostilities: the principle of proportionality, Background Document, June 2016, on file with the author.Google Scholar

ICRC, The report of the International Expert Meeting 22–23 June 2016, Quebec, The principle of proportionality in the rules governing the conduct of hostilities under international humanitarian law, drafted by Laurent Gisel, 3 September 2018, www.icrc.org/en/document/international-expert-meeting-report-principle-proportionality.Google Scholar

NATO/ISAF HQ Kabul, McCrystal Tactical Directive, 6 July 2009, www.nato.int/isaf/docu/official_texts/Tactical_Directive_090706.pdf.Google Scholar

Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard University, Manual on international law applicable to air and missile warfare, Bern, 15 May 2009, http://ihlresearch.org/amw/HPCR%20Manual.pdf.Google Scholar

Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, Harvard University, Commentary to the Manual on international law applicable to air and missile warfare, Bern, 15 May 2009.Google Scholar

San Remo manual on international law applicable to armed conflicts at sea, 1994, in Roberts and Guelff, Documents on the laws of war, pp. 573–606.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N. et al. (eds.) Sanremo manual on the law of non-international armed conflicts, 2006, www.fd.unl.pt/docentes_docs/ma/jc_MA_26125.pdf.Google Scholar

Schmitt, M. N. et al. (eds.) The Tallinn manual 2.0 on the international law applicable to cyber operations, 2nd edition, Cambridge University Press, 2017.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Soanes, C. and Stevenson, A. (eds.), Concise Oxford English dictionary, 11th edition revised, Oxford University Press, 2008.Google Scholar

Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs and the ICRC, ‘The Montreux Document on pertinent international legal obligations and good practices for States related to operations of private military and security companies during armed conflict’, August 2009, www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0996.pdfGoogle Scholar

Switzerland, ‘Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts, Report for the period 2006–2008’, Revocation of declaration to Additional Protocol I, 28 May 2008, www.un.org/en/ga/sixth/63/Addtl_Prot_TEXT/Switzerland.pdf.Google Scholar

United Nations General Assembly, ‘Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts’ Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of the United Nations General Assembly, 19 December 1968, reprinted in Schindler and Toman, The Laws of Armed Conflicts, pp. 345–350.Google Scholar