At a time when the world finds itself engulfed in overlapping crises—the US strikes on Iranian nuclear facilities, the war between Iran and Israel, the conflicts in Ukraine and Gaza, and, closer to home, the violence in Myanmar—the question that repeatedly surfaces is that of ‘proportionality’. We live at a time when the sky has become a battleground and drone attacks redefine notions of accountability. In this context, the doctrine of proportionality finds itself both, invoked and interrogated.

This cardinal principle of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is no longer being merely referenced, it is being distorted, challenged, and sometimes even misused. With every retaliatory strike undertaken by a sovereign state, proportionality becomes a tool of political cudgel.

Proportionality, in its most distilled legal form, is about equilibrium: the requirement that the anticipated military advantage of an attack not be outweighed by the incidental harm to civilians. The St. Petersburg Declaration of 1868, a foundational text of IHL, enshrined this moral-legal compromise: the necessities of war must be reconciled with the laws of humanity. But this balance has become infinitely more precarious in contemporary warfare where Non-State Actors embed themselves within civilian populations; where states are forced to confront transnational terrorism with ‘measured’ force; and where the boundaries between principles and policy in warfare grow obscure each passing day.

Against this backdrop, take a look........

© News18