Proportionality in war: fallacies of composition

Speaker: Dr Patrick Tomlin (University of Reading)
Series: Institute of Law, Politics and Philosophy

Note that the total time will be devoted to discussion of the paper. To receive the paper and to be added to the email list for the UCL Institute of Law, Politics & Philosophy please email jeffrey.howard@ucl.ac.uk

About the paper

There are two kinds of proportionality in just war theory: ad bellum proportionality looks at the proportionality of the war overall; in bello proportionality looks at the proportionality of individual acts of war. According to traditional just war theory, the two proportionality calculations should weigh the harm caused against differing standards – the harms caused by war are measured against a moral standard, whilst the harms caused by acts of war are measured against a non-moral standard, such as military advantage. Revisionists have shown how this can lead to the ‘bizarre’ conclusion that a war entirely comprised of proportionate acts could be overall disproportionate.

Dr Tomlin shows here that even when we assess wars (or courses of action) and acts of war (or individual acts) against the same proportionality standard, the same ‘bizarre’ conclusion can be reached – a war might be proportionate, even though each and every act of war is disproportionate; and a war might be disproportionate, even though each and every act of war is proportionate. So, whatever else may be said for the revisionist view, or against the traditional view, that the traditional view leads to these ‘bizarre’ entailments is not something that revisionists can or should rely on in their criticisms. Since the ad bellum and in bello proportionality calculations can come apart in this way, this finding then raises issues about the role that ad bellum and in bello proportionality ought to play in decision-making about and within war. In short, the usual understanding under which ad bellum proportionality is for statesmen, and in bello proportionality for soldiers, is flawed. Along the way, some (so far as Dr Tomlin is aware) novel claims about the non-identity problem are unearthed.

About the speaker

Patrick Tomlin is Associate Professor in Department of Politics and International Relations at the University of Reading. He is interested in a variety of questions within political, legal, and moral philosophy. His work has focused on distributive justice and fairness, crime and punishment, children and procreation, and moral uncertainty. He is currently working on topics within punishment theory, just war theory, and the permissibility of aggregation.

About the Institute

The Institute brings together political and legal theorists from Law, Political Science and Philosophy and organises regular colloquia in terms 2 and 3.