Fact check: What is the role of necessity and proportionality in self-defense under international law?

1. Summary of the results

The role of necessity and proportionality in self-defense under international law is a complex and multifaceted issue, with various sources providing different perspectives on the matter. According to ^[1], the principles of necessity and proportionality must be applied continuously throughout an armed conflict to ensure that the use of force remains lawful ^[1]. Additionally, ^[2] examines the international law of self-defense in the context of the Israel-Hamas conflict, concluding that Israel's resort to force in self-defense appears to have a sound basis in international law ^[2]. Furthermore, ^[3] argues that the proportionality requirement in self-defense under international law considers not only the harm inflicted but also the total harm to civilians, which can render a defensive campaign disproportionate as a whole ^[3]. Other sources, such as ^[4], emphasize the importance of establishing an 'armed attack' as a prerequisite for the use of force in self-defense and criticize the US's justification for its strikes on Iran as unconvincing ^[4]. Moreover, ^[5] discusses the concept of anticipatory self-defense under international law, highlighting the need for a significant change in circumstances to justify interpretive adaptation of existing rules ^[5]. Key points to note are the continuous application of necessity and proportionality, the importance of establishing an 'armed attack', and the consideration of total harm to civilians.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

Some sources, such as ^[6], do not provide any relevant information regarding the role of necessity and proportionality in self-defense under international law ^[6]. However, other sources, like ^[7], mention that Iran has taken proportionate defensive actions in self-defense under Article 51 of the UN Charter, targeting only Israeli military targets and related infrastructure ^[7]. Additionally, ^[8] argues that both Israel's and the US's strikes on Iran are not permissible under international law, as they do not meet the narrow conditions for self-defense ^[8]. Furthermore, ^[9] examines the legality of the US drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani, arguing that it failed to meet the 'imminent threat' standard for self-defense and breached fundamental humanitarian legal principles ^[9]. Alternative viewpoints include the consideration of Iran's defensive actions, the permissibility of Israel's and the US's strikes on Iran, and the legality of the US drone strike that killed Qasem Soleimani. It is essential to consider these alternative viewpoints to gain a comprehensive understanding of the role of necessity and proportionality in self-defense under international law. Key omitted facts include the specific circumstances of each conflict, the interpretation of Article 51 of the UN Charter, and the application of humanitarian legal principles.

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original statement may be subject to potential misinformation or bias, as it does not provide a comprehensive overview of the complex issue of necessity and proportionality in self-defense under international law. The statement may benefit those who seek to justify the use of force in self-defense without fully considering the principles of necessity and proportionality, such as states seeking to justify their military actions ^[2]. On the other hand, the statement may also benefit those who argue that the use of force in self-defense is subject to strict conditions, such as the requirement of an 'armed attack' and the consideration of total harm to civilians ^{[4] [3]}. Additionally, the statement may be influenced by biases towards or against specific states or conflicts, such as the Israel-Hamas conflict or the US-Iran conflict ^{[7] [8]}. It is crucial to consider these potential biases and misinformation to ensure a nuanced understanding of the role of necessity and proportionality in self-defense under international law ^[5].