This thesis explores the critical topic of international humanitarian law governing warfare, particularly the conduct of hostilities, known as the law of targeting. This law is supposed to balance military necessity and humanity. However, this thesis challenges this assumption, arguing that the law of targeting doesn’t truly balance these principles. Instead, it suggests that humanity serves as a facade to legitimize military objectives.

The research shows that the idea of military necessity shields military practices from scrutiny, and as an agent of change, bends the law to fit military preferences. Meanwhile, humanity is often sidelined, with the law prioritizing soldiers’ self-defense rights over the protection of unarmed civilians and allowing changes to favor military needs without considering humanitarian impacts.
The thesis offers a radical critique of the international legal framework regulating warfare, arguing that the issue lies not with the rules or their enforcement but with the underlying assumptions and value judgments shaping their interpretation and application.
Rather than proposing idealistic humanitarian reforms that could be undermined by military necessity, the thesis suggests a strategy of “going on strike.” This approach calls for refusing to support the myth of balance that conceals the true power of military necessity, without abandoning the law of targeting.
This argument is relevant to a broad audience interested in the international regulation of war and the preservation of humanity. It crosses disciplinary boundaries, using diverse concepts to inform its analysis and offering a powerful critique of how military perspectives are privileged in the law of targeting.