Abstract

This chapter contrasts jus in bello necessity with necessity as the concept is used in human rights thinking. The task here is to explain what is distinctive about jus in bello necessity and to explain why conceptions of necessity that reign in other areas of international law cannot be automatically grafted onto the laws of war without reflection and deliberation. Indeed, any attempt to transplant a more restrictive version of necessity will result in a substantial alteration of the legal architecture of jus in bello. Although this is not necessarily a bad thing, it can only be accomplished if one offers a separate normative defense for that alteration. It cannot be presumed.