Amichai Cohen – författare

The principle of proportionality is one of the corner-stones of international humanitarian law. Almost all states involved in armed conflicts recognize that launching an attack which may cause incidental harm to civilians that exceeds the direct military advantage anticipated from the attack is prohibited. This prohibition is included in military manuals, taught in professional courses, and accepted as almost axiomatic. And yet, the exact meaning of the principle is vague. Almost every issue, from the most elementary question of how to compare civilian harm and military advantage, to the obligation to employ accurate but expensive weapons, is disputed. Controversy is especially rife regarding asymmetrical conflicts, in which many modern democracies are involved. How exactly should proportionality be implemented when the enemy is not an army, but a non-state-actor embedded within a civilian population? What does it mean to use precautions in attack, when almost every attack is directed at objects that are used for both military and civilian purposes?In Proportionality in International Humanitarian Law, Amichai Cohen and David Zlotogorski discuss the philosophical and political background of the principle of proportionality. Offering a fresh and comprehensive look at this key doctrine, they comprehensively discuss the different components of the proportionality “equation” - the meaning of “incidental harm” to civilians; the “military advantage” and the term “excessive”. The book proposes the debates over the principle of proportionality be reframed to focus on the precautions taken before the attack along with the course States should follow in investigations of the violations of the principle.

Terror attacks on western civilian targets have stimulated interest in the dilemmas faced by liberal societies when combating threats to national security. Combining the perspectives of political science and law, this book addresses that discourse, asking how democracies seek to harmonize the protection of individual liberties with the defence of state interests.The book focuses on the experience of Israel, a country whose commitment to democratic values has continuously been challenged by multiple threats to national survival. It examines the legal, legislative and institutional methods employed to resolve the dilemmas generated by that situation, and thus provides a unique interpretation of Israeli national security behaviour. Policy-making and policy-implementation in this sphere, it shows, have reflected not just external constraints but also shifts in the domestic balance of power between the executive, the legislature and the judiciary. The book concludes with an agenda of the measures that each branch of government needs to implement in order to repair the flaws that have developed in this system over time. Based on a close reading of legislative and court readings, the book proposes a new taxonomy for the analysis of national security legal frameworks, both in Israel and elsewhere in the democratic world. As such it will be of great interest to students and scholars of political science, national security law, Israeli history and civil-military relations.

Ten years after the terrorist attacks of September 11, 2011, Rethinking the Law of Armed Conflict in an Age of Terrorism, edited by Christopher Ford and Amichai Cohen, brings together a range of interdisciplinary experts to examine the problematic encounter between international law and challenges presented by conflicts between developed states and non-state actors, such as international terrorist groups. Through examinations of the counter-terrorist experiences of the United States, Israel, and Colombia—coupled with legal and historical analyses of trends in international humanitarian law—the authors place post-9/11 practice in the context of the international legal community’s broader struggle over the substantive content of international rules constraining state behavior in irregular wars and explore trends in the development of these rules. From the beginning of international efforts to rewrite the laws of armed conflict in the 1970s, the legal rules to govern irregular conflicts of the “state-on-nonstate” variety have been contested terrain. Particularly in the wake of the 9/11 attacks, policymakers, lawyers, and scholars have debated the merits, relevance, and applicability of what are said to be competing “war” and “law enforcement” paradigms of legal constraint—and even the degree to which international law can be said to apply to counter-terrorist conflicts at all. Ford & Cohen’s volume puts such debates in historical and analytical context, and offers readers an insight into where the law has been headed in the fraught years since September 2001. The contributors provide the reader with differing perspectives upon these questions, but together their analyses make clear that law-governed restraint remains a cardinal value in counter-terrorist war, even as the law stands revealed as being much more contested and indeterminate than many accounts would have it. Rethinking the Law of Armed Conflict in an Age of Terrorism provides an important conceptual framework through which to view the development of the law as the policy and legal communities move into the second decade of the “global war on terrorism.”