{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.014805675508945095, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 5.540322580645161, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
The Essential Link between Proportionality and Necessity in the Exercise of Self-Defense

The lawful use of force in the exercise of individual or collective self-defense by states requires compliance with the universally recognized elements of necessity and proportionality. Both of these elements frame the justification of resorting to self-help action. These two elements of self-defense, while often treated as distinct requirements, may be better understood as integrated into the assessment of overall strategic justification, with proportionality defining whether the scope and duration of military action in self-defense is genuinely necessary to protect against the unlawful threat. Thus, there is logic in conceptualizing proportionality not as distinct from the necessity requirement but as an integral component of that requirement. Linking proportionality assessments to the necessity of acting in self-defense leads to a rational link between the threat requiring self-defense action and the strategic scope and duration of operations to protect against that unlawful threat. This will contribute to careful tailoring of self-defense military operations to the overall nature of that threat. Of equal importance, this strategic-oriented focus will ideally offset the temptation to judge jus ad bellum proportionality by applying jus in bello principles. If nothing else, greater emphasis on the important differences between these two variants of the international legal proportionality requirement will enhance the impact on each of these variants on the success and legitimacy of self-defense operations.