{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.02557544757033248, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 4.843283582089552, '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}}
Pillars not Principles: The Status of Humanity and Military Necessity in the Law of Armed Conflict


 Humanity and military necessity are often said to be ‘principles’ of the law of armed conflict (LOAC). However, for Dworkin, a concept must satisfy certain criteria in order to earn the status of a principle. First, principles carry different weightings to each other so that one may triumph in the event of a clash. Secondly, principles are capable of superseding positive rules so that coherence in the regime over which they preside is maintained. This article contends that neither criterion is satisfied by humanity or military necessity. Consequently, it argues that these concepts are not truly principles and that, instead, they are better viewed as ‘pillars’ of the LOAC.