| Abstract [eng] |
This paper analyses the concept of military necessity and the principles of international humanitarian law that interact with it - the principle of distinction, which is important for the distinction of objects, the principle of proportionality, which obliges to take into account the potential harm, and the principle of humanity, which stipulates that the action taken must not violate the natural rights of the individual. These principles together constitute the requirements of military necessity. The broader analysis of the principles is taken into account, through their interpretation in case law, as the requirements of military necessity are clarified, as well as how the opposing party may attempt to justify its actions on the basis of these principles, when they may be justified and how the court assesses the various arguments that seek to interpret the principles analysed in order to justify its actions. Particular attention is paid to the analysis of the war in Ukraine and the violations of international humanitarian law that can be seen in it, which are qualified according to the principles and requirements interpreted in the work. Based on the final report of the NATO Review Committee to the Prosecutor on the "Bombing Campaign against the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia" and other case law, key aspects are highlighted in relation to the chosen principles of international humanitarian law. The ideas of military necessity and the specificity of its requirements are clarified through the literature. The death of the Lithuanian director is described, as well as its qualification under international humanitarian law and national law (principle of universal jurisdiction). |
