SMU Law Review
Abstract
This Article proposes a new paradigm in international humanitarian law (IHL) to help junior military leaders make ethical combat decisions that are both legally and tactically sound. Driven by the realities of modern maneuver warfare and inspired by the spirit of mission command—a concept that emphasizes quick, decentralized decisions—we propose a new philosophical framework for ethical decision making in ground combat. Specifically, we argue that the traditional balance between the IHL principles of military necessity and humanity is better suited to the detached targeting processes associated with indirect fires and air power than to the split-second decisions required in direct ground combat. By replacing the amorphous principle of humanity with an expanded version of Additional Protocol I’s constant care principle, junior combat leaders can be equipped with a more wieldable IHL framework that will enable them to accomplish their missions and consistently mitigate civilian risk even in the chaos of combat.
At the tactical level of war, this proposal will significantly reduce the unnecessary suffering and destruction too often associated with modern ground combat, especially in extremely kinetic environments like Ukraine. At the strategic level, it will also enhance perceived legitimacy and foster greater respect for the law of war. This Article surveys modern conflict environments, discusses mission command philosophy, and then ties both to the need for a new IHL paradigm if we are to expect soldiers to both win wars and reduce unnecessary death and destruction while doing so. Ultimately, this Article explains why—for legal, tactical, and ethical reasons—IHL education for junior military leaders should be reoriented around a renewed understanding of military necessity and constant care.
Recommended Citation
Geoffrey S. Corn & Tyler R. Smotherman,
Improving Compliance with International Humanitarian Law in an Era of Maneuver War and Mission Command,
78
SMU L. Rev.
3
(2025)
