This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy articles
"Criminal law" back to "Municipal law", the term criminal implies that actions contrary to international law are not criminal. The reason for using "Municipal law" rather than "Domestic law" is that "Municipal law" is the standard legal term for it (see the article Municipal law).
I put back the older wording "The harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective." in place of "The incidental (i.e., unintended) harm caused to civilians or civilian property must be proportionate and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective", because it is not just the "incidental (i.e., unintended) harm caused to civilians" but also foreseeable intended harm to civilians and civilian structures. For example if an enemy places a command bunker under a civilian structure, then it is legitimate to use weapons that in destroying the bunker will damage the structure (and kill and injure civilians in the structure) providing the harm caused is "proportional and not excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated by an attack on a military objective." The wording that starts "The incidental (i.e., unintended)" does not cover such cases and so is inaccurate.
There seems to be a big gap here in the Proportionality Theory of Constitutional Interpretation, as adopted by Canada, Israel, Germany, South Africa, and other nations. For further reference, look to Barak and Alexy among others. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.67.110.3 (talk) 04:47, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please use your initiative in future, by clicking on the reference. It referred to EU law specifically, and the general test as understood in most countries, as the reference indicated. Wikidea10:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Then as you did with your second edit it should be described separately. To which section does the new section history refer? -- PBS (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As this article now has three main meaning I propose to turn it into a dab page with three new articles. Comments? -- PBS (talk) 06:37, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]