Counterterrorism (foundations)
Establishing international norms for proportionate use of force in counterterrorism military operations.
In a world of evolving threats, crafting durable international norms requires inclusive dialogue, precise legal framing, accountable oversight, and resilient mechanisms that adapt to changing tactics while preserving civilian protection and state sovereignty.
July 15, 2025 - 3 min Read
From the outset, any norm about proportionality in counterterrorism must harmonize ethical obligations with strategic realities. International law already provides anchors through jus ad bellum and jus in bello, yet practice reveals ambiguities in how proportionality is assessed amid rapidly shifting threat matrices. States bear responsibility to minimize civilian harm, while recognizing the necessity to degrade terrorist capabilities. A robust norm should encourage transparent criteria for force, explicit objectives, and predictable thresholds that discourage excessive responses and reduce civilian casualties. It should also foster cooperative verification, enabling adversaries and allies alike to observe compliance without compromising legitimate security interests. Ultimately, durable norms depend on credible commitment, not rhetorical assurance, to guide decisions under stress.
One foundational element is the clear delineation of legitimate targets and contextual constraints. Prohibition of indiscriminate attacks must be complemented by a nuanced framework that distinguishes combatants from civilians even within asymmetric settings. A proportionality standard should specify permissible force magnitudes relative to legitimate military objectives, while accounting for collateral damage risks and the presence of civilian infrastructure. Clear rules of engagement should be complemented by independent review processes that can adjudicate disputed incidents. In practice, this cultivates legitimacy for actions that are necessary and proportionate, fostering trust among international partners and reducing the likelihood of misinterpretation that could escalate tensions.
Accountability, transparency, and technological evolution in balance.
To operationalize restraint, states can adopt standardized assessment checklists that are applied before, during, and after counterterrorism operations. These checklists would require leadership sign-off, risk analyses, and alternative measures to force whenever feasible. Training should emphasize proportionality as a dynamic principle, not a static constraint. Practically, this means repeated evaluations of necessity, feasibility, and the expected civilian impact, with an emphasis on de-escalation whenever possible. Multilateral exercises can help harmonize interpretations of proportionality, ensuring that allied firepower and intelligence-sharing align with shared norms. Transparent reporting of outcomes builds legitimacy, enabling civil society and foreign partners to monitor compliance without compromising operational security.
The resilience of norm-building depends on accountability mechanisms that can endure political shifts. Independent scrutiny bodies, internationally recognized standards, and public reporting are essential to deter euphemistic justifications for excessive force. States should be prepared to acknowledge errors, provide remedial redress to affected communities, and adjust practices in light of new evidence. A proportionality framework must also address evolving technologies—cyber tools, unmanned systems, precision-guided munitions, and surveillance capabilities—that broaden the range of legitimate responses while expanding potential civilian harm. By embedding accountability into the design of counterterrorism operations, norms gain credibility and sustainability across diverse security environments.
Human-centered safeguards accompany strategic calculations.
Transparency serves as a bridge between security needs and public trust. When governments share criteria for force, incident analyses, and post-operational reviews, they invite constructive scrutiny and discourage selective storytelling. Independent observers, including regional bodies and impartial tribunals, can provide timely assessments of proportionality claims. However, transparency must be balanced with legitimate security interests, ensuring that sensitive intelligence remains protected. Publicly accessible summaries of evaluations, coupled with nonbinding best practices, offer a pathway to gradual normative convergence. Importantly, transparency should extend to victims’ voices, enabling communities affected by counterterrorism actions to participate in dialogue about what proportionality should mean in practice.
A second pillar is the preservation of human dignity even in combat scenarios. Proportionality cannot be invoked to justify disregard for civilian life or cultural heritage. Norms should require dampening measures—timely evacuation, medical support, and safe corridors for noncombatants—whenever risk to civilians is high. Special protections are needed for vulnerable groups and for areas with critical civilian infrastructure. The normative framework should also address forced displacement risks and collateral impacts on livelihoods, emphasizing mitigation strategies that reduce long-term harm. By centering human consequences, states reinforce the moral credibility of proportionality obligations and improve the prospects for lasting peace after operations conclude.
Legal architecture, enforcement, and regional cooperation converge.
The design of legal instruments matters as much as their enforcement. A treaty-like instrument or a high-level political declaration can articulate core proportionality principles, define permissible force ranges, and set out dispute settlement procedures. Such instruments should include provisional guidelines for emergency situations, offering immediate guardrails while formal negotiations continue. Importantly, the document must be adaptable, with regular reviews that reflect lessons learned from ongoing counterterrorism campaigns and technological change. The normative text should encourage states to publish ongoing assessments of compliance, not only for reputational reasons but to enable continuous improvement based on empirical evidence.
A robust normative framework also requires effective enforcement mechanisms. Sanctions, reciprocal monitoring, and incentive structures can motivate consistent adherence while avoiding punitive excesses that undermine cooperation. International courts or commissions could adjudicate disputes over proportionality, providing neutral judgments that reduce the incentives for unilateral reinterpretations of legality. Regional security dialogues and cross-border confidence-building measures further reinforce shared expectations, creating an ecosystem where norms are reinforced by routine practice and collective responsibility. This synergy of law, policy, and diplomacy is essential for consolidating durable norms that survive political upheaval.
Inclusive participation strengthens universal norms.
Regional organizations have a pivotal role in tailoring proportionate force norms to local contexts. They can bridge global standards with practical realities—military capabilities, terrain, demographics, and threat profiles—without diluting universal protections. By coordinating exercises, sharing best practices, and aligning complaint mechanisms, these bodies help harmonize responses across neighbors who face similar dangers. Regional endorsement also signals to non-state actors that the international community maintains a coherent, collectively monitored approach to counterterrorism. In this way, regional coherence strengthens legitimacy and reduces the space for illegal or excessive force by any party.
Civil society and victims’ groups should be included in norm-building discussions. Their perspectives illuminate gaps between policy rhetoric and the lived consequences of counterterrorism operations. Mechanisms for consultation, participatory review, and victim-centered reporting can reveal nuanced harms that formal assessments might overlook. Engaging diverse voices does not paralyze decision-making; rather, it enriches it, ensuring that proportionality standards reflect the actual human costs and moral duties toward those affected. This inclusive approach also reinforces domestic support for international norms, increasing resilience against political pushback.
Finally, education and public diplomacy play critical roles in solidifying norms. Scholarly research, practitioner roundtables, and media engagement help translate technical legal language into accessible norms that policymakers, operators, and citizens can understand. Training programs for military personnel should emphasize ethics, proportionality, and civilian protection as core competencies. Public messaging that explains why certain actions are not only lawful but necessary for preventing broader harm can reduce misperceptions that fuel cycles of violence. Over time, informed publics and confident operators create a climate in which proportionality is practiced consistently, not debated away during crises.
As counterterrorism threats evolve, so too must the norms governing force. A sustainable framework requires ongoing dialogue among states, international institutions, regional actors, and civil society to revise rules in light of new dangers and lessons learned. The aim is to cultivate disciplined decision-making that respects civilian life, safeguards sovereignty, and preserves peace. Clear standards, credible accountability, inclusive participation, and adaptive enforcement together form the backbone of a principled approach to proportionate use of force in counterterrorism operations, offering a hopeful path toward safer, more stable futures.
