Contents

Talk:Proportionality (law)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Proportionality (law) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This  level-5 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Human rights High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations: Law Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject International law (assessed as High-importance). Law High‑importance 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Philosophy: Ethics / Social and political Mid‑importance 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 Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Associated task forces: /  Ethics Social and political philosophy

It has been suggested that Proportionality (political maxim) be merged into this article.

If no one proposing the move here on the talk page, merge template should be removed. --PBS (talk) 15:08, 3 March (UTC)

removed --PBS (talk) 18:29, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See this edit Revision as of 21:42, 5 January 2012. In it I reverted a couple of edits made some time ago.

• "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.

-- PBS (talk) 21:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• You seem to have a habit of reverting material because you feel like it, don't you? Wikidea 10:11, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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]

The above was added to the lead on 15 February 2012 by user:Wikidea. It is not clear to me whether it is meant to refer to municipal law or international humanitarian law, or if it is about something else. -- PBS (talk) 23:07, 15 February 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. Wikidea 10:11, 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]