5cjxburmr

they are also bound by the applicable jus in bello restrictions in the law of war. 81Acts of terrorism during armed conflict are prohibited by the law of war. 823.5 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JUS IN BELLO AND JUS AD BELLUM3.5.1 General Distinction Between Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum. As a general matter,jus in bello and jus ad bellum address different legal issues and should not be conflated. 83Conflating jus in bello and jus ad bellum risks misunderstanding and misapplying theseconcepts. For example, in jus ad bellum, proportionality refers to the principle that the overallgoal of the State in resorting to war should not be outweighed by the harm that the war isexpected to produce. 84 However, proportionality in jus in bello generally refers to the standardthat the expected incidental harm to the civilian population and civilian objects should not bedisproportionate to the anticipated military advantage from an attack. 85 Therefore, although a jusad bellum proportionality analysis might consider the harm suffered by enemy military forces inthe fighting, a jus in bello proportionality analysis would not.3.5.2 Jus in Bello and Jus ad Bellum Generally Operate Independently of One Another.One important attribute of rules for conduct during war (jus in bello) is that, in general, theyoperate independently from rules regarding the resort to force (jus ad bellum).3.5.2.1 Compliance With Jus in Bello Is Required Regardless of Compliance WithJus ad Bellum. States fighting against one another must adhere to rules relating to the conduct ofhostilities (jus in bello), regardless of whether a State may be considered the aggressor orwhether the initial resort to force was lawful under jus ad bellum. For example, the 1949 GenevaConventions require States to undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the conventions inall circumstances. 86 The phrase “in all circumstances” has been interpreted to mean that aParty’s obligations to respect and to ensure respect for the 1949 Geneva Conventions appliesregardless of whether a Party to the Convention is the aggressor or lawfully using force in selfdefense.87 Similarly, once an occupation exists in fact, the law of occupation applies, regardlessof whether the invasion was lawful under jus ad bellum. 8881 Refer to § 3.4.1 (Intent-Based Test for Applying Jus in Bello Rules).82 Refer to § 10.5.3.2 (Collective Penalties and Measures of Intimidation or Terrorism); § 17.6.5 (Prohibition onActs of Terrorism).83 Refer to § 1.11 (Jus ad Bellum).84 Refer to § 1.11.1.2 (The Means Must Be Proportionate to the Just Cause (Proportionality – Jus ad Bellum)).85 Refer to § 5.12 (Proportionality in Conducting Attacks).86 GWS art. 1 (“The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Conventionin all circumstances.”).87 GWS COMMENTARY 27 (“The words ‘in all circumstances’ mean in short that the application of the Conventiondoes not depend on the character of the conflict. Whether a war is ‘just’ or ‘unjust’, whether it is a war ofaggression or of resistance to aggression, the protection and care due to the wounded and sick are in no wayaffected.”). Consider AP I preamble (“the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of thisProtocol must be fully applied in all circumstances to all persons who are protected by those instruments, without86