Talk:Proportionality (law)

Proportionality (political maxim)

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)

January 2012

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)

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

Proportionality as a theory of Constitutional Interpretation

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)

There are four stages to a proportionality test

There are four stages to a proportionality test

There are four stages to a proportionality test, namely, there must be a legitimate aim for a measure the measure must be suitable to achieve the aim (potentially with a requirement of evidence to show it will have that effect) the measure must be necessary to achieve the aim, that there cannot be any less onerous way of doing it the measure must be reasonable, considering the competing interests of different groups at hand Notes

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)

• 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)

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)

Split

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)