“The law is not here to get in your way,

it is here to protect you, and to protect your target.” (Eye in The Sky, 2015)

Tajanlangit, Jeiel J. JD 211- Public International Law

International Committee on Red Cross defined International Humanitarian Law or

jus in bello as “the law that governs the way in which warfare is conducted. IHL is purely
humanitarian, seeking to limit the suffering caused. It is independent from questions
about the justification or reasons for war, or its prevention, covered by jus ad bellum.”1.
The movie Eye in the Sky is a good depiction on when and how the fundamental
principles of IHL apply. The applicable principles are as follows:
First is jus ad bellum, or the law governing when force can be used outside the
territorial limits of jurisdiction. UN Charter 2 (4) provides that states cannot use force
extraterritorially except on the special case of self-defense. On the movie, it was
preliminarily discussed by the supervising officials that an air strike in Kenya would be a
problematic action as it would be in violation of the abovementioned mandate. UK is not
in a raging war with Kenya, thus, self defense is not a valid justification of the action to
strike. But we should take note that the mission is a joint activity of US, UK and the
country where the attack was about to happened, Kenya. Ergo, a valid consent to
conduct military activity was present. No violation of the principle of jus ad bellum in this
case then, legal.
Second, Principle of Distinction which states that “an armed conflict must at
all times distinguish between the civilian population and combatants and
between civilian objects and military objectives and accordingly shall direct their
operations only against military objectives”2 It is apparent that the strike’s target is the
militants gathering on a house in Nairobi, which is clearly the military objective and we
also knew what happened on the movie when Hellfire hit the house twice; a perfect
civilian figure on the mortality of the young girl who sells bread was lost indicating that
this principle is violated (although later justified legal and necessary by the military and
political officials).
Third, Principle of Proportionality which “prohibits attacks against military
objectives which are expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians,
damage to civilian objects, or a combination thereof, which would be excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated.”3 One of the most
memorable quote in the film is when the Foreign Secretary asked the African
Undersecretary, “And you would save [her] and risk killing 80 others?” who replied
saying “Yes, I would save her and take that risk.” On this scene, majority of the political
officials had a meeting of minds on the implication that rather than dealing with the
casualty which the two suicide bombers would inevitably cause, it’s best to sacrifice the
life of an innocent civilian thus connotes to the proportionate life of a single innocent girl
in exchange to the safety of thousands of people and its property which is I believe, a
question of human morality.
Lastly, the Principle of Military Necessity which “is a circumstance precluding
the wrongfulness of an otherwise internationally wrongful act. The state of necessity can
be invoked under precise conditions, laid down in Article 25 of the International Law
Commission’s Articles on State Responsibility”4 to wit: (a) is the only way for the State to
safeguard an essential interest against a grave and imminent peril; and (b) does not
seriously impair an essential interest of the State or States towards which the obligation
exists, or of the international community as a whole. On the movie, the arming of suicide
vests is a good indication that there’s a ticking time bomb about to explode any minute
once they leave the house. The military officials have no other option but to strike the
house given that the Kenyan military is of disadvantage if they were to attack. Thus,
requisite A is present. As to B, both the military and political officials made sure that
they are in cognizance with the law through constant legal consultation and exercising
chain of command. Nonetheless, the mission aroused from the prerogative that there is
an essential obligation of eliminating the presence of the militant terrorist towards the
peace and order of the country and its people.

1 https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum/overview-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello.htm
2 https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/distinction
3 https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/proportionality
4
https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/necessity-defence