The paper looks at how the core just war and international humanitarian law (IHL) principles of distinction and proportionality have been used in attempts to limit war practices and prohibit particular weapons. Realist perspectives expect that normative considerations and law would have limited impact, while critical authors often see just war theory and new legal norms implicated in the legitimation and perpetuation of a world order based on militarism and Western domination. Using on the cases of banning cluster munitions in 2000s, landmines in the 1990s, and ongoing efforts to prohibit nuclear weapons, the paper argues that NGOs have managed to move questions about the use of force from the closed decision-making sphere of military commanders by building upon humanitarian principles. This has marked a shift from state security and strategic disarmament to human security and humanitarian disarmament. Yet, while these humanitarian initiatives have for the most part built up on sovereign equality, delegitimized American leadership in the international system, and limited particular types of indiscriminate violence, they have not fundamentally challenged the laws of war thinking and military practice. The paper explores the discursive choices of NGOs and their relationships with small and middle-sized states that underpinned the success of their campaigns and concludes with some reflections about the promises and limitations of IHL principles and NGOs as agents in transforming law and security governance.
