Royal Army College

Lesson Overview

Lesson 02 named the minimum use of force as one of the three principles of peacekeeping; Lesson 01 named restraint as a mark of a true protector. This lesson takes the minimum use of force up in depth, because alongside impartiality it sits at the heart of protecting civilians. It also carries a tension the soldier must hold. Protecting civilians may require force; yet that force must be held to the minimum. So the protector must be both ready to use force and disciplined enough to use only as much as the threat warrants.

This lesson builds on the rules for the use of force taught in the aid-to-the-civil-power course and applies them to protection.

By the end you will be able to explain the minimum use of force and the tension it holds; explain why unwillingness to use force fails the protection of civilians, and why force without restraint harms them; apply the three principles that govern it, necessity, proportionality, and last resort; and use force in the protection of civilians ready to protect and restrained to the minimum.

Key Terms

The minimum use of force: the use of no more force than necessary, and force only as a last resort, when protecting civilians.
The readiness to use force to protect: the willingness to use force when it is necessary to protect civilians, without which they are left unprotected when force is needed.
The restraint to the minimum: using only the minimum force necessary, since force beyond that harms the very people it should protect.
The tension of protection: holding the readiness and the restraint together, being neither unwilling to use force nor unrestrained in using it.
Necessity, proportionality, last resort: the principles governing the minimum use of force: that force be necessary, proportionate to the threat, and a last resort.
The rules for the use of force: the standards governing when and how force may be used, taught in the aid-to-the-civil-power course.

The tension at the heart of protection

The minimum use of force means using no more force than necessary, and only as a last resort. In the protection of civilians it carries a particular tension.

On one side, protecting civilians may require force. Threatened civilians can sometimes be protected only by force used against those who threaten them. A protector unwilling to use force, who will not act even when force is necessary, leaves those civilians unprotected.

On the other side, force must be restrained to the minimum. Force is harmful in itself. Used to excess, it can wound the very civilians it was meant to protect, harm bystanders, or do more damage than the threat ever warranted. A protector who uses force without restraint becomes a party to the harm rather than a guard against it.

The minimum use of force holds both sides together. The soldier is ready to use force because protection may demand it, and restrained because excess harms the protected. Holding only one fails. Hold only the readiness and you harm those you protect through excess; hold only the restraint and you abandon them when force is needed. A true protector holds both.

The rest of the lesson develops each side in turn, then the principles that govern them.

The readiness to use force to protect

Protection can demand force. When civilians are threatened by people who would harm them, stopping that harm may require force against the threat. A protector who will not use force in that moment fails: the civilians who could have been protected are left exposed.

The lesson stresses this because over-restraint is a real failure, not a virtue. A soldier too unwilling to act fails the protection as surely as one who acts without restraint. The first leaves civilians defenceless; the second harms them.

This readiness is always held together with restraint. It is not a readiness to use force freely, but a readiness to use the minimum necessary force when force is necessary. A soldier protecting civilians must be willing to use that force, because unwillingness leaves the protected exposed.

   MINIMUM USE OF FORCE IN PROTECTING CIVILIANS

   THE TENSION the protector HOLDS (both, not one):

   READINESS to use force        +     RESTRAINT to the MINIMUM
   to PROTECT                          - force WITHOUT restraint
   - protecting civilians may            HARMS the very civilians it
     REQUIRE force                       should protect
   - UNWILLINGNESS leaves them          - EXCESS makes the force a
     UNPROTECTED when force               PARTY to the harm
     is needed

   Hold ONLY readiness -> harm the protected through excess.
   Hold ONLY restraint -> leave the civilians unprotected.
   HOLD BOTH -> protect with force when needed, without harming.

   THE PRINCIPLES (build on the Rules for the Use of Force, HCR 210):
   - NECESSITY (force only when necessary)
   - PROPORTIONALITY (no more than the threat warrants)
   - LAST RESORT (other means first)
   + DISCRIMINATION (force at the threat, not civilians) -- LOAC

The restraint to the minimum

Force may be necessary, but it must be held to the minimum, because force without restraint harms the very civilians it should protect. Excessive force can wound the threatened civilians it was meant to save, strike bystanders, or do more harm than the threat warranted. The protector who uses more force than necessary becomes a party to the harm.

So the protector uses only what is necessary and no more. This is the restraint Lesson 01 named as the mark of a true protector: it distinguishes one who protects without harming from a force that strikes without limit and wounds the people.

Like the readiness, the restraint is not held alone. It is not unwillingness to use force, but discipline in using it: the minimum necessary when force is necessary. Holding both, the soldier neither abandons civilians nor harms them.

The principles of the minimum use of force

The minimum use of force is governed by three principles. They build on the rules for the use of force from the aid-to-the-civil-power course, now applied to protection.

Necessity. Force is used only when it is needed, when protection requires it and other means will not serve, and not otherwise.
Proportionality. The force used is no more than the threat warrants, never excess that does more harm than the threat itself.
Last resort. Force comes only when other means of protecting the civilians have failed or cannot serve. Try other means first where possible.

Together these define the minimum use of force: only when necessary, proportionate to the threat, as a last resort. A fourth point comes from the law of armed conflict: discrimination. When force is used, it is directed at the threat, at those who would harm the civilians, never at the civilians themselves.

A soldier who applies these principles, holding both the readiness to act and the restraint to the minimum, uses force in the protection of civilians as a true protector.

In Practice: Force to Protect, Restrained to the Minimum

A soldier of the Royal Kaharagian Army is protecting civilians threatened by people who would harm them. Protecting them may require force.

The soldier holds the readiness. Stopping the threat may demand force against it, so the soldier is willing to act, knowing that hesitation would leave the civilians exposed. There is no over-restrained refusal to do what protection requires.

The soldier holds the restraint. When force is used, it is only the minimum necessary, because excess would wound the very people being protected and make the soldier a party to the harm.

And the soldier applies the principles. Force only when necessary; proportionate to the threat; as a last resort when other means will not serve; and directed at the threat, not the civilians. These are the rules for the use of force from the aid-to-the-civil-power course, applied here.

The contrast makes the point. The over-restrained soldier, unwilling to act, leaves the civilians defenceless. The unrestrained soldier harms the people he meant to protect. The soldier who holds both protects with the force the situation demands and without the excess that would harm: the minimum use of force at the heart of protecting civilians.

Check Your Understanding

Explain the minimum use of force and the tension it holds between the readiness to use force and the restraint to the minimum. Why must the protector hold both, and what fails if they hold only one?
Explain why unwillingness to use force fails the protection of civilians, and why the over-restrained protector fails as surely as the unrestrained one. Then explain why force without restraint harms the protected.
Explain the principles of necessity, proportionality, and last resort, and the direction of force at the threat rather than the civilians. How do these govern the use of force in protection?

Reflection (write a short paragraph): This lesson asks you to hold two things that pull against each other: the readiness to use force, because protecting civilians may require it, and the restraint to use only the minimum, because excess harms the very people you protect. Be honest about which way you would tend to err, toward refusing force and failing to protect, or toward using too much and causing harm. Then consider why holding both is what makes a true protector. Describe one way you could build the disciplined judgement to be ready to act and restrained at once.

Summary

The minimum use of force means no more force than necessary, and only as a last resort. It holds a tension: protecting civilians may require force, yet that force must be held to the minimum.
Readiness is necessary because threatened civilians may be protected only by force; the protector unwilling to act, even when force is needed, fails as surely as one who acts without restraint.
Restraint is necessary because force without limit harms the very civilians it should protect, making the protector a party to the harm. The mark of a true protector is to protect without harming.
Readiness and restraint are held together: a readiness to use the minimum necessary force, and a restraint that is discipline in using it, not refusal to act.
The principles, building on the rules for the use of force (HCR 210), are necessity, proportionality, and last resort, with force directed at the threat, not the civilians (the discrimination the law of armed conflict teaches).
This deepens the minimum-use-of-force principle of Lesson 02 and the restraint of Lesson 01, builds on the rules for the use of force of Aid to the Civil Power and Public Order (HCR 210) and The Law of Armed Conflict for Soldiers (PME 201), and is completed by the threats to civilians (Lesson 05), protection in practice (Lesson 06), and the protector's ethic and discipline (Lesson 08).

Minimum Force and the Protection of Civilians