Double standards in US warfare: exploringthe historical legacy of civilian protection andthe complex nature of the moral-legal nexus

This article investigates how – by breaking with the historical double standardsregarding civilian protection in conflicts – by the end of the twentieth century, US warfarehas come to comply with International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Yet, civilians are stillbeing killed. This has sparked controversies over what constitutes legitimate targetingpractices and as to whether higher levels of civilian protection could be achieved. Throughan engagement with these debates, including an exploration of the evolution of the norm ofnon-combatant immunity with specific reference to US warfare, the article argues that IHLdoes not provide fully satisfactory answers to these issues as it is too permissive in relationto the killing of civilians. The article proposes that more stringent moral guidelines, such asthose underpinning the idea of ‘due care’, have the potential to go much further in providingprotection for the innocent in war