Since the beginning of the seventh century, Islamic law has played an essential role in protecting the personal, economic, judicial, and political rights of civilians during armed conflict. Fourteen centuries before the Universal Declaration of Human Rights was drafted in 1948, it had already initiated a human revolution consisting of a set of human principles. In addition, Islamic law has made a significant contribution to international humanitarian law (IHL). This paper focuses on two specific legal constructs in warfare: the definition of the combatant and the principle of distinction. This article comparatively examines how these two laws deal with different aspects of war that fall under jus ad bellum, jus in bello, and jus post bellum. A comparative analysis of the various elements and aspects of just war theory in Islamic and contemporary international law provides a much deeper understanding of its limitations. We can safely conclude that there is a unique relationship between the Islamic law of war and IHL.

Professor Sienho Yee has recently published a paper in Chinese Journal of International Law, entitled, “Unilateral Sanctions: Kind and Degree; Long-arm and Strong Arm Jurisdiction; Real Intent and ‘Could-be’ Intent.” Yee has ably elaborated that to assess the conduct of unilateral sanctions, there is a need to consider a question of “kind” so as to a question of “degree.” Further, the so-called “long-arm jurisdiction” should be better phrased as “strong-arm jurisdiction” since sometimes long-arm jurisdiction may be lawful, whereas the current version of the long-arm jurisdiction asserted by the United States is so extreme that it is no longer lawful. To this end, attention should be paid to the level of scrutiny or standard of review that a decision-maker would apply to the assessment of intent. Following from Yee’s thoughts, this note would like to elaborate further on another aspect, namely, the proportionality and necessity of unilateral sanctions.

We study liberals and conservatives in the United States and Korea to see how they respond to charity advertising that appeals to either equality or proportionality. The findings robustly demonstrate that in both countries, liberals respond more favorably to equality appeals, but conservatives respond more favorably to proportionality appeals. Study 1, conducted in the United States, finds that liberals find equality appeals more effective, but conservatives find proportionality appeals more effective. Study 2, conducted in Korea, shows that liberals (conservatives) estimate that they are more (less) likely to receive rewards for donating when charity advertising uses equality rather than proportionality appeals.