This thesis analyses the understanding, implementation, and enforcement of International Humanitarian Law’s (IHL) principle of proportionality, particularly regarding its application in modern conflicts. The ever-increasing technological development of armed conflicts—for instance, cyber warfare and precision bombardment are making the legal limits of what is proportionate increasingly ambiguous. By looking at the Gaza conflict of 2008–2009 and the 2011 NATO intervention in Libya, we can better understand how modern challenges in international humanitarian law (IHL) play out when viewed through a legal-positivist lens. These cases were chosen because of their thorough documentation from multiple jurisdictions, scrutiny by international legal bodies, concerns for disproportionate use of force, and relevance to judicial proportionality within contemporary military operations approaches.

This study seeks to examine how international courts consider proportionality in ‘live’ conflict situations and what legal parameters have been set to scrutinize the balance between expected military benefit to civilians and potential harm inflicted on them. In Chapter 1, the reader will be given the legal and humanitarian backdrop to IHL pertaining to the proportionality principle, as well as the guiding questions of the study, its limitations, and the applied methodology. Chapter 2 is devoted to the collection of primary and secondary sources of custom law and jurisprudence, which provides the necessary legal literature and analysis. Chapter 3 details the methodological framework which restricts sources to the jurisprudence of the ICJ and ICC within doctrinal legal analysis and comparative research along set benchmarks, which in this instance are civilian consequences, foreseeability, and intent of the commander.

Chapters 4 and 5 provide legal scrutiny for the most recent Gaza and Libya conflicts, respectively, assessing how judicial instances have applied the principles of proportionality amidst intricate warfare scenarios. In Chapter 6, a comparative appraisal is conducted of the two case studies in order to delineate recurring patterns, legal anomalies, and gaps in the implementation of the law. In Chapter 7, the focus is on accountability and enforcement problems, detailing the law and jurisdictional voids that international courts and tribunals encounter. In Chapter 8, the effects of disproportionate application of humanitarian law on proportionality are examined alongside the legal consequences for the defined territory, while 

Chapter 9 offers further explanation on the need to develop legal doctrine definitions, expand the tribunal’s jurisdiction, and incorporate provisions for cyberspace into international law.

The research results show that even though war laws contain proportionality as an enumerated principle, its application gaps and theoretical disarray remain prevalent in contemporary warfare, especially in distinctly cyber-enhanced forms of conflict. This thesis concludes by emphasizing the urgent need for a clear, unambiguous military doctrine and stronger legal frameworks. These are essential for setting enforceable boundaries that uphold the principle of proportionality during verification processes, ultimately ensuring better protection of legal provisions in the context of modern warfare.