| Summary: | In recent years, civilian casualties resulting from air power have decreased. Many researchers explain this to be a result of the new technology and the use of precision-guided munitions. A new way of thinking has emerged from international law which suggests that human rights plays a more vital role in today’s war. This thesis aims to follow the new way of thinking and examine if a more effects-based way of thinking has been institutionalized in planning documents and doctrines for two wars conducted by NATO. The method to examine this is a case study of air operations in Kosovo 1999 and Libya 2011. These wars are fairly similar; they were both conducted by NATO and only with the use of air power. The thesis first observes the norm of civil protection in both conflicts. It then examines the degree of institutionalization of the effects-based operations. In this way the thesis aims to explain the different outcomes in civilian casualties between the two wars. The result shows that there is a higher degree of effects-based thinking in the doctrines for Libya, and that the effects-based thinking barely existed in the same documents for Kosovo, which among other factors can be interpreted as an explanation for the different outcomes.
|
|---|
