The individualist nature of much contemporary just war theory means that we often discuss cases with single attackers. But even if war is best understood in this individualist way, in war combatants often have to make decisions about how to distribute harms among a plurality of aggressors: they must decide whom and how many to harm, and how much to harm them. In this paper, I look at simultaneous multiple aggressor cases in which more than one distribution of harm among aggressors is available. I show how such cases pose deep questions concerning the nature, role, and scope of the necessity principle, and its relationship to both liability and narrow proportionality. I argue that a hitherto unrecognised measure – ‘narrow proportionality shortfall’ – and its distribution is relevant in choosing how to distribute harms across aggressors. I then extend this analysis to show how this may help us with a puzzle concerning sequential attacks.

中文翻译：

---

侵略者的分配正义

许多当代正义战争理论的个人主义本质意味着我们经常与单一攻击者讨论案例。但是，即使以这种个人主义的方式最好地理解战争，在战争中，战斗人员也常常不得不决定如何在多个侵略者之间分配伤害：他们必须决定伤害谁和多少，以及伤害他们多少。在本文中，我着眼于同时存在多个攻击者的案例，其中攻击者之间的伤害分布不止一种。我展示了这些案例如何对必要性原则的性质、作用和范围及其与责任和狭义相称性的关系提出深刻的问题。我认为，迄今为止未被承认的衡量标准——“狭隘的比例不足”——及其分布与选择如何在攻击者之间分配伤害有关。