Reprisals or acts that violate war may NEVER be taken to achieve what?

The concept of reprisals in warfare refers to acts that may violate the laws of war under certain conditions, typically justified as a response to illegal actions by the enemy. However, they are strictly regulated and must adhere to principles of necessity and proportionality. The reasoning behind the belief that reprisals should never be taken for revenge is fundamentally tied to the underlying ethical framework governing conflict.

Taking reprisals to achieve revenge undermines the principles of restraint and proportionality that are central to just war theory and the laws of armed conflict. Such motivations risk perpetuating a cycle of violence rather than upholding a commitment to humanitarian principles and the rule of law. It emphasizes a more constructive approach to conflict resolution, focusing on strategic and lawful conduct rather than retribution.

The other options—gaining strategic advantage, protecting national interests, and establishing authority—could potentially be framed within legal and ethical boundaries of warfare, albeit with strict limitations. Historically, these goals can sometimes align with military objectives, provided that they respect international law. Hence, the focus on revenge as a motivation for reprisals is notably distinct and is recognized as indefensible under the established laws of war.