Law should equalize the right to fight, not the weapons themselves.

Evidence

What he suggests here is not so much a right to equal combat, which would involve insisting on a struggle with equal weapons, but rather an equal right to fight. The fact that the law should not, by the norms that it imposes, make it “impossible from the start for one side to hope for victory” implies, not turning the war into a tournament—with pistol against pistol or sword against sword but, on the contrary, taking into consideration the disparity of the forces confronting each other and taking care not to increase it by imposing short-sighted laws that would confer to one side greater advantages while depriving the other side of even the possibility of fighting. — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1038

Categorization

• DEFINE: Distinguishes an ‘equal right to fight’ from ‘equal combat’ — a key conceptual distinction in the asymmetric-warfare debate.
• XREF: connects to: Modern jus in bello rests on combatants’ equal right to kill, not on punishment; Humanitarian law must grant asymmetrical parties equal chances to fight.; Laws of war should grant equal right to fight, not equal arms (+4 more)

Broader Connections

• Law that excludes adversaries from fighting fails to restrain their violence #contradicts (0.60) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 1040
• Weapons’ means, not ends, determine the form of violent action. #qualifies (0.55) — Grégoire Chamayou, A Theory of the Drone, 119