“Acknowledgment of crimes against humanity was a revolutionary development in the international law and was developed as an off shoot of war crime. The customary international law was averse to the acts committed by the belligerent state over the members of the armed forced of the other state during the armed conflict. But there was little, if not any, laws dealing with the acts committed by the belligerent stated on the civilian of the other state. This lack of any law may be attributed to the nature of the armed conflict which was prevalent before the industrial revolution. But with the onset of industrial revolution and invent of the weapons of mass destruction, the nature of armed conflict changed. This led to a inchoate discussion in the international community on the acts which affected the civilian community.” …show more content…
And that exactly was what the allied powers acted after the war.”
“In this paper, the discussion will focus on the evolution of the concept of ‘crimes against humanity’ from the Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 to the Rome Statute of International Criminal Court. The researcher has discussed the legality issues which were faced by the Charter of the International Military Tribunal; the nexus between crimes against humanity and armed conflict as was required by the Charter, ICTY and ICTY and the eventual deviation in the Rome Statute; the inclusion of the discriminatory intent in ICTR and its removal in the Rome
Still today, the allies decision to not bomb the Nazi death camp Auschwitz is discussed and questioned. One side claims that it was a huge failure, as well as a show of how much the allies actually cared for the jews, while the other argues that it was a much more complex decision; and that ultimately, the war effort had to be diverted elsewhere in order to defeat the nazis. The many different arguments and pieces of evidence on both sides make one wonder exactly how such a difficult decision should be made, especially under such pressure, and what should be prioritised in war. In this circumstance, the allies chose to put their efforts elsewhere; which one side claims ended the war quicker, rather than committing the symbolic act of attacking
When learning about and analyzing acts of mass atrocity during World War II, hundreds if not thousands of questions can be asked trying to gain a deeper understanding for their actions. Probably one of the most intriguing thoughts to ponder is what leads individuals and societies as a whole to descend to such a level of cruelty. According to the author of Unbroken, Laura Hillenbrand, one reason may be, “Few societies treasured dignity, and feared humiliation, as did the Japanese, for whom a loss of honor could merit suicide. This is likely one of the reasons why Japanese soldiers in World War II debased their prisoners with such zeal, seeking to take from them that which was most painful and destructive to lose” (189). To elaborate, the Japanese
At the end of World War II, President Harry S. Truman dropped two atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. But was it justified to end World War II or was it just for his greed for power projection? In this trial, the former president was tried for war crimes against humanity, with the punishment being sentenced to death by hanging. The jury vote guilty. We chose this because of testimony given by witnesses, Truman’s official atomic bombing order, and the impact of the closing statements.
The unnecessary death of millions in Europe and thousands in Asia were considered “Crimes against humanity.” They were not war casualties, but murders based on prejudices and officers that had no regard for human lives. The anti-semitic beliefs led to high demand for the death of Jews and the Japanese started as killing soldiers and escalated into raping thousands of women. Although the mass death rates in Europe and Asia were high, the reasons for the high death rates differed
During the World War II, these two mass exterminations, later referred to as pogrom, genocide, or ethnic cleansing, took place on two continents as the modern form of violence under the jurisdictions of two wartime regimes, the Nazis Germany and the militarist Japan. The two shared striking similarities and differences. The following serves as some examples. Speaking of the similarities, Nazis Holocaust has pilloried untold number of lives, as has the Rape of Nanking. Both of them executed, mistreated and enslaved civilians and prisoners of war, forced non-combatants to labor, used human subjects to test biological and chemical weapons, and coerced abused women as military prostitutes.
After many years of pushing aside the unlawful subject of genocide, in 1948 the UN General assembly held an international convention on the prevention, and punishment against the crime of genocide; it was finally put to work in 1951. (Doc. B) Even though we knew genocide was happening in the past with the holocaust, it took us around four decades to go through creating an international criminal tribunal until 1994. (Doc. B) The main question leaves us in document B saying, “Why did it take so long, despite atrocities and mass killings in Cambodia, East Timor, and elsewhere?”
The readings for today consisted of the first three chapters of Searching for Life: The Grandmothers of the Plaza de Mayo and the Disappeared Children of Argentina by Rita Arditti and the article “Female Combatants and the Perpetration of Violence: Wartime Rape in the Sierra Leone Civil War” by Dara Kay Cohen. Both readings deal with atrocities of war, although from very different perspectives. In Searching for Life, we are introduced to the results of the instillation of a rightist regime in Argentina (Arditti, 1999). Arditti mentions the anti-Semitic feelings that many in the military carried, and how these feelings translated into particularly heinous acts against individuals who were Jewish. This brings to question the knowledge the U.S. had of
"An American soldier refers to and Iraqi prisoner as "it". A general speaks not of "Iraqi fighters" but of "the enemy". A weapons manufacturer doesn't talk about people but about "targets" (Lackoff). While soldiers are likely to feel guilty for taking a life, they are taught to think of the enemy as a target and not as a person in order to enable the soldiers to see their enemy as killable. This essay is also educational.
The overall goal of genocidal rape is to inflict punishment on the male enemy by creating psychological and physical harm for women and girls (Sharlach 2000 as cited in Matusitz, 2017, p. 836). Consequently, war rape as genocidal rape redefines the sexually assaulted woman’s body as a “site of ethnic clashes” (Kirk & Taylor, 2006, p. 139) and reframes the targeted population as sub-human. In turn, the ethnic cleansing strategy represents “an enactment of ethnic superiority” (Mullins, 2009, p. 732). The purpose of this paper is to provide a critical analysis of genocidal rape.
On the other hand, Shaw argues that warfare is degenerate in nature. Therefore one can argue that propaganda and the demonization of entire nations during war matched with indiscriminate violence makes acts of war ultimately acts of genocide. This argument is particularly compelling when corresponded with the casualty rates of modern
Finally, the World War two can be termed as the darkest and evil period in the history of man. However, this book, “Unbroken” has briefly explained the events that led to this war, the destruction of Nagasaki and Hiroshima by the atomic bomb (Hillenbrand 33). It also comprises a quote from the Prisoner of war who thinks that in most cases, “the end always justifies the means”, similarly to what happened in the WWII.
The Nuremberg Trials began three years later after the most relevant Nazi authorities were convicted of war crimes for four judges, who took legal decisions that previewed sterilization policies and ethnic cleansing in Hitler 's Germany. Judgement at Nuremberg, based on the real Case Katzenberger, is a demonstration of the efforts of a judge at the tribunal to determine how the defendants, and even also the German themselves, could have been involved in the Holocaust’s atrocities. Judgment at Nuremberg is a representation of the first trial, that is mainly based on justice principles and international law, of the country leaders that pursued threatening battles and were involved in crimes against humanity. This film is an overview of real events that highlights the conflict between morality enclosing both the behaviour of the defendants and the process of providing them with justice (Teach With Movies, 2015). These processes offered the opportunity of enhancing the debate between positivism and natural law, highlighting that the position taken would have significant consequences
After all, the law which is inseparable from the justice is understandable as civilized communication and background for nonviolent conflict solving process. On the other hand, the war is also the way to solve conflicts, but in a different way, using the suffering and the price of life. Apparently, because everyone understands that war is extreme and unacceptable social situation, States and international society are trying to find its reasoning or justification. “The just war tradition, and the international law which follows it, is thus a middle-ground moral tradition trying to regulate armed force in a way which is fair, reasonable, and mindful of consequences.”
Therefore, Eichmann deserved the outcome of his criminal proceeding, as the actions which he committed were evil, and, despite Arendt’s “banal” explanation for Eichmann’s actions, he had to be held personally responsible for the atrocities he
On the legal grounds, the act of humanitarian intervention is still debatable, On the one hand, there was a responsibility to limit the use of force to self-defense according to the UN Charter. On the other hand, there was strong international pressure to abide by commitments to human rights and the right to life. This has constitute tensions in an international law system, Humanitarian intervention as the justifiable act to intervene while it is contrary to the principle of sovereignty and nonintervention in the UN system and international law. An evolving international norms related to human rights and the use of force.