Prior to its formation, war crimes were limited to the military courts of the individual countries and for the very first time the Nuremberg Trials would mark the inception of the concept of collective guilt as a justification for punishment. The four counts of indictment were: Conspiracy to commit crimes alleged in other counts, crimes against peace, war crimes and crimes against humanity. This paper seeks to canvass the legacy of the Nuremberg Trial; the legal justifications and procedural innovations that were once controversial and which through the turn of the century have now come to be regarded as a milestone towards the application of principles of international law, establishment of a permanent international criminal court enshrined under the Rome Statute and setting new precedents for the international community. Furthermore, the author seeks to juxtapose the legal and political justifications given for the
The Iraq War was not a good example of the United States going to war after all of the facts became known; however, the facts that were presented to the United Nations (UN) and the American people were a reason to go to war with Iraq because the Iraq government possessed weapons of mass destruction (which turned out to be false and made up by the Brush Administration). Another example, if Iran would bomb Saudi Arab without any cause, it would be a valid reason to go to war since the United States is an ally of Saudi
In this essay I will firstly talk about the concepts of legality and legitimacy. Then I will present arguments on the side of legitimacy over law in international actions, followed by those against it, who emphasize that illegal activities should always be condemned. Both of these concepts relate to the U.S. military intervention in the Kosovo wars of 1999. The U.S. acted without approval from the UN, therefore making their actions illegal. Legitimacy should never surpass legality, because of its ambiguous nature and the potential consequences if it does.
However, it is here that the evidence of the domino theory in Southeast Asia stops- communism failed to take hold in nations (such as Indonesia and Thailand) bordering these new communist states. These “unfallen dominoes” are not the only counter arguments to the domino theory. One such argument is that the Indochina Wars were driven more by nationalism than by communist ideals. Another counterargument suggests that the Vietnam war itself aided the spread the of communism through the region due to wide spread bombing fostering anti-American sentiments in nations such as
Moreover, these limits reveal that the incorporation of norms into a country’s foreign policy is not an immediate process. The fact that the norm was internalized, yet still overlooked, shows that the international community failed to act on their responsibility to prevent genocides; a responsibility they brought upon themselves. Till this day, the Bangladesh Genocide is not termed a ‘genocide’ but widely known as the Bangladesh Liberation War, suggesting that the topic of genocide is still ignored. The objectives the US, China, and USSR had during the Cold War dictated foreign decision making, which ultimately affected international organizations such as the UN. In addition, the international norm of self-determination was also ignored due to geopolitical interests.
Also, Arjuna did not acknowledge how the enterprise and facilitators of war might lead to a fundamental change and liberation of people from the worldly existence. Checking his institution, it seems as if the war was instigated for most of the issues that were denounced or criticized in the Vedas. What is Arjuna’s duty according to the Vedic ideal?
How does Humanitarian Intervention become an institution in International Society? Humanitarian intervention can be defined as the conception that internation society ought to intervene in states where people are massacred or the government fails severely on its normal function that leads to human suffering. (Baylis et al, 2014) With the emergence of international society since the nineteenth century and the increasing interactions amongst states, humanitarian intervention brings itself into a difficult position in the international society, which is built based on the United Nation’s (UN) principles of sovereignty, non-intervention and the non-use of force. (Baylis et al, 2014) However, the principles sometimes contradict with the reality. If a state is mass killing its citizens and breaking the human rights law, the applicability of these principles may be questioned, as well as whether should other states offer rescues to people in misery or just ignore the violence.
In fact during the treaty, Germany was excluded from the negotiations. The treaty devised people at Versailles, even the leaders of the Allies: David Lloyd George (Britain), Georges Clemenceau (France) and Woodrow Wilson (America) called “The Big Three” .However, ‘the big three’ made the treaty benefits their own cause too .The treaty who consisted of 15 parts and 440 articles was not widely accepted by the Germans but had no choice other than to sign it. The treaty strongly impacted Germany in many areas. The treaty was made to weaken Germany so they could not be a threat anymore, especially by taking Germany’s biggest powers. Firstly, military clause : the Army -was to be reduced to
The main Turkish argument on genocide is that, on that time we were at war and 3 million Turks as well has been killed. According to Charny the description of Armenian genocide by Turkish officials known as "Armenian Problem", and they presenting several arguments for what was happened. On one hand they claim that the Russian used Armenian for their purpose, the Armenian was seeking to create a separate state and they demanded Turkish territory. We were defending our nation from the threat foreign interference and on another had they claims that systematic, large atrocities did not happen, and the concept of genocide is not appropriate to the events of 1915, (1991:66). However, these arguments are illogical and not expectable by any conscious human beings, even if the aforementioned arguments are true, this does not justify of mass killings of human beings.
There might not be a segregated society were two races are divided by laws, but, yet racial discrimination does exist even to this day. Stereotypes are another challenges that need to be fought like Martin Luther King Jr. fought racial segregation. The biggest stereotype that the world faces today is the comparison of particular religions with terrorism. Such stereotypes are the biggest threat to global citizenship and need to be fought with the same ideals of equality and compassion that Martin Luther King believed in. Martin Luther King would have never advocated dividing and pushing away people of other religions.