In the Constitution of the United States entrench a requirement and action to have a profession, which ensure the protection and safety of the Nation and State, “We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, …, provide for the common defence” . Basically, this statement is the presumption, that part of society gain a mandate to render an essential obligation to the Nation in a specific area, in particular case this is a defence. In order to fulfill stated obligation, part of society must have the necessary knowledge and skills. Next, they have to ensure and gain public trust and autonomy in their action. Finally, set high moral standards that reflect the values of society. Fulfilling of these aspects give preconditions
With regard to international armed conflicts, the four Geneva Conventions (GC I to IV) and Additional Protocol I and II contain various provisions specifically dealing with both of Prisoners of War, Civilians protection to prevent any kind of violations that may happen toward them. The Forth Geneva convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War has set rules governing the issue of civilians who found themselves under enemy’s possession. Article 5 of the 4th GC has identified who are protected persons with putting conditions to be considered as protected with the privileges of having the statue of protected persons at article 27 of the same convention. Third Geneva Convention in particular has recognized group of rights with regarded to POWs such as the right to be humanely treated at article 13, correspondence at article 71, the right to gain a sufficient food in quantity and quality at article 26 and the right to not be subjected to torture and question at article 17 where every prisoner of war “when questioned on the subject, is bound to give only his surname, first names and rank, date of birth, and army, regimental, personal or serial number, or failing this, equivalent information” Moreover, the use of weapons and means that have indiscriminate effects such as poisonous gas and bombs which also would aggravate the suffering recognized as prohibited to use due to the amount of damage it causes upon civilians as well as the environment
Article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter states that, "all member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, nor in any manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations” . It is therefore a unilateral agreement signed by member states against the use of force when dealing each other. World events however since the signing and ratification of the UN Charter have indicated that states who are signatories to the charter continue to use force against each other for various reasons. Some 25 years after the writing and ratification of the charter one cannot doubt that states have used force and sought to justify it through individual or collective self-defence claims, as well as humanitarian claims in furtherance of national agendas and to increase territory. This no doubt may have been what frustrated Franck into the stance that Article 2(4) was in its grave.
To translate the R2P principles to deeds will require serious commitment from all the governments who unanimously affirmed at the 2005 World Summit Outcome that “each individual State has the responsibility to protect its populations from genocide, war crimes, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity” (UN world summit, 2005). To relies a credible implementation, it is necessary that Paragraphs 138 and 139 of the Outcome which goes to the real issue of operationalizing the responsibility to protect (widely referred to as “R2P” in English) is sincerely adhered to by all. This brief paper will cover current R2P debate and the complex issue of implementing the R2P pillars which are:
Schlosser asserts that Iran shouldn’t be able to possess nuclear weapons due to the pervasive threat it will pose. He acknowledges that nuclear weapons haven’t been used since the World War II, which suggests that a nuclear war will never happen. In addition, Schlosser emphasizes the ubiquity of the belief that nuclear weapons serve as war deterrents between nuclear powers by quoting Kenneth Waltz. Schlosser agrees that the belief does describe recent situations but doesn’t portray the future.
Law is a tool to regulate interactions amongst the members of a society. Oppenheim defined International law as the name for the body of customary and conventional rules which are considered binding by civilised states in their intercourse with each other. In Sir Cecil Hurst’s view, International Law is the aggregate of rules which determines the rights which one state is entitled to claim on behalf of itself, or its nationals against another state. The definition and aspects of International Law evolved over time in order to suit the changing world order and new situations. International organisations and institutions such as United Nations organisation (UNO), World Bank (WB), International Monetary Fund (IMF), World Trade Organisation (WTO)
Inhuman acts have been occurring in the world since humans have been on the earth. Due to this fact we needed to have some rules to war. We all know war is brutal and hard on not only the people who are fighting but also the people who are strictly caught in the crossfire. We as a united world saw that some of the things that were happening were not ok even during the height of war. This is why the united nations created the Geneva Conventions and have continued to ratify them throughout time.
Second, a state resorting to the use of force must prove its use of force was proportionate to the military campaign's objective. Article 51(5) of Additional Protocol I prohibits attacks which may be expected to cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, damage to civilian objects which
War and genocide have historically been closely related and even described as Siamese twins. Genocide can occur without war but war cannot occur without some elements of genocide as the distinction between legitimate war and genocide is not clear. War is defined as an armed conflict between different nations or groups within a nation. Scholars who have studied the relationship between war and genocide have argued that they are one in the same. It is a very convincing argument especially when examining the UN Convention on genocide. The UN Convention defines genocide as “any of the follow acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group” (Jones 13). The wordings of the definition can
The proponents of the theory see this move being necessary when human rights are violated and consider this move to be more essential than those of sovereignty, since their actions are strictly motivated by the human need (Stewart & Knaus, 2011). However, the theory has been criticized by its opponents, terming it as a false move that has not been sanctioned, and that is undertaken by a nation under the pretence of rendering humanitarian help but is only aimed at achieving ambiguous goals Chomsky,
The purpose of Just War is to regulate the armed forces in a way which is fair, reasonable, and mindful of the consequences. In theory, Just War provides moral guidelines to combatants when governments force political decisions on other governments through war. Senior Military leaders and their staff develop Rules of Engagement (ROE) as directives for identifying and engaging the enemy. Otherwise known as ‘Jus in Bello,’ these rules not only prevent escalations of force derived from excessive collateral damage, but simultaneously provide individual warriors a base line to adhere their moral and psychological framework to in order to clarify moral reasoning to justify their actions during
This was not taken into consideration before the action was sought out. The original intentions of the atomic bomb was for self-defense in fear of the Germans that one day they might use these WMD against anyone and that included the United States (Barnes, 2013). The United States could not possibly just stand by and watch the Germans have an atomic bomb and have the possibility of having an upper-hand on the Americans, anything but that. They had some random guy by the name of Albert Einstein help design the atomic bomb with fellow colleague Leo Szilard. This brings questions as to why use a creation for destruction when its original puposes were for defense only and what about the attached law to such weapons? One of the big unethical reasoning behind this disaster was something the United States is all too familiar with and that is this act might have been motivated through racism. I mean the math adds up all of Americas enemies were roughly stereotyped and crudely portraide through insulting propoganda. Also anti-Japanese racism in the American society targeted the Japanese one group of people, and established a hatred comparable with Nazi anti-Jewish propaganda. The Japanese were universally mocked as having enormous buck teeth, massive fangs
Just war theory is undoubtedly the most effective view on the ethics of war and peace. The tradition dominates both moral and legal reasoning concerning war. It sets the tone, and the parameters, for the great debate. Just war theory can be meaningfully divided into three parts namely: Jus ad bellum; jus in bellum; jus post bellum. (Orend; 2005)
A country can validate war when attacked and “The most vital interests of that same country are threatened and where there are no promising alternatives to using force” (Haas, “When is War Justifiable?”)
This view is far from truth in view of the developed and changed character of international law today. It is incorrect to say that international legal system is without a court to decide international disputes. The establishment of the permanent court of international justice has rightly been reckoned as a landmark for the development of international law because though in international legal system was provided with judicial organ to resolve international disputes on the basis of judicial decisions. The greatest proof of its utility and importance is the fact that its successor, the international court of justice is based on the statute of the permanent court of international justice. It is true that the decision of international court of justice is not equivalent to that the municipal courts. Nevertheless the decisions of the court posses binding force and can be enforced under certain circumstances. They are binding upon the parties to the dispute and only in respect of that dispute. The provision to this effect is contained in article 59 of the statue of the international court of justice. Besides this article 94 of the U.N charter provides that each member of the U.N undertakes to comply with the decision of the