We all know that the necessity of peacekeeping and the importance of sound legal justification for the employment of use of force has been a key issue in international law since the days of Grotius and his “Just War” doctrine. Increasing interdependency of states and the authority the United Nations Charter and Security Council results in a complex system of law where the legality of use of force depends as much on defensibility of the act as it does on the rules of international law governing use of force. Moreover, the right of self-defense, along with the principle of invitation for peacekeeping force’s assistance, which delineates the border between legitimate and illegitimate uses of force. Here before knowing the essence of the use of …show more content…
Reprisals in the laws of war are extremely limited, as they commonly breached the rights of non-combatants, an action outlawed by the Geneva Conventions. It refers to acts which are illegal if taken alone, but become legal when adopted by one state in retaliation for the commission of an earlier illegal act by another state. Counter-reprisals are generally not allowed. It also relate to the topic use of force because it involves war and we all know that wars includes arm conflicts between states internationally. There are lot of aspects that deals on the use of force for example, sometimes police are accused of an unjustified use of force to subdue a suspected criminal or to quell protesters. Whereas law enforcement argues that such use of force is necessary to protect others or itself, critics often argue that law enforcement is sadistic and cruel, that it uses force to attack an individual or a group of which they disapprove.To put it more precisely, the problem of the use of weapon and the necessity of the strengthening of gun control is widely discussed at the present moment. It proves beyond a doubt that weapon is a source of a great threat to the health and life of people. This is why it is quite natural that views on gun control and possibilities of use of firearm vary consistently from the total prohibition of arm selling to population to quite liberal regulations of the gun market. In this respect, it should be said that the opposite views on gun control are determined by different approaches to the use of gun by non-professional, people that do not use weapon in their professional work, such as police officers, military, etc. At the same time, the problem of gun control is closely related to crimes that are committed with the help of firearm. It is not a secret that many violent crimes are committed with the use of weapon.
For others, a view that has arose later, guns are the “perpetuation of illicit social hierarchies, the elevation of force over reason,” and a promoter of collectivity and remover of individuality. This latter view of guns is a direct application of the conflict theory. For those who hold this view, and likely support the passage of gun control laws, guns are representative of social inequality that is abundant in modern society, that the usage of guns is a means of violently coercing those of lower classes to remain in their class. The view of guns as a symbol of protection is also an application of the conflict theory.
International humanitarian law outlines acceptable methods of warfare, which are defined and constrained in the Geneva and Hague conventions. This contains provisions for the protection of combatants, non-combatants, civilians, prisoners of war and medical personnel in the battle
Gun Control Debate Jake Novak, in an article for CNBC titled, “Gun control isn’t the answer. We already know how to stop the violence,” gives his opinion regarding the controversial issue of gun control. Novak argues that gun control is not the answer to rising gun violence but that proper enforcement of the law would go a long way in reducing the cases of gun violence in America. He states, “We actually solved the issue of rising gun violence in America in the mid-1990’s and again in the early 2000’s by doing something radical. We enforced the law” (Novak 28).
The use of and the owning of guns is a very hot and debated topic in society today. For many, this is a life and death debate due to the recent and numerous school shootings. These school shootings have caused an outcry for more gun control, specifically in relation to the Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. Despite these calls, increased gun control is not the answer. Most gun owners’ use their guns responsibly and for good purposes.
Strict regulations and limitations have been pursued already and clearly do not suffice. Statics brought to attention by gun control opponents, show that gun control laws have done little to reduce crime rates. Several restrictions have been made on certain guns, considered as overly dangerous, though in the hands of an unstable criminal even a legal hunting gun can be deadly. Countless restrictions have been made, however people have still found ways around them. If people are unstable and determined enough, they will find a gun, regardless of the restrictions or regulations.
Present security environment and conditions for geopolitical relations and conflicts, shows that old postulates of traditional and conventional warfare, are not in function any more. New type of threats brings changes and different opinions in legal, ethical and moral domains of war. In some situations, when war methods are not conventional, under internationally acceptable conditions, key legal documents, such as Chapter of the United Nations, can become insufficient or irrelevanct. This unconventional sphere requires radical changes in existing legislations or completely new world wide acceptable definition of combatant, adversary and war. Framework of war conditions, which we usually call conventional, becomes more blurred and different.
However, a stricter regulation on gun control will not ensure people’s safety as gun control not only regulates aspects related to guns, but it also regulates a person’s ability to defend themselves. In a survey conducted by the Pew Research Center, 49% of the people stated hunting as main purpose for owning a gun while 26% stated protection; however, in 2013 when the survey was re-conducted, the reasons changed as 48% of the people stated protection as the main reason why they would own guns rather than hunting, which was at 32% (“Why Own a Gun? Protection Is Now Top Reason”). Additionally, how can the government regulate the purchase of weapons from illegal trade/black markets, a resource criminal often uses to gain weapons? Therefore, gun-violence prevention must be sought through alternative means such as using metal detectors in schools like those placed in airports.
As the ideal utilitarian approach focuses on the concept that the good will outweigh the bad, the good through gun control is easily identified through the way it will reduce the amount of violence as the restrictions of guns will reduce casualties. This has become the fundamental argument for the proponent camp where it is also seen how proponents argue the fact that “guns kill people” following cases of gun violence. As seen in the example of the cases that are ongoing in Baltimore, Maryland and Compton, California, these represents the clear fact that gun control is needed. The society will be a better place and it will be in the interest of the overall society for gun control to be needed. The clear advantages and good will be shown through the reduction of gun violence.
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.
Many pro gun-control citizens believe that banning firearms will make them safer and some even protest. For reasons of self-defense, to assist the police, and because violence will always be present, the United States’ law regarding the legality of firearms should stay in place. One of the many uses of firearms is self-defence. “Law-abiding citizens use guns to defend themselves against criminals
Instead of banning or limiting guns, the evidence will show that removing the current restrictions and targeting individuals instead of guns will be a more effective process. The topic of gun control has two polarized opinions. One such opinion targets the individuals responsible for the crime, instead of just the weapons. John Moorhouse and Brent Wanner tackle the issue of gun control in their article “Does Gun Control Reduce Crime Or Does Crime Increase Gun Control”, which was published in 2006 in the twenty-sixth volume of the Cato Journal. These researchers looked at the effects gun control laws had on violent crime and gun violence in the individual states.
A weapon in the wrongs hands is the maximum danger humanity can face. Nowadays, violence and delinquency in society are viewed as the maximum problem solver. Humanity is full of chaos; hate and envy seize our souls. Guns are the ultimate security for some citizens but for others, these add to a feeling of defenselessness. Throughout history, any topic related to guns means a plethora of problems.
Gun control problems Nowadays, we can hear the crimes related to guns from time to time, and each of them is scarified and influential. For example, the accident happened in Sandy Hook Elementary School leads to 20 deaths for primacy school students and 6 deaths for staffs. It is hard to imagine what degree of sadness in their family may suffer. In this way, many people think the government should have stronger gun control regulations.
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.