Frederic Megret's Critical History Of The Laws Of War

The end of the nineteenth century marked a significant change in the American foreign policy. Prior to the late 1800’s and early 1900’s, America had paid little attention to foreign affairs. When compared to some of the more powerful European countries, such as France, Germany, and Great Britain, the United States had a

The study of justice concerns with obligations with which we must treat others fairly in a range of domains, including over distributive and recognitional matters. So a theory of global justice aims to give us an account of what justice on a global scale consists in. It is very well understood, with multiple highly developed theories offering alternative solutions to well-defined problems, therefore as long as it is no clear what the main questions are, we could formulate a lot of possible answers. In a broader sense, the international requirements of justice include standards governing of justification and conduct of war and standards that define the most basic human rights.1

The United States “regular[ly] resort[s] to war” on the foundation of a “militant foreign policy,” which is associated with a “hegemonic national identity.”3 According to Hixson, the militancy of foreign policy stems from western Europe whose “colonialism and imperialism…flowed from the aggressive expansion of a…worldview that apotheosized its way of life as ordered, reasoned and providentially

When comparing apples to pears, one is not making a fair comparison, but a disproportionate comparison. Often times when international law is discussed or attempts are made to understand international law; many often attempt to compare international law with existing laws such as national law or domestic law. Making such disproportionate comparisons leads to many misconceived notions and attitudes toward international law. For an adequate comparison of international law to other laws, one should look closely at the available facts. This essay will demonstrate the vitality of international law, in a world of nations which continue to increase in interdependence.

Humanitarian interference positions a hard trial for an international society constructed on the doctrines of sovereignty, intervention, and the use of force. Directly after the holocaust, the society of states recognized the laws prohibiting genocide, forbidding the exploitation of civilians, and identifying plain human rights. These humanitarian values often clash with doctrines of sovereignty. Sovereign states are required to perform as protectors of their citizens’ security, but what happens if states act as villains towards their own people, treating power as a pass to kill? Should dictatorial states be recognized as valid members of international society and permitted the protection afforded by the intervention norm? Or else, most states loss their sovereign rights and be exposed to reasonable intervention if they aggressively abuse or fail to protect their citizens? Connected to this, what responsibilities do other states or organizations have to enforce human rights standards against governments that vastly violate them?

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

The law of war as Col. Parks states, "is an attempt by nations to establish certain minimum standards of conduct by parties to armed conflict that will ameliorate the suffering of the innocent. As with all law, it is highly dependent on good faith by all concerned; at its best, it will not prevent all suffering." Abiding by these sets of rules and laws leaves our nation vulnerable. We are vulnerable to any adversary willing to take advantage of our willingness to follow these laws. Our moral or ethical behavior is not rewarded on the battle field, nor is there any guaruntee that it will be reciprocated. Instances when we are at war with another nation that shares our views of these standards; the laws of war and rules of engagement can be beneficial and perhaps; lead to resolution of conflict. Any instance that results in the loss of American lives due to the unwillingness of another nation to acknowledge these standards, is unacceptable. Further more, any time the established rules of engagement constrain our military to the extent that it gives us a tactical disadvantage is a travesty. Any law or set of rules pertaining to war

Each of these rules must be shown and satisfied. “Failure to fulfill even one renders the resort to force unjust, and thus subject to criticism, resistance, and punishment” (Orend 61). Just war theory is meant to be more demanding than international law. Even though the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) agreed to send troops to Somalia, this approving body does not automatically render the gesture moral. One must apply the principals of just war theory first.

While the entire world looked on at the American Civil war, both military and civilian institutions started to realize the importance of a code of ethical treatment for soldiers on the battlefield. In 1864, the Red Cross in association with the international community created the Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded in Time of War (Shaw, 2013). This document laid out ethical guidelines for the treatment of combatants and became the basis for the Geneva Conventions as we know them today. During the tumultuous events of World War I, the ethical limits of warfare were pushed and expanded in a variety of ways. Shortly thereafter, the third Geneva convention met in 1929 and produced a range of wide sweeping reforms, most notably expanding the rights of prisoners of war (Shaw, 2013).

In this paper, I will argue that Luban’s critique of Walzer conception of legitimacy is misguided. I will first present Walzer’s argument for interventions using the “legalist paradigm,” in particular his conception of self-determination and how the principle of non-intervention may be set aside in exceptional circumstances. I will then present Luban’s critique of Walzer and his argument for developing an account of Just War directly in terms of human rights, before concluding with my own critique of Luban’s argument.

On December 10, 1948 the United Nations voted into effect the Universal Declaration of Human rights. They wrote this document as a result of the untold horrors that have been encroached on particular minorities under Axis rule in World War 2. So that never again could such horrific mass killings and malicious rulers rise to power. Needless to say while the UN has tried their absolute hardest to enforce these laws throughout the world, they have failed multiple times to save people from horrid tragedies. Now the leaders of the UN and NATO must face how once again their own incompetence has created a crisis, not in some far of patch of land hidden in a corner of the globe, but in their own backyard of Europe. There are no heroes and no villains in this story just people who are trying to do their best to survive in this world and their leaders who have failed them so.

The Geneva Conventions is a body of Public International Law, otherwise known as the Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts, whose purpose is to provide minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals who become victims of armed conflicts. The Geneva Conventions serves as a series of treaties that outline the treatment of civilians, prisoners of war and soldiers who are otherwise deemed incapable of fighting.2 The Geneva Conventions states that a war crime is:

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

The establishment of an international criminal court was a slow, arduous process. Following the horrific human rights violations committed by the Nazis in World War II, the global community began to take the proper steps to combat the notion that being at war sanctions gross abuses of human rights. It was not a lust for violence that elongated the process of establishing the ICC (international criminal court), but rather the long-time battle between accepting that the world is increasingly affected by globalization and holding fast to the age-old tradition of prizing state sovereignty above all. The scale of the genocide carried out against all peoples not of Aryan descent in the 1940s was the catalyst needed to start talks about prizing guaranteed rights over the incessant need to abide by antiquated customary law.

The United Nations is widely regarded and respected as the most powerful institution that promotes international cooperation and human rights action. In theory, actions implemented by and within the United Nations are based on the mutual global goal of protecting international human rights and preventing human sufferings. These actions are constituted through three main mechanisms: the Treaty-based system, the Human Rights Council, and Security Council and Humanitarian Interventions, with the level of confrontation and seriousness in each mechanism increases respectively. While aimed to serve the mutual goal of protecting human rights over the world and have shown some successes, in a world of sovereignty, actions when implemented are in fact grounded by the national interests of each state, including embracing its national sovereignty, concreting its strategic relationships with other states, and enhancing its reputation in the international community. This paper will analyze the successes and failures of each of the three mechanisms of the United Nations regime, through which it aims to prove that when it comes to actions, states focus more on their national, and in some cases, regional interests than on the mutual goal of strengthening human rights throughout the world, thus diminishing the legitimacy of the whole United Nations system.