Military Rules of Engagement and the Laws of War

While these three points are extensively discussed and dissected, it is apparent that the key factor that makes us professionals is the ethical standard that we must hold every individual soldier, from the lowest private to the highest general, to. One of the major points that are missing is what happens when the ethical standard is breeched and how it is dealt with.

Regan explains that just war theorists have developed two major ideologies to understand the just war conduct. First, the principle of discrimination that just warriors may directly target people participating in the enemy nations wrongdoing but should not target other enemy nationals. "The enemy nation's wrongdoing justifies the victim nation's use of military force will necessarily involve targeting enemy personal engaged in the wrongdoing (Regan, pp 88)." The principle of discrimination requires military combatants to wage carefully the effects of their actions in general people. It is very important notion that Regan explained about ordinary civilians because many conflict, civilians become a victim from both side. The principle of discrimination

The Geneva conventions are a group of treaties on treatment on the public, (POWs) prisoners of war and soldiers who are differently concluded hors de combat, or incapable of fighting. The leading convention was admitted by the International committee for relief to the Wounded (that became the International committee for the Red Crescent and Red Cross). This convention made a treaty which was designed to protect sick and wounded soldiers during wartime. The Swiss government agreed to hold the conventions in Geneva, and couple of years later, an alike agreement to protect shipwrecked soldiers was produced. In 1949, subsequent to World War 2, 2 new conventions were added on from the original 2, and all four of them were confirmed by a lot of countries.

The laws of war in particular needed to be discussed because the conduct of war needed to be changed. The world was changing from a world of codes of chivalry to following and setting laws. While at The Hague the laws of war set were the treatment of poisoners of war, treatment of civilians during war, and the procedure of declaring and surrendering wars.

objectives pursued are unrestricted and the laws of war are disregarded in total wars, such as

I. INTRODUCTION In The Ethics of Killing in War (2006), Jeff McMahan advocates for the rejection of moral equality of combatants. His argument is built upon exposing flaws in Michael Walzer’s traditional description of permissibility of killing in war and provides an alternate model, the responsibility criterion. In this essay, I will explain the traditional just war theory and McMahan’s alternate responsibility-based approach. Further, I will present a number of objections to the responsibility criterion and consider my personal responses to these, as well as those McMahan discusses in his paper.

Military personnel operating in combat missions must maintain mental and situational awareness of their area of operations. This includes a complete understanding of their physical and doctrinal training. Besides accomplishing their mission, soldiers must also consider the rules of engagement and the personal and professional ethics, values and morals that factor into their decisions in high stress environments (Allen, 2013). Well planned missions will never be executed perfectly. Due to human nature, soldiers may be faced with an ethical dilemma.

A war crime is an act that constitutes a serious violation of the law of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility. Examples of war crimes include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners, torture, destroying civilian property, taking hostages, perfidy, rape, soldiers, pillaging, declaring that no quarter will be given, and using weapons that cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering. The concept of war crimes began to emerge during the end of the 19th century and the beginning of the 20th century when the body of customary applicable to warfare between sovereign states was codified. Such codification occurred at the national level, such as with the publication of the Lieder Code in the United States, and at the international level with the adoption of the treaties during the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. Moreover, trials in national courts during this period further helped clarify the law. Following the end of World War II, major developments in the law occurred. Numerous trials of Axis war criminals established the Nuremberg principles, such as notion that war crimes constituted crimes defined by international law. Additionally, the Geneva Conventions in 1949 defined new war crimes and established that states could exercise universal jurisdiction over such crimes. In the late 20th century and early 21st century, following the creation of several international courts, additional categories of war crimes applicable to armed conflicts

When discussing Jus In Bello, it is important be keep in mind the four principles of war; humanity, proportionality, military necessity, and distinction.

The Geneva Convention impacted Global affairs by defining war crimes and how to remain humane in a time of war. The Four Geneva Conventions were created by Henry Dunant, after he witnessed a battle aftermath. The Four Conventions talk about how to treat a prisoner, how to treat civilians, how to release a prisoner, and many more things. These articles and rules helped created the “Rules” for war, and what not to do in a time of war.

Starting with the normative legal obligations, although limited due to the prickle of sovereignty, international laws and conventions related to engagement in internal armed conflicts have been developed though the United Nations. Such laws frame how the intentional community and members states clarify their responsibilities to their citizens.

But as these conflicts have shown, laws of war do not “restrain” conflict, but rather prioritize military necessity over human life. War law has facilitated violence, through the use of the law, violence circumvents humanism and becomes legitmized. As each decade and century goes on, we see optimistic signs of states unifying to condemn violence and signing pacts and conventions which at face value appear to be a sign of the decrease in the ever- increasing savagery of warfare. Jochnick and Norman again explain this paradox very well, in that in lie in the ulterior motives of those who formulate and practice the laws of war versus the idealistic individuals who simply call for it. Governments, lawyer, diplomats and soldiers who often oversee these conventions and pacts again prioritize their sovereign authority during laws creation. No state, regardless of their ambitions is willing to agree to restrictions to deploy the necessary military power to defend their national interests. The vital point here is national interests, not simply defending the state or its boundaries. The Geneva Conventions are often characterized as strict and non-negotiable, the Hague laws are vague and weak, enabling easy loopholes and abuses to be justified under its oversight by states. The United States, United Kingdom, and France were one of the original 26 creators of the Hague Conventions, again it is no surprise that many of the global powers of the 19th and 20th century sought create a legal jurisprudence that enabled certain concessions by other states, but also created easy loopholes that could be exploited by their hegemonic power and global influence. This also has the falls into what I had previously noted. was the Westernized notion of law and legal practices. An act

The mandated for all 18 years old male and female to serve in the military for 2 years is insane. That law will violate our basic fundamental right of religion. It will forces millions of people to get involve in the military without their permission. The consequences for this law would lead young people with mental problems even worst death. This new law would be the down fall of our

When discussing and and debating the many different concerns on when and how war can be fought justifiably many will think of “just war theory”. “Just war theory” is divided into two different parts. The two parts are the cause of war and the conduct of war (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Jus and bellum is what the Western tradition has believed existed in many different cases. A few of those cases that were discussed are where the war is, a last resort, declared by legitimate authority, waged in self defense or to establish/restore justice, and fought to bring about peace (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Therefore, jus in bello is just the conduct of war. Jus in bello includes most of the standards of proportionality and discrimination

For a war to be considered legitimate according to Just War Theory, it must fulfill the following five elements: Proper Authority (who may properly declare war and was war properly declared?); Just Cause (what event triggered war and does that event constitute and just cause?); Right Intention (what is the intention or purpose for declaring war and is that intention or purpose just?); Last Resort (have all reasonable efforts to resolve differences diplomatically been exhausted or was the declaration of war premature?) and Reasonable Hope for Success (is this war a fool's errand or is there cause to believe the war will in fact resolve the underlying issue?). If the war does not meet any of these five criteria, then it can be criticized on the basis that it was not justified. The First Gulf War, or Operation Desert Storm, certainly does not meet the requirements of just war theory.