Laws of war

The war on terror, following the events of 9/11, made people acknowledge a new form of enemy. Terrorisms became the central focus of nations and various actions were taken to ensure that such a horrendous act never transpires again. However, the problems associated with these legal constraints has led to many international law violations. This paper will seek to discuss these legal constraints and its effect on the war on terror. In order to demonstrate this, the principles of distinction, proportionality

The First World War impacted significantly on the homefronts of the participating nations in many different social, political and economic areas. There was a widespread restructuring of primary industry with a large orientation towards militarism. There was massive political change where new systems of power were introduced that gave governments a range of new powers including the control over industry. The civilian population had severe restrictions placed upon their rights and liberties due to

In regards to fighting this type of barbaric activities, it is important that the military understands the Law of Armed Conflict when it comes to targeting ISIS in reagrds to international law. It is clear that ISIS fighters do qualify as lawful targets under the LOAC. However, it is not clear what to do with the many potential noncombatants who engage in combat activities that support ISIS. Understanding LOAC and how it applies to targeting is important due to ISIS’s unique status. Unlike many

The term of ‘International law’ first used by Jeremy Bentham in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, later Hugo Grotius who is a one of the prominent intellectual figure in Europe lead to concept of the modern framework for international law. According the United Nations, international law is defined as ‘the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries.’ In addition to the U.N. definition, along

necessity. The use of force by states is controlled and restricted by both customary international law and treaty law. Although there is no legal restriction to war (just ad bellum), international law such as customary law and the Geneva Conventions provide certain international law restrictions on the right to use force against other state. Carnahan discusses the Lincoln Code, the Lieber law and the Laws of War in his article. The Lieber Code. Certain limitations are imposed on states as these restrictions

US went about this issue is problematic as they acted outside the legality of international law. Jocknick and Normand argue that the international humanitarian law cannot be used to “humanize war” and that they may impose states to create “effective humanitarian limits on the conduct of wars” (Jochnick, 51). They also outline the importance of understanding the events of “past legal effort to regulate war” in an attempt to reassure that mistakes are prevented and that outcomes in regards to protecting

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror POL 201 April 15, 2013 Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Civil liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror have been the forefront of Congress since 2001 with the terrorist attack against The United States. Although there have been many attacks before, none have hit the American people in such a manner to question whether our civil liberties are at stake. As a member of the Armed Forces I swore to support

War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification

For the victorious parties of war to determine the process of justice makes a significant assumption that those parties will attempt to apply an extension of the just war theory to include jus post bellum in that they will endeavor for a just and lasting peace. This assumption is problematic for three reasons. First, nothing guarantees that as a belligerent concludes acts of war that it has any intention whatsoever of establishing peace. Second, the victor enjoys the privilege of deciding what constitutes

Accountability: After reviewing the just war theory in relation to the war in Iraq, it is assessed the Iraq war did not meet the requirements for the Iraq war. Michael Walzer stated that, ‘the Iraq war was an unnecessary war and unnecessary wars are also unjust wars’ (Religion and Ethics news weekly, 2009, Online). As a result, the Iraq war did not have a plausible cause or authorisation for intervention. Due to the failure to assess whether Iraq did conceal WMD, Weapons inspector David Kay argues