Globa Global Humanitarianism

For our purposes, we will use the Title 22 of the US Code, Section 2656f(d), to define terrorism. It defines terrorism as “premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents” (Central Intelligence Agency, 2013). Examples of terrorism persist on a near daily basis around the world. Unstable countries, such as Afghanistan and Syria, deal with terrorist attacks on a constant basis. The common thread of these attacks is deliberate targeting of civilian populations in order to achieve political objectives. The best known and largest example are

Many perceive humanitarian intervention as a way to provide protection for people in instances of gross human rights violations, however, the concept has become increasingly contentious (Rashid, 2012). Contentions concerning humanitarian intervention are multifaceted; humanitarian intervention infringes upon state sovereignty which is perceived as a crucial basis for international order, yet, infringement is often justified by contentions focusing upon the universality of human rights and a responsibility to protect and promote them (Atack, 2002). While there are alternative definitions, for the purposes of this paper humanitarian intervention will be considered to be, ‘the threat or use of force by a state (or group of states) across another state’s borders which aim to prevent or end widespread violations upon the fundamental human rights of individuals … conducted without the

The term terrorism is used widely in present day especially in the United States. Terrorism is a double standard, the people who commit those terrorist acts, commit the acts out of beliefs and in their eyes ok. Terrorism can be described as the illegitimate use of force to achieve a political objective by targeting innocent people (Laqueur, 1987). To me the definition mention above is a great definition to describe terrorism as a crime. To aim for innocent people to prove a point which lead major injuries or death in most cases is to most people would be a crime, no questions asked. According to Martha Crenshaw (1995), “Terrorism cannot be defined unless the act, target and possibility of success are analyzed”. So to think, terrorist are people who commit these acts as a way to get their political or religious point across. If we look at the some of the most famous terrorist acts they are automatically labeled crimes. 9/11 was a crime because the persons affiliated with the act, targeted the

The "intent to destroy" certain groups is unique to the characterisation of genocide. Closely related categories of international law "crimes touching humanity" aredescribed as adverse or calculated attacks against citizens.This timeline marks the growth of the term "genocide" and its systematization into international law.

There has been difficulty in defining terrorism in international law due to "changes in terrorist methodology and the lack of any precise definition of the term 'terrorism’” . The United Nations General Assembly also condemned acts of terrorism without defining it. Therefore a functional approach had been adopted through treaties dealing with the forms of terrorism considered to be unacceptable. Although, it is agreed upon in international law that terrorism is unlawful, it is not addressed whether it is a casus belli, an unlawful act that justifies a military response. There is a general duty for states to act thoroughly to avert the performance of violent and terrorist acts within its territory. However, this duty is breached when governments support terrorism or fails to apprehend terrorists.

Terrorism is hard to be defined accurately as no universal agreement has been made on the definition of terrorism. This is because the term is politically and emotionally charged. The National Security Council (NSC) of Malaysia defined terrorism as “unlawful use of threat or the use of force or terror or any other attack by person, group or state regardless of objective or justification aim at other states, it citizens or their properties and its vital services with the intention of creating fear, intimidation and thus forcing governments or organisations to follow their impressed will including those acts in support directly or indirectly”.

The post-Cold war world is one that has been riddled with conflict, suffering and war. In the face of such times, the issue of humanitarian intervention and about who, when and how it should be employed, has become hotly debated. While some critics declare this kind of intervention to be a violation of national sovereignty, others believe that relief efforts aimed at ending human suffering are perfectly justifiable. (7) The key question here is, if internal wars cause unacceptable human

terrorism as act of violence against civilians by unauthorized groups that has no political or legal

In equating the conditions for the internationalization of an internal armed conflict with the conditions under which irregulars will be considered lawful combatants, the ICTY pointlessly forces a considerable narrowing of the class of protected combatants in international armed conflict. It confuses the application of common articles 13(2)/13(2)/4(A)(2), defining lawful combatants, with the application of common Article 2, defining an international armed conflict, and Article 3 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV, Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention, Article 29 of the Fourth Convention and Article 91 of Protocol I, on a state's responsibility for violations of humanitarian law (Greenwood, 2006). Locked in the logic of its discussion of the internationalization of conflicts, the ICTY seemed to have lost sight of the fact that the situation most clearly envisaged by common Articles 13(2)/13(2)/4(A)(2) was that of an existing international armed conflict in which irregulars take up arms, on the model of partisan action during the Second World War (Blakesley, 2008). In presenting the rationale for that provision as that of the responsibility of the state for acts of 'its' irregulars, the Appeals Chamber overlooks the fact that humanitarian law creates obligations not only for states but also for individuals, and that state responsibility plays a role clearly secondary to that of individual

Although not impossible, it is much more difficult to continue to commit abuses on a large scale without the influx of new weapons and ammunition, either from abroad or through domestic production. Many human rights groups’ mandates do not extend to stopping wars, which conflicts with a policy of neutrality in all armed conflicts. Instead, advocates push for hostilities, when they occur, to be conducted according to international humanitarian law.

Put differently, the measures in which the 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 civilians can be better predicted (51). Consequently, many nations were not relatively happy at the outcome of the war on terror and how the States handled the issue.

Up to this day, war is still used as a tool to achieve political ends. However, respect for individual rights is also highly valued nowadays, thus, resulting to a tension. To note, even if the military uses the most discriminate of war efforts, many are still killed and collateral damage has become prevalent (Draper, 2015, p.1). Eye in the Sky is a movie that talks about the morality tale of a modern warfare. If the decision of whether to proceed or abort the mission lies in my hands, I will choose to proceed in order to kill a group of dangerous terrorists even if it would result to the death of an innocent little girl. Although in the lens of morality, such a decision is not right, I believe that this has to be done

The consensus among the international community affirms that nations, like individuals, have basic rights, namely, the right to territorial integrity and political sovereignty. When another nation violates these rights, it is considered an act of aggression. However, there certainly are situations where a violation of territorial integrity or political sovereignty is justified, namely in humanitarian intervention, “the use of military force against another state when the chief declared aim of that action is ending human-rights violations being perpetrated by the state against which it is directed.” The issue of humanitarian intervention has been at the forefront of international relations discourse, particularly after the end of the Cold War. It has been a highly contentious subject, having impact on millions of people and many regions around the world. The international community has yet to settle on a set of principles and parameters that define and characterize justification for intervention. However, writers like John Stuart Mill and Michael Walzer outline the conditions for which humanitarian intervention is permissible. A violation of a nation 's political sovereignty and territorial integrity for the purpose of humanitarian intervention is justified in Michael Walzer’s revision of the Legalist Paradigm when there is a substantial violation of the fundamental rights of life, liberty, and property, and the host nation is either complicit in the injustice or

As has been echoed in this essay the ICISS focuses on the notion that with sovereignty comes responsibility, specifically the responsibility to protect human rights (Evans et al., 2001: 12). Thus, it is primarily the duty of the state to uphold human rights. However, “Where a population is suffering serious harm, as a result of internal war, insurgency, repression or state failure, and the state in question is unwilling or unable to halt or avert it, the principle of non-intervention yields to the international responsibility to protect” (Evans et al., 2001: XI). It is here were the emphasis is drawn to those who need the intervention rather than the nation intervening (Weiss, 2004: 138). This is important, as intervention is no longer a right of the intervening state (i.e. in so far as they can exploit the situation) but rather a responsibility of states to protect those most vulnerable, hence the shift from the terminology of ‘intervention’ to ‘responsibility’.

According to Dictionary.Com, terrorism is “the unlawful use of violence and intimidation, especially against civilians, in the pursuit of political aims”. Terrorism is a horrible crime that claims an enormous number of innocent lives and leaves a multitude of injured individuals. Unarguably, it is a huge threat to the most fundamental human right, which is the right to life both nationally and internationally. Unfortunately, it is more likely to continue to exist even in the foreseeable future. While, the Western media raises concerns about human rights violation in other countries, it often goes quiet when human violations happen in the name of fighting terrorism. As a result, some leaders target their opponents calling it fighting terrorism. Consequently, a debate rises on whether we should oppose human rights violations even in situations where the terrorists are the ones facing those human rights violations. I am going to evaluate both sides of the argument and present my stance on this issue.