In some countries people, do not have the freedom to choose their own path. Many people live in places with so much conflict and destruction that they are force to follow the orders of a political lieder and force to make decision that are not in accordance to what they believe, but they do it because they are loyalty to their country, family and friends Pauline M. Kaurin provide a scenario of a soldiers killing civilian people that they confused with a suicide bomber, then she asked, “When is killing murder and when is it a legitimate act of war? Whom can one legitimately kill in war?” (Kaurin in page 41). She argues that during combat distinction from the enemy and civilian should be relevant to preserve the essence of true morality. In the contrast to Achilles the essence of true morality is irrelevant when he claims that no Trojan should keep their life, he swore death to all Trojan. (book XXI). During a time, war, is important to accept the fact of the situation in the eyes a devastation believing that one fate must be accepted in other to continue living or accepting the consequence and the faith of their own
They focus on the traits of terrorism that cause most of us to view the practice with deep moral repugnance: (i) violence (ii) against non-combatants (or, alternatively, against innocent people) for the sake of (iii) intimidation (and, on some definitions, (iv) coercion). In highlighting (ii), they relate the issue of terrorism to the ethics of war and one of the fundamental principles of just war theory, that of non-combatant immunity. They help distinguish terrorism from acts of war proper and political assassination, which do not target non-combatants or common citizens. It does not matter very much whether the victims of terrorism are described as “non-combatants” or “innocent people”, as each term is used in a technical sense, and both refer to those who have not lost their immunity against lethal or other extreme violence by being directly involved in, or highly responsible for, (what terrorists consider) insufferable injustice or oppression. In war, these are innocent civilians; in a violent conflict that falls short of war, these are common
Sadat believes that pursuing justice through international courts may be a viable means of striping the perpetrators of many Syrian atrocities of their legal status, giving legal grounds for other countries to take action against them. Sadat writes, “International law imposes limits on the behavior of the States directly affected by the civil war in Syria. Even without specific treaty obligations imposed upon it, the Syrian government and other States in the region are bound to respect customary international law, including the customary international law of war, international criminal law and international human rights law. This includes, at a minimum, the prohibition against torture, the requirements of proportionality and distinction in war, and, as we have seen, the prohibition against the use of chemical weapons. As one of the founding members of the United Nations, Syria is also bound to respect its Charter obligations, in particular any obligations imposed on it by the Security Council acting under Chapter VII. The Security Council reminded the parties to the conflict of this obligation in its most recent Resolution, as well as recalled their obligation of compliance under Article 25 of the Charter.”(Sadat, 6) The logical appeal that Sadat uses is an attempt to remind the readers that the Syrian government cannot ignore their legal obligation to uphold various treaties that condemn and outlaw human right abuses. Sadat uses this notion of obligation to suggest to the readers of her paper, that this method of justice is
The United Nations (U.N.). The best reference I could fine as a reconized “definition” of terrorism by the United Nations came from reviewing the United Nations Security Council Resolution 1566 that was adopted by the Security Council on 8 October 2004. In the document it states “s that criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a government or an international organization to do or to abstain from doing any act, which constitute offences within the scope of and as defined in the international conventions
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.
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”.
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
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