Hague Regulations Essay

Well-ordered people should have rules in place when fighting wars. Civilians should be protected as they have no say in the decisions made around war. They shouldn’t be the scape goats of the leaders of these outlaw states. We are all of one race, the Human race. The color of our

The Geneva Convention and its participants keep all prisoners of war on a uniformed playing field, to prevent

“If the state leads us to wounds or death in battle, we follow as is right; no one can yield or leave his rank, but whether in battle or in a court of law, or in any other place, he must do what his city and his country order him…if he may do no violence to his father or mother, much less may he do violence to his country.'; (Pg. 64)

The rules of Jus in Bello, otherwise known as conduct during war, represent guidelines for fighting a just war once it has begun. Such rules of warfare are intended to safeguard the lives of humans and their fundamental human rights. Walzer, within his novel Just and Unjust Wars, presents a series of rules known as the War Conventions, for soldiers to follow in order to maintain the justice of a war. The war convention holds a permissive and prohibitive aspect with this essay focusing specifically on the permissive aspect. The first principal of war convention is that once is war has begun, soldiers are subject to attack at any time (unless they are wounded or captured). This essay will investigate the grounds that provide the foundation

Warfare is a devastating quality of the human condition. Nowhere in nature do other species hunt and kill their fellow members for political reasons and at a mass scale. Attempts to systemize and standardize the rules and regulations of warfare are difficult if not impossible to appease every key player involve. The purpose of this essay is to examine the rules of engagement of warfare as a guiding principle that is subjective and not uniform throughout the system of war itself. This inconsistency will be discussed by presenting the Vietnam War through six different levels of perception located in the chain of command. This exercise will prove that each segment of the war fighting contingency has its own subjective reasons to follow rules of engagement.

To understand war we must look at Just War Theory. The purpose of Just War Theory is to provide a model for states to behave when and

I negate the resolution, "Resolved: When the United States is engaged in military conflict, national security ought to supercede conflicting claims of individual rights. My value for the round is Human Dignity, or what can be defined as a respect for the individual and his or her rights and virtues. John Stuart Mill states that "Everyone who receive the protection of society owes a return for the benefit... but not to the point that it violates constituted rights." Thus those rights which are the fundamentals of human dignity must be maintained. No fundamental goal should ever undermine this fundamental goal. The criteria which must consistently achieve is the maintenance of a legitimate government, or a govt. that maximizes the rights of

War must be waged in accordance with the purpose of establishing justice, expressing the “right intention”.

This particular section has to do with what is considered moral when fighting a war, such as being able to discriminate between combatants and noncombatants as well as how much force should be utilized and is morally acceptable when fighting an enemy (Moser and McDonald, 2016). Pertaining to discrimination, the United States should be tolerant and aware of those who were not involved, or noncombatants. Although unintended deaths cannot be avoided, many times because they are unintended, the war remains just. Crawford iterates, “such deaths may be permissible (albeit regrettable) if the military goal of the action was just; noncombatant injuries were unintended; and military effects outweighed the unintended effects on noncombatants” (Crawford, 2003). It is difficult to morally justify any deaths of innocents, but in war a realistic viewpoint is necessary. The outcome of the war is crucial to the lives of many, and although some may die, their lives were not in vain because they ultimately contributed to the greater good. Furthermore, as long as unnecessary violence is not put into practice, the war remains just. For example, if the United States were to bomb civilian populated areas, both discrimination and proportionality would be broken, making the war unjust. Fighting and using force where necessary and doing anything possible to save innocent lives gives the United States moral grounds

According to Michael Wazler, the theory of aggression implies to the ideologies of jus ad bellum as detailed in the international law. He uses domestic correlation as the basis of the theory by explaining how the rules that govern citizens apply to the international community. The rights that apply to the citizens are similar to those of the states. He argues that “Every violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of an independent state is called aggression” He subdivides the theory into six main points that act as the standards of comprehending war from a moral point of view.

Looking further into this document, we will look at how member states who have signed this treaty are obliged to treat prisoners of war. How this treaty is enforced and the effectiveness of the enforcement as well as how this treaty has been upheld and looked at over the decades that it has been in effect will be analyzed. Failings by some countries in upholding the principles of this treaty will be discussed as well.

This section was further accepted in the Vienna Convention as an unalterable norm. Article 2 (7) goes on to state that the UN will not intervene in matters considered domestic jurisdiction.

     The first article, entitled “National Constitutional Compatibility and the International Criminal Court”, is written by Helen

The Hague rules had many imperfections, which highlights its change to the later amended 1971 Hague-Visby rules. One of the many weaknesses of the Hague rules was that in article X “The provisions of this Convention shall apply to all bills of lading issued in any of the contracting States”. According to Hasan ZB and Nazli I (2007). Shipment from ports not in the contracting states to any port in contracting states. The Hague Rules do not apply but rather the law of the country from where the goods were shipped would be the valid law. According to Hasan ZB and Nazli I (2007), this creates loopholes where parties are able to contract out of the Hague rules by selecting any law other than the law where the bill of lading is issued as the governing law. Earlier common law cases like the case Moorcock (1889) is helpful in this area of contract law, as implied contract terms if breached can have locus standi in courts and individuals should be aware of them within a contract. This highlights how the Hague rules do not add much to earlier common law provisions. An additional common law case would be Liver alkali v Jonson (1874), which gives the carrier complete liability giving far better protection to cargo owners.

This essay intends to define and give an overview of the ‘Principles of War', the philosophers that coined these principles and with examples from the various countries that used and have their own perspectives on the ‘Principles of War'.