Just War Crimes

The legitimate defense of a nation and the responsibility of the Security Council to take actions in the course of maintaining peace within its areas of influence. With the establishment of United Nations and the modernization of war and its materials; the theories and doctrines of the past also needed to evolve. The modern Just war theory in composed of two principles: jus ad bellum, the right to conduct war, and jus in bello, the correct conduct within war. Each principle also has its own set of criteria to follow. Jus ad bellum contains six: Just cause, right intention, proper authority and public declaration, last resort, probability of success, and proportionality. (Orend, 2006)

How can a war be truly just? Even if the war begins with good intention, innocent people can be harmed or killed and their property and land destroyed. Many people feel that all violence is wrong while there are many who accept war as the only option in a particular circumstance. For example, many people who joined the First Crusade felt as though they were doing the right thing. After all, Jerusalem was the home of Jesus, so Christians felt the fight was justified.

The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace and safety. The just war can only be waged as a last resort requiring that all reasonable non-violent options must be exhausted before the use of force can be justified. A war can be just when it is fought with a reasonable chance of success. The Just War tradition is a set of mutually agreed rules of combat may be said to commonly evolve between two culturally similar enemies. An array of values are shared between two warring peoples, we often find that they implicitly or explicitly agree upon limits to their warfare.

William Hogan Research Paper Plan Title: Parallels between Holocaust and Rwandan Genocides Background Argument Counter Argument Rebuttal Conclusion Thesis: Genocide is important to understand so we can help prevent future violence on humanity. Political, cultural, economic, and ethnicity differences led to terrible modern day genocides in Rwanda and during the Holocaust. Parallels between the Holocaust and Rwandan genocides can be drawn from the role the state played in mobilizing, organizing, and allowing genocide to take place. 1st: 3-4 pages: synthesize and analyze research and give examples of genocide general, understanding, health, and Holocaust/Rwanda comparisons/differences.

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

One of the main questions was did the allied forces know about the holocaust and do nothing about it. That question has always been there even during the war. The allied forces contained Great Britain, United States, China, and the Soviet Union. These were the major powers for the allied forces while

Genocide was one of the main problems a long time ago. There were several events including genocide. This caused numerous amounts of innocent people to be killed for many different reasons. But, there were many ways to solve this problem.

When, if ever, is a war just? People throughout history have tried to define a just war, from Martin Luther, when he said War is not right, even between equal and equal, unless it is fought with such a good conscience that one can say, ‘My neighbor compels and forces me to fight, though I would rather avoid it.’ In that case, it can be called not only war but due protection and self-defense (Scheer). War is just when pertaining rules and regulations are followed. Firstly, an example of a just war is World War 2. When America joined the war they joined in a just way by declaring war from a lawful authority such as the American government.

Genocide has been happening for centuries and even in America (ProQuest). Christopher Columbus was an Italian explorer who apparently discovered American when he was actually looking for India. When Columbus came up on American land he thought the land was unclaimed. In the late 1800’s (1890) Wounded Knee Massacre occurred by Wounded

One of the components of war that make it justful is that the cause of the war must be just. In other words, the attacking country must inflict lasting, grave, and certain damage for it to qualify as just to fight back. Also if basic human rights are being violated by a group of people then it is just for another entity to decide to go to war to free the victims of the inhumane aggressors and their torments upon the innocent human beings.

There are many questions surrounding the topic of war. Should we fight? How do we win? Why are we fighting? The most debatable question of all is if the war is considered just.

There must be a just cause when resorting to war. This can imply either self-defence actions or be fought in order to provide humanitarian aid to the victims of aggression.

When it comes to genocide, the killing of dozens or hundreds of people can seem rational to those in leadership positions. Genocide is just like any other policy choice to those who commit it, with it being

“One ugly, deadly and recurrent reality check persists: genocide. Genocide has occurred so often and so uncontested in the last fifty years that an epithet more apt in describing recent event than the often chanted “Never Again” (Power 1998, p. 1). Genocide is one of the most devastating phenomena in the international community it is so often unchallenged that the occurrences continue to repeat. While envisioning the impending danger of these incidents, it is necessary, through cross-country comparison to understand what drives and sustains genocide. This essay will analyze three paradigms that are suggested causes of the phenomena, idealism, political, and state interest while assessing the genocides in both Rwanda and Darfur in order to prevent

1. a. The main points deputed around the term genocide during the UN convention are: Motive, Premeditation/Deliberateness, Intent, Agents, Victim, Scale, Goal, and Strategies. Motive is not included in the international law as one could deny their true motive. Premeditation/ Deliberateness is also not in the UN definition because of the context of war and superfluous because you cannot have a genocide without a plan. Intent is debated because it could be denied and document destroyed. Agency, which emphasizes leadership broken down into the elite perpetrator theory if these crimes would still happen without their leaders and Front Line Killers asking why people follow their leaders to commit these crimes. Victims that have survived and can recount being there. Scale of genocide debating if there should be a set number for it to be considered a genocide. Whether the goal of total or partial deconstruction should be taken into account and strategies taken toward committing the act of genocide.