Military Necessity: Article Analysis

The protection of citizens’ lives, foreign or domestic, is a critical necessity. As a result, the military is the most important organization in a country. In America, for instance, $598 billion is spent each year on the military (“Federal”). Because this is such an expensive, important, and dangerous topic, it is often debated. One of the most common arguments is whether or not America’s military presence is necessary overseas. Due to its foreign benefits, positive domestic effects, and overall creation of World Peace, the negative side of the argument is outweighed. America’s military presence in foreign countries is necessary.

Also the appropriate authority must be the persons who have declared war and ensured that this call was done on the basis of last resort, after trying to attempt all other methods which could assist in resolving the conflict. The second principle which is of the just war theory is Jus in Bello. (Anon,[n.d]b), These are rules and guidelines which explain some steps that the state must adhere to whilst in the conflict. In order to follow this principle, the states must follow proportionality and discrimination during the conflict. Those who are in fighting in the conflict must not use excessive force, only the force which is needed to achieve the necessary outcome. It is also important for them to be careful and precise when identifying any enemy combatants, and always ensuring they avoid civilians at all costs including illegitimate targets which could potentially cause destruction and violation on their individual rights. (Anon,[n.d]b),

In the international arena, there is no hierarchical rule to keep states in line or behaved; meaning that the international system is constantly in anarchy, aka the state of nature. This lack of rule enforcement puts states in a constant state of war, in a constant state where they need to stay on guard and in a tactical advantage otherwise the safety and well being of their state will be in jeopardy. In this scenario, the state’s number one priority is to protect itself and act in its self interest when need be, despite if it would typically be deemed immoral. (Donnelly 20)

Imagine a war. It doesn’t matter which war, because all of them have several things in common. Wars are very costly. They have cost thousands to millions of dollars in equipment, and all wars have cost hundreds, thousands, or even millions of lives, both in the military and in the innocent population. Those who do survive are scarred, sometimes physically, mentally, and emotionally. Many retired soldiers suffer from PTSD, or post-traumatic stress disorder, as well as severe or fatal injuries. There are very, very few who would want to go to war, but sometimes, war is necessary. The question is: when is military force justified? Military force is justified when the safety of our population is threatened, when one of our allies is threatened, and when other, more peaceful attempts have been ineffective.

The September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks have represented the end of the warfare system built in the aftermath of the Second World War. On the other hand, the tough US reaction culminated in the creation of a new order shaped by the terrorist threat and characterized by the so-called “war on terror”: an unprecedented way of doing politics and conducing conflicts. This scenario brought new challenges and perils to the legal framework aimed at regulating the relationships within international actors: international law, international humanitarian law and human rights law. New tendencies on behalf of States jeopardize the international system as a whole.

Section one deals with the debates that surround the issues of humanitarian intervention and just war theory on the basis of international scale. One article by Holzgrefe is completely focused on the debate, stating the many ethical theories of many different theorists: from "utilitarianism; natural law; social contractrianism; communitarianism; and legal postivism" (7). Holzgrefe goes on to define what each ethical theorist is and their understanding of the debate on humanitarian intervention. However, there is the idea of when it is right to intervene and when intervention is unfavorable. The most interesting part was the third section of the article.

The concept of “just war” is built on the assumption that war is bad and should be avoided, but there also may be times when warfare is justified. Just war theories usually address two main areas: First, under what conditions is it right to go to war? Second, is there a moral way to conduct a war?

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 principles of humanitarian law are thought to apply in conflict, and to regulate the conduct of military forces. The rules of warfare aim to safeguard human life and some other fundamental human rights, and to ensure that war is limited in its scope and level of violence. Total war, where neither discrimination nor proportionality serves as mitigating

Starting with the normative legal obligations, although limited due to the prickle of sovereignty, international laws and conventions related to engagement in internal armed conflicts have been developed though the United Nations. Such laws frame how the intentional community and members states clarify their responsibilities to their citizens.

As an example, purposeful functions of abuse against civilians and private objects constitute war violations under global legislation, for which people may be prosecuted. That concept derives from the basic concept of global humanitarian legislation linked to the security of civilians in armed struggle, specifically the concept of distinction. Relating to this concept, all parties to a struggle must at all times separate between

Since people outside of the state are not subject to the state’s laws, states must find other ways of preventing them from committing violence against the state or its inhabitants. The state achieves this by using the military, both as a threat and as a tool.

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

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.

The IHL and Geneva conventions are mainly known as the organizations that keep morals and sense in armed conflicts otherwise known as wars. These organizations place laws during war, if these laws hadn't been put in place during 1949 I don't think many of us would be here today.