The Legal Framework Of Targeted Killings

22) In situations of conflict between state and national law, national law prevails due to

In Chapter 5 of The Morality of War, Brian Orend discusses the particular case of supreme emergencies, hereby defined as a state of war during which an aggressor state comes dangerously close to overpowering the victim state militarly, probably followed by extreme brutalization of the victim state's population and various violations of human rights, such as rape, slavery, mass murder and so on. The concept of supreme emergency has caused controversy in the discourse about the morality of war, regarding both what constitutes a supreme emergency and how supreme emergencies are to be addressed within the context of just war theory. In this essay, I will review Orend's exposition on the matter and follow with an introduction of elements that

The first is when a CO is acting in self-defense. For example, an inmate pulls a bladed weapon on a guard, the CO, in this case, has the right to use force against the inmate under self-defense. The second, justifiable use of force on an inmate is used when the CO is trying to defend the “safety” of another inmate or staff member of the prison (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p. 260). An example of this is when a prisoner is attacking a fellow prisoner; the CO is justified to use force to break up the fight. The third reason, a CO may use force, is when he or she is “upholding the rules of the institution” (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p. 260). For instance, when prisoners’ line up for a count, one prisoner might step out of line and begin to cause a hostel scene; the CO is justified to use force against the prisoner that is out of line, to control the situation. The fourth reason, a CO is justified when using force against an inmate, is when he or she is trying to prevent a crime from occurring (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p. 260). Finally, the fifth reason a CO is justified to use force against an inmate, is when he or she is preventing a prisoner for escaping (Gaines & Miller, 2015, p.

In the world we live in, people are consumed by violence and war as nations conflict to achieve victory and change. However, these changes come with a price, the lives of innocent people and the destruction of their homes. Because of this, massive amounts of innocent lives account for casualties. Thus, the controversy behind it causes a lot of debate between whether or not the amount of collateral damage allowed by the Rules of Engagement should be greater or lesser. Some argue that the insurgents of war the United States are fighting are only trying to camouflauge themselves among the non-combatant civilians only to get away with their crimes against us. On the other hand, the opposition argues that killing these innocent people only results in more distance in

During military intervention, the human rights of non-combatants are placed in very high regard. However, there are no assurances that there will not be civilian casualties. The question remains what an acceptable level death or bodily harm is and when would it be considered morally or ethically acceptable during military intervention. According to Altman and Wellman, “If there is no other way to rescue far greater numbers of persons from death or grave bodily harm, then armed intervention might be permissible as a grim moral necessity. However, as in such grim circumstances, where a supreme humanitarian emergency exists, can intervention be morally permitted.” With that being said, they also argue that all targets should be legitimate military targets and that every precaution needs to be taken to ensure the safety and security of non-combatants. (Altman and Wellman 2008,

In recent years, the chance of individuals carrying out an act of mass violence has become more noticeable and common in society. There have been innumerable cases of violence, such as gun-related murders, police brutality, and slaughter in the past decade. However, some of the actions recorded are characterized as stunts of self defense or a way to shed light on a certain civil conflict, such as personal rights, which can be justified. Although any form of barbarity should still be considered unlawful, one should consider that if a person or group was protecting themselves against another or a group was fighting against an oppressive force for their civil rights, these possible acts of violence are vindicated because they were protecting

Israel’s primary strategy in terms of countering terrorism is to use force to eliminate threats to its sovereignty and security. Initially, Israel sought to occupy southern Lebanon as a response to the Abu Nidal Organization’s attempted assassination on the Israeli Prime Minister to the United Kingdom. This initial occupation had no relationship to Hezbollah, but is the source of Hezbollah’s establishment. Occupation to suppress violence falls under Audrey Cronin’s category of repression in her study of the decline and demise of terrorist organizations, How Terrorism Ends. Repression is usually a knee-jerk reaction that seems to be less promising in terms of effectiveness than other strategies.

In the spring and summer of 1994, Rwanda experienced a genocide that killed hundreds of thousands of innocent people. After seeing the tragedies that took place in Nazi Germany, one would expect the international community to respond quickly and effectively in the case of the Rwandan genocide. However, the killings were largely pushed aside or ignored by the rest of the world, begging the question of when states have the right or duty to betray another state’s sovereignty. There are different methods of intervening to protect human rights, but they are much debated and there have been many times that intervention has made a situation worse. However, there is a moral obligation that we all have to protect others when we can, whether they are part of our nation or not. If human rights are being abused in a state, other states have the duty to take multilateral actions to stop killings and provide aid.

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.

Lastly, there is the defensive war. Which may be one of the most frequently used causes of war in the last 100 years, especially in the U.S., who used it to participate in wars such as World War II, Vietnam, and Afghanistan. By definition, it is a direct retaliation against country for invading its borders or territories. This is the most just types of war (as the defending country), as you did not start the aggression, but are merely getting back for what you lost.

But as these conflicts have shown, laws of war do not “restrain” conflict, but rather prioritize military necessity over human life. War law has facilitated violence, through the use of the law, violence circumvents humanism and becomes legitmized. As each decade and century goes on, we see optimistic signs of states unifying to condemn violence and signing pacts and conventions which at face value appear to be a sign of the decrease in the ever- increasing savagery of warfare. Jochnick and Norman again explain this paradox very well, in that in lie in the ulterior motives of those who formulate and practice the laws of war versus the idealistic individuals who simply call for it. Governments, lawyer, diplomats and soldiers who often oversee these conventions and pacts again prioritize their sovereign authority during laws creation. No state, regardless of their ambitions is willing to agree to restrictions to deploy the necessary military power to defend their national interests. The vital point here is national interests, not simply defending the state or its boundaries. The Geneva Conventions are often characterized as strict and non-negotiable, the Hague laws are vague and weak, enabling easy loopholes and abuses to be justified under its oversight by states. The United States, United Kingdom, and France were one of the original 26 creators of the Hague Conventions, again it is no surprise that many of the global powers of the 19th and 20th century sought create a legal jurisprudence that enabled certain concessions by other states, but also created easy loopholes that could be exploited by their hegemonic power and global influence. This also has the falls into what I had previously noted. was the Westernized notion of law and legal practices. An act

According to political scientist Robert Pape, the PLO is an exemplary illustration of the efficacy of terrorism, providing a prototypical for why terrorism of all forms is a judicious strategy as an instrument of political influence . However, Pape dwindles to identify a defining characteristic of terrorism; the disconnect amongst a terrorist groups objectives and outcomes. As American philosopher Loren Lomasky has discerned, one of the most profound realities about terroristic activity is the magnitude between efficacy and aspiration. Lomasky also noted that virtually “none of the instances of terrorist activity is there any genuine prospect that the attack on person or property will aid to advance the claimed political ends” . Whilst the Palestinians

Law enforcement officers are authorized to use force in specified circumstances, are trained in the use of force, and typically face numerous circumstances during their

Detail #2: Article 51 of the UN Charter provides for a nation’s inherent right to self-defense when it has been attacked.

Killing in self-defense is an action that some citizens find to be arguing about the moral correctness. By looking into a few aspects of the laws, ethics, morals and the value of life. Society may become more educated on the subject. Also, what can we do to change or lower situations that self-defense is needed? The two major sides of this battle are, one the mindset that a self-defense killing is ethically wrong and should not be done. The other side is the people that feel they have a right to defend themselves or their families from an aggressor. What side of the argument is correct? This may not be that clear of a choice. Among those restrictions is the requirement in most jurisdictions that the individual claiming self-defense cannot have provoked the conflict. (Moore 1)