The New Challenges of the Humanitarian Law of Germany

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

This paper will explore three separate cases, providing facts about the apprehension and detention of enemy combatants, assessing the treatment of detainees at Guantanamo Bay, and will explain whether any rights were denied or granted in contrast with each other. Anyone engaging in aggressive or hostile behavior towards a country is held to several political and constitutional legalities as explored in the three following cases.

The election of Adolf Hitler in Germany as Chancellor in 1933 brought many gradual changes to the struggling state, which had been greatly affected by the damages of World War I. These changes, through the use of legislation and government, were directed towards the minorities, especially the Jews. The actions of Hitler caused the death of millions and many other negative side effects to Germany and their people. One major enactment that was directed against the Jews were the Nuremberg Laws, which consequently stripped the Jews of their German citizenship. These helped establish the widespread persecution against the Jewish community, which eventually led to the British getting involved with the transportation of thousands of refugee children. Britain had some history with the immigration of a large amount of children during World War I from Belgium. They once again took up the humanitarian effort with the Kindertransport, which saved the lives of many children from Germany.

The U.S. military response to the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 signifies the most extensive use of force by any state since the Persian Gulf War more than two decades ago. Following these operations, many commentators have suggested that there has been a notable transformation in international law regarding state responsibility for terrorist acts. This essay aims to argue that such change has been significant and it has satisfactorily countenanced states’ response to terrorism by presenting evidence of new state practice plus opinio juris in this area. To do so, this essay will first discuss the controversial concept of terrorism and its relevance to the legal framework for the use of armed force in international law. From here, it will move to explicate the principles of and grounds for state responsibility as well as to debate that the act of providing a safe haven for terrorist non-state actors should be considered as a revolutionary factor to the concept of attribution. Lastly, this essay will examine the recent changes occurred in customary law on state responsibility in the light of the application and interpretation of Article 51 of the United Nations Charter after the events of September 11. All these aspects will demonstrate that not only has the law on state responsibility had noticeably developed and consequently provided states with adequate legality to react to the challenges posed by contemporary terrorism, but it has also begun to inaugurate binding

Beverley McLachlin, the 2007 Chief Justice of Canada, once said, “The most advanced justice system in the world is a failure if it does not provide justice to the people it is meant to serve.” The Nuremberg War Trial has been considered the most significant as well as the most debatable event in military law history. To those who support the trial it promises the first effective recognition of a world law for the punishment of criminals who start wars or conduct inhuman acts during them. To the opposing critics the trial appears in many aspects a denial of legal ethics which they regard as the heart of any system of justice under law.

Since the start of the Syrian civil war, over 250,000 people have been killed in acts of genocide, war crimes and crimes against humanity. The United Nations has recently declared acts of genocide and crimes against humanity to be occurring in Syria, yet a massive military intervention has yet to occur. The conflict has now begun to effect mainland Europe and western powers, as the rise of ISIS has become a threat to the whole of the international community. With Germany taking in millions of refugees, they have absorbed most of the inherent terror risk, but with the recent airport bombings in Brussels and the attacks in Paris, ISIS has shown that if they are not met in Syria with grand military force now, they can and will carry out these same terror attacks in the United States and other western countries including Canada and the United Kingdom. This paper will give a brief overview of the history of the current Syrian conflict starting in 2011, and will determine whether the United Nations and the international community has jurisdiction to intervene with military force under specific documents like the Rome Statute, the United Nations 2005 Outcome Document, the United Nations Charter, the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights and by comparing the current Syrian conflict to the Libyan Security Council resolutions 1970 and 1973. Lastly, this paper will provide options for Prime Minister Trudeau for Canada 's participation under the legal jurisdiction of

The theory places emphasis on the division of the population into combatants, those who fight in the war (soldiers), and noncombatants, those who do not fight (civilians). It also encompasses two sets of principles: jus ad bellum, which governs the justness of going to war, and jus in bellum, which evaluates conduct in war (Lazar, n.d., p. 1). Jus ad bellum dictates that states are only permitted to go to war when satisfying a number of principles. For this discussion, the most important of these principles is the requirement of a “Just Cause,” meaning the war is initiated in an attempt to rectify an appropriate injury (Lazar, n.d., p. 7). Traditionally, the only appropriate injuries are national attacks (or attacks on allies), where war is incited for national self-defence, or to intervene in “crimes that shock the moral conscience of mankind, “ (Walzer, n.d.,

Germany committed numerous inhumane and unforgivable acts during the war. After the appeasement of Czechoslovakia, you invaded the Rhineland, a territory that no longer belonged to you. Instead of diplomatically opposing the treaty of Versailles, you rashly decided to openly invade neutral territories.

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.

According to international committee of the red cross, a war crime is defined as: “1)making the civilian population or individual civilians, not taking a direct part in hostilities, the object of attack;(2)launching an attack in the knowledge that such attack will cause incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects which would be clearly excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated;(3)making non-defended localities and demilitarized zones the object of attack.” However, it is challenging to interpret every state of affairs within only a single definition. The first war crimes tribunal since the end of World War II was in Yugoslavia. International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) states, “Between 1991 and 1995, the Yugoslav Army and Serbian paramilitaries occupied sections of Croatia. In mid-1995, the Croatian army reclaimed this territory, pushing out the Yugoslav Army and expelling many of the ethnic Serbs who had been living there for generations......generated a huge number of civilian casualties, human rights violations, and war crimes. To assess these crimes and determine culpability, even as the wars continued to rage, the United Nations established the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY) in 1993.” Serbian and Croatian leaders sacrificed civilians in order to fulfill their egoistic ambition to get a territory of Bosnia. It fact, war crime always abide by war and it can’t be helped. Though it is possible to identify each crime cases and rectify it subsequently. ICTY was established in order to achieve this goal. In the article the Truth About No Gun Ri, the author complicates matters further by stating, “That anxiety has been heightened by the ex-Yugoslavia war-crimes tribunal, which was created in 1993. Late in 1999, the

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

Hitler and the Nazi both hated the Jews, they treated them so very poorly. They sent them to concentration camps, where Hitler would gas as many Jews as he could fit to the point they would die. If they didn't get murdered at the camps they would get persecuted in the streets, hung, then burned where only their shoes remained, (which you can find a portion of the shoes at the museum.) The Nazi came up with the "final solution" in 1942. The final solution was where they would build death camps like Auschwitz and Treblinka in Poland. The Nuremberg Laws were anti-Semitic laws in Nazi Germany which by the Reichstag at a special meeting convened at the annual Nuremberg Rally of the Nazi Party and changed a lot.

I will shed the light on the Security Council which is the keystone of the United Nations system of collective security, and its role in maintaining international peace and security by settling disputes pacifically under chapter VI of the UN Charter and by taking action regarding threats, breaches, and acts of aggression under chapter VII. I will then discuss the several options that Nation states had resorted to in the past to intervene in order to protect civilians. And I will finally highlight the notion of the responsibility to protect which emerged in 2001 and its implication on populations under

The Nuremberg Trials were a critical point in the history of international law because it established the fact that humanity has the need of an international shield to shelter and protect. This event was responsible for contributing in the ongoing process of developing rules that are binding between states and nations also known as international laws. The judgment of the trials may be one of the most important events in the history of international law due to the fact that it assisted in establishing laws against war crimes. One of the biggest questions raised was whether causing a war was an international crime that would be punishable or not. Many believed there was no

Much recent discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause any confusion, any situation in which an “intervention” is done with the permission or by request of the state being intervened, should be considered humanitarian assistance as state sovereignty is not breached. This paper will