The Use of Force, War and the Role of the UN Essay

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)

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),

The Just War Theory serves as a guideline for determining a war as moral. The Doctrine consists of three major principles that contain the criteria of just war. Jus ad bellum outlines the situations in which it is acceptable for a nation to go to war before any action has taken place. This includes that war must be directed towards a real and moral cause, authorized by qualified leaders, planned to settle the intended dilemma. Entering into war must be the “last resort” to solve the given situation and must be just compared to the enemy. Jus in bello addresses how a nation’s forces should act during the act of war. This includes that the nation should respond to a situation with forces that are proportional to those that have been inflicted on the nation, and the prohibition of tactics such as rape and weapons of mass destruction (Fabre 963-964). Just post bellum refers to the period after a war when peace is to be restored. It focuses on establishing treaties and preventing nations to seek vengeance (Stahn 159). Using this doctrine as the structure of moral war can determine a shift from this ideal state of morality.

War, in all its forms, is tragic. International law was created to establish some basis of rules to abide by—including war—and states have signed on to such a contract. The actions of states in this ever globalizing world are difficult to be controlled. The source of international law operates through the hands of the United Nations. The enforcement of the law occurs through reciprocity, collective action, and a display of international norms (Goldstein, p. 254). War in fact has been given a justification, though it is arguable whether or not the basis of the idea is correct. Wars can be just under certain conditions.

When discussing and and debating the many different concerns on when and how war can be fought justifiably many will think of “just war theory”. “Just war theory” is divided into two different parts. The two parts are the cause of war and the conduct of war (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Jus and bellum is what the Western tradition has believed existed in many different cases. A few of those cases that were discussed are where the war is, a last resort, declared by legitimate authority, waged in self defense or to establish/restore justice, and fought to bring about peace (Rourke and Boyer, 2010, pg. 218). Therefore, jus in bello is just the conduct of war. Jus in bello includes most of the standards of proportionality and discrimination

Millions of people are condemned to abuse and oppression because of the repressive policies of their own government’s, or because their governments unwillingness or inability to prevent major human rights violation. The United Nations Security Council is designed to combat this problem by providing the basis for external intervention when internal remedies are ineffective. As can be seen from the analysis of the legal framework pertaining to military intervention, it is not a matter that should be taken lightly and without a thorough consideration of the legal position, the benefits and drawbacks of intervention. However, in cases of humanitarian catastrophe, states need to be willing to intervene. It is important when considering intervention

Yes, I see the difference between how the video’s author defined the list compared to the official statement. In the official list there is the preamble and different articles involved. These things are all involved when it comes to human rights. These things help when it comes to Just War Theory, human rights, and United Nations.

Carnahan’s article offers a systematic analysis about the concept of military necessity, showing that civilian interests must be taken into consideration with assessing military necessity. The use of force by states is controlled and restricted by both customary international law and treaty law. Although there is no legal restriction to war (just ad bellum), international law such as customary law and the Geneva Conventions provide certain international law restrictions on the right to use force against other state. Carnahan discusses the Lincoln Code, the Lieber law and the Laws of War in his article. The Lieber Code. Certain limitations are imposed on states as these restrictions tend to only apply to states that have recognized sovereignty (recall week 2 reading). The present “War on Terror” is refrained as the United Nations Charter

This therefore brings us to really examine whether it is lawful for a state to use force to protect its citizens from threats such as terrorism. We then examine the laws that have been put in place by international organizational bodies such as the United Nations (UN).

This dictates how combatants treat their enemies after the war including peace treaties, reconstruction, and trials of war crimes. The criteria for jus post bellum would be as follows: just cause for termination, right intention, public declaration and authority, distinction, and proportionality.[11] Just termination can come about if there has been justification for the rights that were violated and the aggressive group is willing to cooperate with peace terms. A just termination could also be made if the just goals cannot be attained at all or with out excessive force. The principle of right intention says that the two combatants must agree on a certain terms of surrender including a peace treaty, compensations for damages, trials of war criminals and reconstruction.[12] The terms of peace must be proposed by a competent leader and they must be accepted by a competent leader. The winning group must discriminate political from military leaders and military combatants from civilians, and punishments must be reasonable to the damage done during the war.[13] The terms of peace must be in proportion with the initial rights that were violated.[14]

The purpose of this essay is to evaluate the relevance of Just War Tradition (JWT) in contemporary warfare. It will do so through critical analysis of the condition of Just ad Bellum (JAB) because arguably if one carefully considers the moral conditions that make going to war justifiable then the same cautious, moral assumptions apply in Jus in Bello. Firstly it will briefly discuss the history of JWT and thusly the inherent problems within JAB applied in the contemporary world. Secondly it will discuss the principles within JAB and the use of these in the decision to invade Iraq. Finally, the usefulness and relevance of JWT as a framework for the application of Jus in Bello is examined, or whether militarized masculinity has prevailed. Therefore it will argue that JWT is relevant to contemporary warfare only when applied as a moral framework in the international community. It should not be used as a tick list of conditions for states to justify going to war.

Humanitarian intervention has been debated since long time ago, since the end of Cold War. This issue has been a good point in International Relation studies. Many intervene has been done before and it was started in Rwanda and Balkans genocide tragedies in 1994. This dispute happened between the Hutu and Tutsi, ethnic group from Rwanda. Hutu extremist blamed Tutsi bring a lot of bad social impact to the country, they were also accused as the people behind rebel group named Rwanda Patriotic Front (RPF). In 1992 the tension between two ethnic became hotter than ever by the use of propaganda and politic maneuver by Habyarimana and its group. The tension reach its point in 1994 when a helicopter carried Habyarimana was shot down, and the violence began immediately after that. Hutu starting to collect their people and launched an attack to Tutsi, and everyone who try to slow, oppose or even stop their action killed, include political leaders and their own people, the Hutu. All the people who’s Tutsi and even suspected as a Tutsi was killed, entire family murdered, kids died, woman brutally raped, a mass destruction of humanity. From the beginning in 6 April 1994 and weeks after that, 800.000 men, woman, and child died. This resulted because of the elite promote fear and hatred to make themselves ruling the government, and make them keep their power. They believe by made extermination campaign would create a solidarity within the country, but in other hand, it just create a

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.

With a charter established in 1945, the United Nations began its mission to promote peace and security . International collaboration led to the ratification of the charter by five country representatives at the time: China, France, The Soviet-Union, The United Kingdom and The United States; the UN officially came into existence October 24 1945. Each year since the day of ratification, UN day’s celebration reminds the world of their objective to promote respect for human rights, gender equality; the advancement of women, protecting the environment, fighting disease and reducing poverty. The six main organs within the United Nations: The General Assembly, Security Council, Economics and Social Council, The Trusteeship Council, The

The use of military as a form of intervention is only allowed for when the nation being intervened agrees and the decision to do so is supported by the UN. These are some of the conditions that need to be met first. However, more often than not, because this is a less than peaceful approach, an expected outcome is usually more problems than solutions (Waal & Omaar, 1994).