Essay about war crimes- what the publis should know

“For war, as a grave act of killing, needs to be justified.” These words were written by Murray N. Rothbard, dean of the Austrian School and founder of modern libertarianism, who spent much of his academic career trying to determine what, exactly, defined a “just war”. In fact, for as long as humans have been fighting wars, there have been quotations referring to the justification and moralities of wars and how warfare can be considered fair and acceptable to each society’s individual standards. While the time and place of each war differs, the reality of the devastation of battle may be found warranted by those fighting using these just war standards to vindicate their actions.

Has the government forgotten about the International Covenant of Civil Rights and Political Rights (ICCPR), the Convention under Torture and other Cruel and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment and Punishment (CAT), Convention on the Rights of Children (CRC) the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural rights (ICESCR)

Throughout history, instances of genocide, mass murder, and extreme acts of violence are widespread and pervade through every culture and society. As demonstrated by Panh, Lifton, and O’Brien, similar examples of excessive violence can occur in widely different situations. In order for such violence to occur, there first must exist certain systematic factors. In this paper, I will argue that conditions of instability within a country allow for changes in belief and perception, and these changed perceptions leads to dehumanization and the loss of human rights. The Holocaust, the Cambodian genocide and the Vietnam War, all follow this pattern to some extent. First, I will compare and contrast the ways in which the Holocaust and Cambodian genocide follow this pattern, as well as explore the separate factors within each and possible solutions to these factors. Next, I will discuss the dramatically different Vietnam War, compare and contrast it to the other two, and explore how the uniqueness of the Vietnam War impacts the possible solutions for the loss of human rights within this situation.

Slavery is as old as the world 's first civilizations. Two important slave movements were the one across the Sahara Desert and another along the East African coasts of the Indian Ocean, both of which terminated in slave markets in the Muslim world. The subject of slavery is viewed in contrast by different parts of the world. Narrowing to the topic of slavery in the Americas and the Muslim states, it is apparent that the two regions contain mostly different opinions as to whether slaves exist for sheer labor or that slaves are humans just like you and me. What is similar between the facts that Muslims view their slaves religiously with more compassion than that of the Americas, who

Throughout, 1945 to 1946, the International Military Tribunal, or IMT, for short, tried 22 major war criminals on the charges of crimes against peace and conspiracy. They defined these crimes that the defendants committed as “murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or persecutions on political, racial, or religious grounds.” They all got their respective sentences in prison starting from 10 to 20 years in prison to execution.

From the readings in Lesson 3, we discussed Congress's quandry regarding the employment of combat forces abroad. During the Vietnam Conflict, President Nixon employed hundreds of thousands of combat forces into Southeast Asia without approval of Congress. Eventually, Congress felt compelled to pass the War Powers Resolution of 1973 (over his veto). As such, the president can still employ troops abroad to defend US interests, but then is required to notify Congress of the employment within 48 hours, and then withdraw them within 60 days - unless Congress formally declares war or authorizes the use of military force. However, subsequent

Matthew Lippman provides that the Lai Massacre violated the international humanitarian law of war. The Lai Massacre and the Vietnam War raises critical questions about how America conduct war and its military leadership in Vietnam. The massacre of innocent unarmed civilians illustrates the horrendous war crime committed by American soldiers. Lippman discusses how the United States tried to keep the events of My Lai Massacre from the public. The My Lai Massacre makes me wonder if this was only one of the many massacres in Vietnam War and if the higher US officials managed to cover-up the other massacres. The trials for the crimes committed in My Lai were held separately from the Nuremberg trails because officials wanted to avoid creating parallels between the two events. However, parallels can be drawn with American conduct in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay. Troops who were in violation of international law and committed war crimes in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay were not held accountable for their action to their full extent. In fact, those who were convicted were not necessarily charged with war crimes. This leads us to question whether the events of my Lai and Nuremberg could ever be reconciled. Allan Ryan makes the argument that the Nuremberg Tribunals was the most significant development of international human rights law. I agree with Ryan as many tribunals following the events of World War II have been modeled after the Nuremberg Tribunals. For instance, this is true in

This paper will define and determine the criteria for warfare, argue that neither the 9/11 attacks nor the resulting counterterrorism reactions take after the conventional standards of Just War theory: these events cannot be portrayed as just under the guidelines of jus ad bellum or jus in bello. More importantly, the events should not be classified or regarded as a war. Rather, these related acts are criminal offences that were toss under the label of warfare due to the American interpretation of 9/11 as a ‘first strike’ tactic which in turn prompted a military response, setting in motion an international standard. The resulting ‘war’ has arguably been a series of violations of international law.

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.

Since the invasion of Iraq in 2003, there has been a lot of controversy about the legality of the United Sates invasion. Many war critics claim that it was illegal and ones who caused or contributed to the war should be punished. There has also been many stories of war crimes committed in Iraq. Many soldiers have come back from war apologizing for what they have done.

While some believe that unrestricted warfare is the most efficient and successful way to fight a war, it in fact creates more harm than good. As an example, events that took place during World War II (WWII) may be taken into consideration. WWII was fought with certain restrictions and principles in place. Did this stop all war crimes? No, it did not. However, what it did do was make those few war crimes that were committed, followed up by punishments, which people could eventually learn from. If such a system with rules and punishments were not established, the crime rate would be higher, and there would be no follow-up punishments to teach people that what they did was wrong. From such reasons and many more, it has been made clear that not all actions are permissible and justified during times of war, because there will be countless ‘crimes against humanity’ committed by dishonorable means- and done so without any consequences succeeding.

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

War should not be used just as an excuse to settle arguments. My claims are, firstly, war involves mass killings and is unethical. Secondly, war destroys economies. Thirdly, war has a negative impact and ruins the lives of children. Lastly, war can only be justified when it can be proven to be a necessity.

In 1949, the Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War was created to prohibit immoral, cruel and degrading punishment toward prisoners during wartime. The United States ratified this covenant and became a member of the Geneva Conventions. During Operation Iraqi Freedom, a series of human abuses occurred from October through December of 2003 where American military personnel have conducted acts of brutality and immoral behavior toward Iraqi detainees at the Abu Ghraib prison. The inhumane “interrogation method” of the American military have clearly violated Article 2 and 4 of the Geneva Conventions. Article 2.2 states “No exceptional circumstances whatsoever, whether a state

To better understand the atrocities of these wars, one must have knowledge of the definitions of certain terms and war crimes. The ideas of “ethnic cleansing” and “genocide” are often thrown