Laws of war

empirical theoretical research about the doctrine of Just War. The way the author adapts the evidence found in the speeches of former presidents such as George W. Bush and Jimmy Carter makes us think he tends to justify somewhat recent interventions the United States made in the Middle East when he says: "Both presidents explained that for a free state a just war, must show not only that went to war for good reasons, but also that their conduct war was consistent with that purpose: to help make the most

detailed in the international law. He uses domestic correlation as the basis of the theory by explaining how the rules that govern citizens apply to the international community. The rights that apply to the citizens are similar to those of the states. He argues that “Every violation of the territorial integrity or political sovereignty of an independent state is called aggression” He subdivides the theory into six main points that act as the standards of comprehending war from a moral point of view

assassination of Hitler would have been justified at the start of World War 2 based upon the facts and what constitutes for a legal assassination under the International Law. I feel personally that it should have been executed under the just war theory and based upon morally correct assumptions that an assassination of Hitler would have prevented the deaths innocent Jews. But, legally at that time and place, under the rules of International Law, I believe it would have been allowed and was attempted unsuccessfully

deliver supplies in Syrian towns. The Syrian Arab Red Crescent also postponed aid relief, but this is only temporary. The MSF published a statement on their website, which states, “This is another example of wholesome disregard for the basic rules of war in the Syrian conflict” (Medecins Sans Frontieres, 2016). Organizations such as the ICRC, SARC and MSF are supposed to be

NIAC with Al-Qaeda overseas. As such, the President has the inherent right and the duty to use lethal force against members of Al-Qaeda posing an imminent threat in self-defense under international law. In the case of Hamdi v. Rumsfeld3, lethal force against enemy forces is an “important incident of war.” In determining whether an enemy combatant poses an imminent threat, the United State government does not need clear evidence that a specific attack will take place in the immediate future. If they

Introduction There are old war customs, which becomes rules and finally laws, that provide protec-tion to civilians during war, women and children, in generally. One of the reasons is their incapability to fight in combat, use weapons or harm adult soldier. Ethical dilemma, of sacrificing small loss in order to safe majority, even civilians, it is not new. Throw history, many of leaders, generals or officers were faced with some questions. Higher level of protection include non-combatants civilians

the beginning of the war in 2011. “Syria’s civil war has created the worst humanitarian crisis of our time. Half the country's pre-war population — more than 11 million people — have been killed or forced to flee their

is another great theologian of the Catholic Church who believed in Just War Theory. St. Aquinas explained three conditions under which war could be justified. First, there must be a Sovereign authority under which war is waged, and a private individual has no capacity to wage war. Aquinas argues that, those in authority are responsible for the general good of the city, kingdom or province under them, and they are allowed by law to use the sword to defend that good from internal disturbance from evildoers

required. It is considered that those who kill during times of war are less weighed down by the moral dilemma that comes with killing. This is largely because people regard killing during war as an unavoidable aspect of it, therefore meaning that soldiers should not be haunted or traumatized by memories of the atrocities that go on in times of war. But then, why should this be the case? It should not

soldiers survive in the battlefield. This is of course in a perfect world. In the real world autonomous drones have to many unanswered questions. They aren’t held accountable under international law and they don’t have common sense like a soldier would on the battlefield. They could possibly start an unintentional war. They are too risky to be used in warfare and they are too unpredictable to be trusted with the lives of soldiers. This amount of risk has called for a lot of attention by human rights lawyers