The Influence Of The Nuremberg Trial On International...

The Influence Of The Nuremberg Trial On International...
For the victorious parties of war to determine the process of justice makes a significant assumption that those parties will attempt to apply an extension
of the just war theory to include jus post bellum in that they will endeavor for a just and lasting peace. This assumption is problematic for three reasons.
First, nothing guarantees that as a belligerent concludes acts of war that it has any intention whatsoever of establishing peace. Second, the victor enjoys
the privilege of deciding what constitutes genocide or mass violence. Finally, the possibility always exists of atrocities committed by the victor.
Ultimately, in the Nuremberg Trial, the victor retained the prerogative to determine that the wrongs performed by the Nazis were "so calculated, so
malignant and so devastating, that civilization cannot tolerate their being ignored because it cannot survive their being repeated." (Jackson, "Opening
Address for the United States) In this example, four victorious nations controlled the responsibility to determine the requirement for a trial, negotiate
the employment of the appropriate system of law, determining the definition of criminal entities, and defining international law and that of a sovereign
nation (Rosen, ed., "The Influence of the Nuremberg Trial on International Criminal Law").
... Get more on HelpWriting.net ...

Geneva Conventions Essay
The laws of war
The IHL and Geneva conventions are mainly known as the organizations that keep morals and sense in armed conflicts otherwise known as wars.
These organizations place laws during war, if these laws hadn't been put in place during 1949 I don't think many of us would be here today. The main
international agreements are the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Nearly every country in the world is part of these treaties, they protect four
different categories of war victims В– the wounded and sick; people who are shipwrecked; prisoners of war, and civilians, particularly those in enemy
territory.
There are also two other Protocols of 1977 which develop the Geneva Conventions, especially by increasing the protection of ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
States must ensure that the special protective force of the emblems is not used too much through misuse, taking legal and practical measures to uphold
the emblems' integrity. States are also required to prosecute and punish those members of their armed forces who have committed serious violations of
IHL.
The United Nations, diplomatic efforts and pressure from the media and public opinion can promote compliance with the law. There is also an
International Fact–Finding Commission established under Protocol I, and it is hoped that the International Criminal Court (ICC), once created, will
help make sure that those who commit the gravest crimes will be punished.
It is sometimes said that IHL is less respected now than ever before. This may be true, although it is also true that advances in telecommunications
mean that we now know more about armed conflicts in all parts of the world than in previous times. Making both combatants and civilians aware of
the law is a great step in encouraging more respect for

How Did Parkhurst Follow The Laws Of War?
The first Peace Conference was held at The Hague in the Netherland. Most of the conference was spent discussing the creation of an international
arbitrary court, armaments, and the laws of war. Though many of the agreed upon terms were broken at the start of World War I,
The laws of war in particular needed to be discussed because the conduct of war needed to be changed. The world was changing from a world of
codes of chivalry to following and setting laws. While at The Hague the laws of war set were the treatment of poisoners of war, treatment of civilians
during war, and the procedure of declaring and surrendering wars.
During the time many people were against war. They thought that many of their men were being killed just for the sake of war. The people of
America understanding that the times were changing but the treatment of soldiers were poor. "Every peasant and every village a fortification," this
quote from Dr. Parkhurst shows that Americans are viewing war as a flaw. However, Parkhurst was part of the clergy at the time and there was still a
strong religious influence on many lawmakers. However, Parkhurst was not happy with the International Peace Conference. He believed that those at
the Peace Conference created results it did not meet expectations. He did agree with the Conference that war was humanly but instead it was vile and
barbaric.
Articles written in the late 1890s seem to be fairly positive when discussing Laws of War at the Hague Conference.

Franz Lieber and the Lieber Code
Franz Lieber and the Lieber Code In the midst of the deadliest war in American History, there stood a voice of morality and reason on the United
States soil. Franz Lieber, a German political philosopher, created a series of political works in which he explained the importance of defining
ethical boundaries for soldiers in times of war. In 1863, President Lincoln commissioned Lieber to create a series of laws to reflect his ideas
("Francis Lieber," 2013). Lieber went on to create what became known as Lieber's code, which was "history's first attempt to distill, formalize, and
systematize various general concepts that international law, at the time, considered proper restraints for the combatants towards each other and
towards civilians" (Forbes, 1985). But what effect did the code have on the Civil War and the preceding time period? Created at an important
juncture in history, Lieber's code not only had a profound effect on the views of controversies during the Civil War, but also influenced the way the
world viewed the ethical obligations of military personnel during times of war. Civil War Prisons Throughout the Civil War, prisoners of war were
abundant and thus a popular topic of debate. This likely influenced Lieber's ideas as to what was important to include in the code, leading to much of
Lieber's code entailing the treatment and exchange of prisoners of war. "Early in the war prisoners received equal treatment from both sides. However
the lack of a systematic programs

Examples Of Aquinas Just Causes For War
Elizabeth Leathers 819216873 Phil 340 – Online 1A. Aquinas' just causes for war are derived from the ideas of philosophers before him, primarily
Augustine and Aristotle. Aquinas's just causes for war are if it is "declared by the authority of a head of a state for good reason and with a morally
good aim" (Christopher 50). This statement can be broken down into three key conditions; proper authority, just cause and right intentions. The first
component; proper authority, states that only the highest of authority can declare war. If the person who declares war has to answer to someone
higher above them, then the war is unjust. This condition also ensures that by declaring war the opposition has an opportunity to either prepare or
find other means of peace. With that in mind, it is also implied that war should be a last resort when all other attempts at peace or agreement cannot
be reached. The second condition is just cause. Just cause states that if a war is to be declared then it has to be for a good enough reason where the
negative effects that come with war are necessary. Aquinas uses the same examples for just war as Augustine; avenge wrongs, restore what it unjustly
seized and to punish a nation that won't make amends for wrongs inflicted. The last condition is right intentions. It's not enough to have the right
reasons to declare war, the person declaring it must also have a morally good reason to declare. If a war is declared because of wrongful intentions the

Who is Responsible for the Establishment of the War in Iraq?
Accountability:
After reviewing the just war theory in relation to the war in Iraq, it is assessed the Iraq war did not meet the requirements for the Iraq war. Michael
Walzer stated that, 'the Iraq war was an unnecessary war and unnecessary wars are also unjust wars' (Religion and Ethics news weekly, 2009, Online).
As a result, the Iraq war did not have a plausible cause or authorisation for intervention. Due to the failure to assess whether Iraq did conceal WMD,
Weapons inspector David Kay argues that, 'If you cannot rely on good, accurate intelligence' then 'you can have a policy of pre–emption' (Hinnebusch,
2007, P.24). As a result, Iraq has become a case of 'imperial overreach' (Hinnebusch, 2007, P.24). Kay argues the US is able to bypass the UN
authorisation by enforcing an imminent attack. As a result, political and military manipulation can indicate that the US can withhold extensive powers.
For that reason, there has been a growing concern for accountable in terms for enforcing warfare. In particular, due to the nationwide protest against the
Iraq war, political accountability has became an important factor in the democratic process. The government did not have support from the people. This
implies that democracy can be questioned. For that reason, the public can hold a governmental official to account by changing them in the next general
election. Furthermore, the International criminal court 'establishes to help end impunity for the perpetrators of the most

Just War Theory Essay
Just War Theory
Price reduced due to problems with format
One of the perennial realities of human existence is war. From the earliest recorded events of human history all the way through to modern times,
human communities have engaged in armed conflict as a method of dispute resolution. While war has been a constant part of the human experience,
there has also been a tendency within virtually all human civilisations to limit the extent of war and the methods by which warfare may be
conducted.(1) In Western civilisation, this limitation on warfare has taken shape as an effort to limit both the determination of when war is appropriate
and the means used in battle.(2) Within the Western moral, legal, and political arena, the connected... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Understanding, then, that the theory of just war is one in which many sources mingle over the course of centuries, it is helpful to make a brief
overview of those sources before delving into the main task of explaining just war theory. B. MAIN SOURCES OF JUST WAR THEORY 1. The
Religious Sources of Just War Theory Many of the key thinkers who have expounded on just war theory through the centuries have identified
themselves with the Christian faith, both in its Catholic and Protestant varieties. Just war theory has also gained a general acceptance among Christian
theologians, philosophers, and jurists as a method of passing judgement on the morality or immorality of a particular conflict.(8) The general Christian
conception of just war theory forms the core of secular just war theory and as such has had a tremendous influence on the secular conception of the just
war.(9) Early Christian approaches to war were largely pacifistic in nature, due to a focus in the early Church to the notion that Christians were distinct
from the rest of society.(10) However, with the growing Christianization of the Roman Empire, and the increasing political and social influence of the
Christian Church, Christian theologians during the fourth and fifth centuries began to develop justifications for the use of force which would eventually
take

The Pros And Cons Of Just War Theory
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. According to Hedley Bull, war is "organized
violence waged by sovereign states" which was the outcome of a "process of limitation or confinement of violence" via the ethical doctrine of just war
theory. Clausewitz classified warfare as not just an act, but also a social institution for obtaining ulterior objectives (e.g. political) and strategic lines of
command within and between states. He defined the social relationship between forces and the elements of war (rationality, chance and violence).
Martin Shaw claims that contemporary warfare has completely evolved so that the "core of the new mode of warfare is a different general relationship
between war fighting and the political, economic, and cultural–ideological domains." (Nowaczynski, J. (2012, December). E–International Can

Terrorism And The International Humanitarian Law Essay
Put differently, the measures in which the US went about this issue is problematic as they acted outside the legality of international law. Jocknick and
Normand argue that the international humanitarian law cannot be used to "humanize war" and that they may impose states to create "effective
humanitarian limits on the conduct of wars" (Jochnick, 51). They also outline the importance of understanding the events of "past legal effort to
regulate war" in an attempt to reassure that mistakes are prevented and that outcomes in regards to protecting civilians can be better predicted (51).
Consequently, many nations were not relatively happy at the outcome of the war on terror and how the States handled the issue.
After the shocking September 11 attacks, the Bush administration decided to turn its focus on combating terrorism and wage a war on terror. This
ultimately led to intensifying border security. The Bush administration's response to the terrorist attacks were questionable as they used unethical
means to find retribution. The principle source for the attacks were identified in the following weeks. Consequently, the general American public
perception of a new enemy emerged following the 9/11 attacks. Muslims became the target of after it had been confirmed that US military intelligence
that the al Qaeda, a militant Islamic terrorist organization under the leadership of Osama Bin Laden were responsible for the attacks, Subsequently, the
Bush administration decided to invade

Just War Conditions
1A. The three conditions for a just war includes that war must be declared by proper authority, antagonist must be notified of the war declaration, and
the antagonists must be given the opportunity to make peace before war begins. These are the necessary conditions for jus ad bellum. When a just war
will begin, proper authorities must declare the war to the public. It must be a person of official purpose in the state, not a random citizen. The
antagonist must be notified of the war and not blind sided by war in any type of way. Lastly, the antagonist must be given the chance to make peace
before a war breaks out. In this sense, if there is a war breaking out then the protagonist is not allowed to deny any form of peacemaking before the war
... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Victoria explains that war can not be just on both sides. There has to be one side in which war is unjust. Victoria says that on one side where true
justice is the war, that is the side in which the war is just itself. Meanwhile, the other side is showing that war is just in the sense of being excused
from sin by reason of good faith. This means that invincible ignorance is the excuse. This differentiates the objective of guilt (justice) and
culpability because wars are acts in order to gain back the common good and the differentiation is when Victoria explains that one side is engaging
in war for true justice while the other is solely engaging because of invincible ignorance, the ignoring of evidence and engaging in war just to do so,
as an excuse. There are three canons that Victoria explains. The First Canon says that the Prince may have the authority to begin war and if he does,
he should proceed with peace among all men and that the only reason to go to war would be under compulsion and reluctance. The Second Canon
explains that when a war breaks out, the reason behind the war must only be to defend one's country and to gain one's rights. The Third Canon explains
that when there is victory in war and the war is over, the victory should exemplify Christian humility and moderation. The offending state individuals
should be chastised within lawful

Thomas Aquinas 'Morality Of War And Peace'
Margaret Christie 818326373 PHIL 340: Morality of War and Peace, 22732 Exam 1 1a)Aquinas' theories surrounding the conditions for a just war
evolved after the period of Saint Augustine, thereby drawing inspiration from his philosophies. In order for just war to be declared, Aquinas focused on
three specific circumstances that were derived from a central theme that human choice was the ultimate decider and buffer between right and wrong.
The first of these conditions that was required to be met was that the declaration of any type of war or conflict be made by those with the proper
authority to do so. This authority that Aquinas refers to is the head of state, a rule that stems from Roman tradition. Furthermore, the declaration of
combat must... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Aquinas outlines a few specific instances of just reason including the avengement of a wrong, or as punishment for a nation that refuses to pay
retribution for previous grievances. In addition to causes concerning avenging wrongs, Aquinas also describes how war may be just if it is declared
with the intent to reclaim that which was wrongfully taken (as in land or resources). Aquinas briefly alludes to personal defense violence, and touches
upon the idea that while it could theoretically be just, it is also possible for such defensive acts (even in war) to be overly violent, making it unjust.
Finally, as his last condition for just war, Aquinas delves into the intentions behind the war. If the war is undertaken by a nation state with mal intent,
whether or not it is declared by the proper authority and has just cause, then in Aquinas' philosophy, the war is not just. In order for the war to be just,
all three conditions must be met, meaning that the intention of war must be to advance good or to avoid evil. Aquinas goes on to state that is possible
for citizens to engage in just war against their own nation it such nation is found to be unjust. It is important to note that although Aquinas is credited
with these three conditions, he was not the first one to develop them, rather he was the first man to coherently put all of these conditions together and
link them to the philosophy of just

A Study On Admiralty Law And Maritime Law
UNIT 1: INTRODUCTION 1.1 ABOUT SUBJECT: Admiralty Law or Maritime Law is a distinct body of domestic laws that supervene upon the
maritime activities (like marine commerce, sailors' related aspects, marine navigation, marine shipping, marine salvaging and transportation of
passengers and goods by sea). It has also been governing questions and offenses related to maritime activities and other sub–heads. Broadly, it is a more
of a private international law related subject that governs the relationship between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. Keeping in view
the distinction with respect to the subject matters of Public and Private international law, it is mandatory to specify the distinction between The Law
of the Seas and The admiralty law and the chapters succeeding will be a great source to enlighten the same. 1.2 HISTORY: The series that started with
"The Law of Prize" as the governing Customary Law. Then came the 'the cannon shot ' rule that was developed by the Dutch Jurist (Cornelius van
Bynkershoek), which talked about the limited National Rights granted to a speciп¬Ѓed belt of water extending from a nation 's coastlines that was
usually 3 nautical miles (i.e., 5.6 km or Three–mile), it was so that all waters beyond national boundaries were considered international waters (i.e., free
to all nations but belonging to none of them). Later there emerged the conflict between Bourbon and Hapsbury which was settled in 1648 through the
peace of

Frederic Megret's Critical History Of The Laws Of War
By the late 1970's to early 1980's there was a general sense throughout the U.S. of its eventual decline. The Vietnam War a disaster and brought U.S.
morale to all time low, the oil crises made many realize the vulnerability of the U.S. For this reason, The United States significantly altered its
geopolitical approach within the Middle–East, no longer would it take for the granted the resilience of the Arab world. The U.S. returned to the same
tactics as the British and French did, conquer and divide. Frederic Megret's piece "From Savage to Unlawful combatant" notes that International law is
inherently Western centric, it is derived from Western common law traditions, and up until the 19th century was only really applied in its practical sense
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

Just War Conduct: An Analysis
Regan explains that just war theorists have developed two major ideologies to understand the just war conduct. First, the principle of discrimination
that just warriors may directly target people participating in the enemy nations wrongdoing but should not target other enemy nationals. "The enemy
nation's wrongdoing justifies the victim nation's use of military force will necessarily involve targeting enemy personal engaged in the wrongdoing
(Regan, pp 88)." The principle of discrimination requires military combatants to wage carefully the effects of their actions in general people. It is very
important notion that Regan explained about ordinary civilians because many conflict, civilians become a victim from both side. The principle of
discrimination

Should Terrorism Be Implemented?
The consideration of appropriate measures is always the topic of discussion, when it comes to terrorist attacks. Depending on the country's view
point on terrorist acts, the terrorist may be dealt with in a few different manors. These terrorist may be treated as POW'S (Prisoners of war), tried as
criminals, or a Hybrid. Hybrids consist of the lowest laws of POW'S and the country's criminal laws combined.As well as should torture be
implemented? Based on the recent events that have taken place in Paris, France, both Luban and Calhoun have different approaches on what to do
about this situation. To fully understand how to go about making a decision. The definition of terrorist means a person who usesterrorism in order to
gain political status. Terrorism is viewed by governments as a non political party therefore they don 't entertain them as one. Yet with the
introduction of (just war theory) are terrorist really terrorist? Just war Theory is a unspoken rule of war that the whole world has agreed on to
conduct war fairly. Just war Theory comes in four different steps, negation, sanction, threat, and lethal force. Stated by Laurie Calhoun, The first step
of Just war Theory can 't be acted upon by terrorist. Reason being is it would be morally reprehensible even to engage in discourse with terrorist,
basically meaning democratic nations don 't negotiate with them. The next step would be sanction which is the ratification of a law or action. This step
can 't be done based on

Just War Crimes
1. What is a Just War? When is it justifiable for nations to used organized violence against other nations or terrorist groups?
The central claim of just war theorists is that war is a bad thing, but under certain circumstances, it may be justified or even obligatory. They believe,
that there must be some constrains on the conduct of war. In other words, just war theory states, that the use of force must be regulated by a set of
mutually agreed rules of combat. Just war theory is built on principles of just cause and just means which were eventually developed into the laws of
war and that are enforced by military and civilian courts. Just cause refers to the possible justifications for going to war. Just means refers to the limits
of what ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Not witnessing the active public support of humanitarian action and domestic pressure, politicians choose to stay away from difficult political and
ethical dilemmas of foreign policy that could potentially damage their reputation. This is why humanitarian disasters are rarely being addressed and
prevented, in spite of tragic lessons of Holocaust and other humanitarian disasters.
4. What do you think are the causes of genocide?
Territorial states often consist of different cultural, ethnic, religious and racial groups. Conflicts between such groups, as well as conflicts between
such groups and the majority group, struggles for dominance or independence, real or perceived injustice could lead to genocide. Struggle for access
to limited economic resources could also lead to genocide. Rapid political changes, instability, systemic crises as well as wars also create conditions
under which genocides are more

Military Rules of Engagement and the Laws of War
Military Rules of Engagement (ROE) and the Laws of War A civilized society cannot function without rules, laws, and codes of proper conduct.
This statement may seem out of place in the context of warfighting; however, this is one place where it is most necessary. The fighters, who often
act at the behest of their home nation, must have a code of conduct which allows them to make the correct decision in a given situation in a combat
zone. Rules of Engagement fill this gap for the national militaries of the civilized world and serve as a soldier's code of conduct in the field. Similar
to Rules of Engagement (ROE) are the Laws of War . The Laws of War were established as an international agreement. This agreement attempted to
curtail the destruction caused by global conflicts such as the two world wars fought during the twentieth century. The laws of war fall under the
Geneva conventions as well. Each of set of rules can be used as a foundation to create rules of engagement for a particular mission. It is also important
to align rules of engagement with the uniform code of military justice. This code, referred to as the UCMJ, is used as legal framework for the United
States Military.
Definition
Rules of Engagement for the military, as defined by Encyclopedia Britannica, are:
Military directives meant to describe the circumstances under which ground, naval, and air forces will enter into and continue combat with opposing
forces. Formally, rules of engagement refer to the

The Adoption Of Geneva Conventions
Introduction
Wars have been always a menace and a threat to humanity. Throughout of the ages, the noble spirited and peace loving people have tried to bring an
end to the hostility and conflicts among human beings. The adoption of Geneva Conventions in 1949 was seen as a significant break though in this
regard and it was hoped that human sufferings resulting from armed conflicts will be minimized to a considerable extent if not eliminated completely.
Even after the passage of about eight decades of the adoption of Geneva Conventions, this dream is still far from realization. During all these years we
saw different nations interpreting and using the rules of Geneva Conventions in different ways suiting their interest.
This differing practice on the part of different nations did a lot of harm to the common cause of protecting the life and well being of human beings.
A major divergence from Geneva Convention rules has been seen post 9/11. The 9/11 incidents and subsequent "war on terror" gave rise to a
completely new form of armed conflict which resulted in new legal challenges. As this war on terror is a non–traditional war which was almost
unfamiliar by the times when Geneva Conventions were framed so, most of the rules of Geneva Conventions were focused on international armed
conflicts. Traditionally, we witnessed armed conflicts in which states stood against other states but in recent decades, especially after the dawn of 21st
century, these armed conflicts have become

International Law is Divided into Private and Public
The term of 'International law' first used by Jeremy Bentham in his Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation, later Hugo Grotius who is
a one of the prominent intellectual figure in Europe lead to concept of the modern framework for international law. According the United Nations,
international law is defined as 'the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State
boundaries.' In addition to the U.N. definition, along with the States non–governmental organizations (NGO) and individuals go on to became a
subordinate subject of international law, too. International law divided into two parts as private international law and public international; however,
general usage of the international law refers to public international law. Through my Fulbright independent research project, I hope to deepen and
strengthen knowledge on International law and then especially I would like to specialize academic studies in international humanitarian law (IHL). The
range of subjects and actors directly concerned with international law has widened considerably and the realm of international law encompasses various
fields such as human rights, international crime, refugees, migration, problems of nationality, the treatment of prisoners, the use of force, and the law of
war environment, trade and economic issues, air and space law. To extent an international humanitarian law (IHL) which is also known as law of

Leaving The Land Of Two Holy Places Analysis
The laws of war consist of specific guidelines that should be followed before declaring a war. These laws consist of five rules to follow by; Just
cause which is another way of saying self defense, Pro proportionality which means even if you have a cause you should not go to war if the outcomes
are worse than what you set out to accomplish, non– combatant immunity is the rule that we should not fight against unarmed and harmless civilians,
treatment for prisoners and last but not least the against extrajudicial assassination is a motion to bring trial. According to all these rules we should
never have a reason for an unjust war. That was not the case for America. Where do we have to draw the line? When do we accept terrorism and not
defend... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Certain people think of him in Saudi Arabia they associate him as an activist. Bin Laden justifies his actions through the pursuit of his "Holy War
Against Americans". Before reading his article Declaration of War Against the Americans Occupying the Land of Two Holy Places: Expel the
Polytheists From the Arabian Peninsula, I did not know what Laden's issue with America was. So let me start off by saying I cannot justify what he
did but I can understand his claim. The Declaration of Jihad on the Americans Occupying the Country of the Two Sacred Places started in August
1996. When Osama bin Laden's first call for Jihad against the United States took place, He first started off by saying that the leader in charge of
Saudi Arabia need to be taken away for letting the Americans in. He is angry at the higher powers for giving America and Israel the power to invade
their land. In addition he blames them for the power that they gave to the intruders. He then addresses the entire Muslim world, urging the believers to
respond to non–Muslim aggression against believers by waging Jihad which means holy war in defense of their

A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a...
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a
war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A
war crime is defined as a "violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war" ("War Crimes"), and are attacks "against civilian populations,
prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field" (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel,
devastating military methods and are "...Committed primarily by military personnel" (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can
Specific war crimes such as murder can be "individually and collectively...Some trials involved the murder of one or a few victims; others involved
the murder of hundreds or thousands" ("War Crimes"). For example, in World War II, the crime of murder was very common against allied prisoners
who "...were murdered before reaching a prisoner–of–war camp, allegedly while trying to escape" ("War Crimes"). Medical experiments are war crime
crimes which are "...conducted on prisoners of war and on civilians...to determine remedies for diseases...others, such as those involving castration,
sterilization, and excessive use of X–rays, do not appear to have had any specific purpose" ("War Crimes"). Furthermore, crimes against civilian
populations include crimes of deportation and forced labor, where thousands of people were deported from "the occupied countries of Europe in order
to fill the manpower shortages created by a burgeoning war industry...hundreds of thousands of individuals died of overwork, insufficient food, and
inadequate living and working conditions..." ("War Crimes"). Other crimes against war prisoners include torture and humane treatment, which was a
"...national policy for both Nazi Germany and Japan [in World War II]" ("War Crimes"). Furthermore, in the Korean War death marches were "a
characteristic of North Korean maltreatment of prisoners of war" ("War

Military Necessity: Article Analysis
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 Warin 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 theUnited Nations Charter ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Jocknick and Normand argue that the IHL cannot be used to "humanize war" and that they may impose states to create "effective humanitarian limits
on the conduct of wars." They also outline the importance of understanding the events of "past legal effort to regulate war" in an attempt to reassure
that mistakes are prevented and that outcomes in regards to protecting civilians can be better predicted. However, this is not always the case with
international humanitarian laws. Today, the Geneva Conventions remain to be an important doctrine of the body of International Humanitarian law as
it contains the rules that protect people who are not a part of the armed conflict. The Geneva Conventions did not change after the article Theodor
Meron published. However, I believe that the Geneva Conventions should take some of his ideas about international law into

To What Extent Should We Be Responsible For Wartime Actions
NUREMBERG: THE MOVIE I believe that individuals, and not just states, should be responsible for wartime actions. People frequently tend to mark
individuals together under the same category, although that is not the situation generally. During World War II, the rest of the world believed that all
individuals of German descent were liable, however not all Germans were involved in this case. There were numerous Germans who really restricted
Hitler and helped the Jews, while others just stayed unbiased. This concludes that it is not a good idea for them to face charges for something they
didn't commit. The three charges laid against the defendants by the prosecutor were: crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crimes against peace....
Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This includes " murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during
the war."In this situation, the people that appeared in court, attempted to wipe out the whole Jewish descent. These people used various tactics, which
included sending the Jewish people to concentration camps. These concentration camps enslaved the people to do the work and were eventually
killed by several methods. War crimes are "an action carried out during the conduct of a war that violates accepted international rules of war." In
World War II, the German troops had carried out a majority of these illegal activities. Germany was responsible for destruction, and attacking several
nations. "Torture and death within concentration camps were common. 11 million people were killed during the Holocaust." "A crimes against peace,
in international law, is planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of wars of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or
assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing." In World War II, most Germans had
carried out these

The Law Enforcement Operations Model
As discussed in the next section, some critics of these types of responses to transnational terrorism argue that a law enforcement operations model
should be applied rather than the law of armed conflict because of the nature of the operations that are involved. For instance, Kels notes that human
rights advocates "insist upon a legal geography of war, whereby states must apply a law enforcement (rather than armed conflict) model to any
hostilities conducted outside of universally recognized hot battlefields like Afghanistan" (B3). This approach, however, ignores the realities of military
operations on the ground and consequences of using a law enforcement operations model rather than the law of armed conflict to control these efforts
(Kels B3). As Kels points out, "Holding a drone operator, fighter pilot or sailor directing ordnance at an overseas terrorist hideout to the same
detain–first, shoot–last standards as a Metro police officer would negate the very purpose of the weapons system, which is precisely the goal of some
activists" (B3). Indeed, rather than improving America's opportunities to apply FSW to eliminate threats emanating from other countries that are unable
or unwilling to stop them, these arguments only add further fuel to the anti–drone rhetoric in ways that may even encourage additional terrorist
incursions from abroad.
Law Enforcement Operations (LEO) Law is both a context for the application of power and at the same time, an instrument of power. Rule

The impact of world war one on the homefront
The First World War impacted significantly on the homefronts of the participating nations in many different social, political and economic areas. There
was a widespread restructuring of primary industry with a large orientation towards militarism. There was massive political change where new systems
of power were introduced that gave governments a range of new powers including the control over industry. The civilian population had severe
restrictions placed upon their rights and liberties due to the necessities that total war required.
The scale of the war forced all sectors of society to change and adapt to the growing scale of the war. In 1914 the British government believed that the
war would be a brief one and as a result there was ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
This was not helped by the lack of attention paid to agriculture by the German government and the destroyed crops of 1915–1916. Mortality rates for
children rose along with those of adults and elderly citizens. This starvation and poor living conditions led to the general disdain for the war but due to
the terrible losses and casualties already suffered it was thought that only victory would suffice to somewhat offset these hardships.
Despite the massive arms stockpile that had been amassed by both sides of the conflict both sides ran short and had to drastically increase their
workforce and number of hours that they worked. In Britain this was achieved by the formation of a three party coalition that has elements
working to find solutions to this problem. The shortage of workers was largely due to the lack of men in the workforce as they were almost all
enlisted in the army as soldiers. The deficit grew as the war went on when more and more men were conscripted and enlisted. A new workforce was
needed to work in the jobs that they filled. Female workers largely filled a massive amount of these positions with a smaller number of prisoners of
war doing farming work. For the first time women worked in large numbers in industrial factories, producing weapons and munitions for the men on the
front lines. They often worked in difficult and dangerous conditions

Essay on The Just War Doctrine
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.
The just war doctrine was written to define a justification for wars. Ultimately, the legality of wars is laid out by the ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
A morally just war must be waged for the purpose of responding to aggression, and the initial purpose must be just.
Jus ad bellum refers to the situation in which a war is permissible. The reason for going to war must be just and cannot be simply to take back what
once belonged to a state. The damage from threat must be shown, whether this be actions of the aggressors already made, or just by verbal threat.
Force may only be used for a truly just purpose. Weapons and arms are only suggested if it will create success for the state at war. (More modernly it
seems that war is fought in self–defense, and this seems to be defined now as a just war.) After a war has been inflicted, the concepts to be followed
have been defined under jus in bello, or the way war is carried out. Non–combatants may not be harmed in a just war, and hence bombing of innocent
civilians is unjust. As previously stated, one way to ensure a winning could include the use of arms; however, it may be in a state's self interest to
keep the use of arms at a minimum in order to minimize destruction. These ideals are all based on norms, and law is usually enforced and created from
tradition (Goldstein, 255).
In today's age, the just war theory may be beneficial for a state to follow these norms. For example, in the current war between the United States and
Iraq, our initial intentions were just. Our initial intentions–as told to the American

Analysis Of The Bridge On The River Kwai
The Bridge on the River Kwai: A Modern Defiance
Introduction
While the entire world looked on at the American Civil war, both military and civilian institutions started to realize the importance of a code of ethical
treatment for soldiers on the battlefield. In 1864, the Red Cross in association with the international community created the Convention for the
Amelioration of the Wounded in Time of War (Shaw, 2013). This document laid out ethical guidelines for the treatment of combatants and became the
basis for the Geneva Conventions as we know them today. During the tumultuous events of World War I, the ethical limits of warfare were pushed
and expanded in a variety of ways. Shortly thereafter, the third Geneva convention met in 1929 and produced a range of wide sweeping reforms, most
notably expanding the rights of prisoners of war (Shaw, 2013).
During World War II the nature of the war bent the ethical views of many, and the film "The Bridge on the River Kwai" depicts a fictional account of
a British regular army unit that braved a Japanese POW camp (Spiegel, 1957). The camp director, Colonel Saito, refuses to abide by the commonlaws
of war and tortures the British commanding officer, Colonel Nicholson, to try and force him to subject to inhumane treatment. Colonel Nicholson
refuses to allow himself or his officers to be treated illegally and eventually forces the camp to respect both himself and his Soldiers. If placed in the
same situation, an officer should do

The Role Of Law And Order In The Thirty Years War
Peter Hagendorf was a German mercenary for several armies during the Thirty Years' War. The remnants of his diary chronicle his experiences during
the conflict. The diary is linear in form and records events he encountered from 1629 to 1649. His military career enabled him to travel extensively
throughout Europe witnessing skirmishes in several countries such as Belgium, France, Germany, and Poland. Peter Hagendorf's diary and
documentation of his numerous exploits is a useful primary source to review the role of law and order in the Thirty Years'War. His diary reports many
acts of lawless behaviour from soldiers and citizens and the crimes they committed such as theft, extortion, arson, terrorism, and implied sexual
violence. Throughout the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
One passage from Hagendorf's log records the execution of seven soldiers in the Swedish army by their own commander . Hagendorf states that the
commander lured the seven soldiers to accompany him to soldiers that temporarily abandoned the regiment where he shot all seven of them to remind
people of the consequences of disobeying commands. There are no legally justifiable reasons for these killings as the soldiers murdered were innocent
of any wrongdoing. This event highlights the abandonment of law and order within the military as seven innocent soldiers were murdered simply to
send a message that anything perceived as insubordination will be punishable by death. Hagendorf does not express outrage or sympathy and instead
sarcastically remarks upon the murders as ''their escort payment'' . Hagendorf casually recalls taking part in another war crime; the incineration of a
castle on the French border with seven resisting peasants left to die inside . In sequence to this crime is the destruction of a nearby village, which per
Hagendorf consisted of around one thousand settlers . The diary informs that an imperial and Bavarian force of two thousand and five hundred strong
were met with resistance from the villagers and were resigned to bombarding the settlement with cannon fire before abandoning the village as it burned
. Hagendorf fails to clarify whether the

Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror Essay
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror
POL 201
April 15, 2013
Civil Liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror
Civil liberties, Habeas Corpus, and the War on Terror have been the forefront of Congress since 2001 with the terrorist
attack against The United States. Although there have been many attacks before, none have hit the American people in
such a manner to question whether our civil liberties are at stake. As a member of the Armed Forces I swore to support
and defend the constitution of the United States against all enemies both foreign and domestic at all cost. A sense of
pride, loyalty and commitment engulfs me when I hear the words for equal justice and liberty for all when it comes to ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
President Bush's action drew severe
criticism, mainly for the law's failure to specifically designate who in the United States will
determine who is and who is not an enemy combatant. This however was not the first time in the
history of the U.S. Constitution that it's guaranteed right to Habeas Corpus has been suspended
by an action of the President of the United States. In earlier years of the U.S. Civil War,
President Abraham Lincoln suspended writs of habeas corpus. Both presidents based their action

on the dangers of war, and both presidents faced sharp criticism for carrying out what many
believed to be an attack on the Constitution. President Bush suspended writs of habeas corpus
through his support and signed into law the Military Commissions Act of 2006. This bill granted
the President of the United States almost unlimited authority in establishing and conducting
military commissions to try persons held by the U.S. in the Global War on Terrorism. In addition,
the Act suspends the right of "unlawful enemy combatants" to present, or to have presented in
their behalf, writs of habeas corpus. "Members of volunteer corps, militias, and organized resistance forces that are not part of
the Armed Forces are entitled to POW status if they meet the criteria specified in the treaty.
Groups that do not meet the standards are not entitled to POW status, and their members who
commit

Constitutional Law
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld
Issue
When a U.S. citizen is labeled as an enemy combatant, is he entitled to the constitutional protections of due process?
Holding and Reasoning(O'Connor, J.)
Yes. A U.S. citizen accused of being an enemy combatant must be afforded an opportunity to be heard by a neutral decision maker. The Fourteenth
Amendment of the Constitution guarantees the right to due process under the law. Furthermore, absent suspension, all persons detained in the United
States have the right to habeas corpus. This means that an individual accused of criminal activity cannot be detained indefinitely, with no trial, no
counsel, and no ability to petition for freedom if he is wrongfully imprisoned. In the case of a citizen, like Hamdi, who is ... Show more content on
Helpwriting.net ...
United States started during World War II, when President Roosevelt passed Executive Order 9066 to command the placement of Japanese residents
and Japanese citizens who were staying or located in the United States into special facilities where they were excluded from the general population.
Isolating people from the general population for no good reason is a direct violation of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution. To defend
this aggressive action, President Roosevelt explained that the order was passed to prevent internal damages or sabotage that may have been caused
by individuals who supported Japan. Roosevelt separated Japanese people because he didn't want them banning together in a time of war. Japan was
a primary enemy of the United States during this time; Roosevelt believed that separation was the best way to contain an uprising. The case of
Korematsu v. United States deals with military law. This aspect of law is a legal field within Federal Law, which addresses the activity and behavior
of military personnel, including issues of treason, war crimes and criminal offenses directed towards military personnel. Korematsu stood up against
the forced imprisonment of Japanese people because the government did not differentiate between Japanese extremists or American citizens who
happened to be of Japanese descent. Korematsu was one of these American citizens who was forcefully removed from his home and his everyday life
and taken to a prison

Advanced Military Technologies
21st century technologies have forever altered the military landscape. Due to the changing landscape, questions have arisen regarding the legality and
ethics of the use of such technologies. Advanced military technologies such as directed energy weapons, autonomous vehicles and robots, and cyber
weapons seem to seem to fall into categories of weapons not yet created or restricted, challenging the long established international humanitarian laws.
(Allenby) Technology changes more rapidly than we might expect. In the 65 years since theGeneva Conventions was written, military technologies
have changed drastically. Technologies of today's battlefields might be able to slip though loopholes in the international humanitarian laws, making
them and their users safe from prosecution of war crimes. Although modern military technologies such as directed energy weapons and autonomous
vehicles can be dangerous if not regulated, are essential to the United States we are to remain militarily superior. The international humanitarian laws
need to be updated in order to restrain new technologies, protect civilians, eliminate extra–judicial killings, and finally maintain legal, ethical and moral
principles. (Allenby)
The laws of war are often placed into three distinct categories. The first provides rules and laws regarding when and how countries can initiate war. A
country can initiate war in defense or to help an ally who was been attacked. (Allenby) In 2003, the Bush administration was

Immanuel Kant's Uninable Peace
In 1795, Immanuel Kant a German philosopher wrote an essay titled 'perpetual peace: a philosophical sketch' where he lays down rubrics that define
the general nature of states as political entities and how state structures and external policies should be reformed to ensure lasting peace. Over a
century later, the proposal he made in this essay have been linked to traits and theories in modern day society like the democratic peace theory that
states that democratic nations don't fight one another, and the cosmopolitan theory which is used to explain the unprecedented rise in regional
organizations. So far, the EU is considered as the most successful regional organization that has managed to achieve peace and cooperation even
amongst countries ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
The first definitive article states that "the civil constitution of every state shall be republican" (Kant, 1795). However, while questioning whether only
republican constitutions can bring about peace, he reasoned that since power will be constituted in the people, they would least likely to resort to war
than if it were an authoritarian regime. While noting that with this explanation, the citizens who hold power can be described as despotic, Christian
Covell in his book on 'the law of nations in political thought' noted that Kant indicated that international peace is dependent on the transformation of
domestic policies. He further linked this proposal to just war theory especially in relation to jus ad bellum' because Kant acknowledged that states
need some sort of authorization to go to war. He stated that "the form of constitution is presented as a decisive factor in determining if the lawful
authority of states to wage war would ever be exercised" (Covell, 2009). Still, Lars–Erik Cederman in his article on 'modelling democratic peace as a
Kantian selection process', noted that this proposal was flawed in the sense that the spread of norms that bring progress don't have to stop at
democratic borders. According to Cederman, once the spread of progress begins, "the rule of law creeps into interstate, or more precisely
inter–democratic,

What Are The Rules Of Ju In Bello
Jus in Bello The rules of jus in bello (or justice in war) serve as guidelines for fighting well once war has begun. Some maintain that morality does
not exist in warfare, and therefore object to just war theory. War is hell, the argument goes, and one is entitled to do whatever is necessary to ensure
victory for one's own side. Just war theory, on the other hand, sets forth a moral framework for warfare and rejects the notion that "anything goes"
during times of war. Belligerent armies are entitled to try to win, but they cannot do anything that is, or seems, necessary to achieve victory. There are
restraints on the extent of harm, if any, that can be done to noncombatants, and restraints on the weapons of war. These restraints aim to limit war once
it has begun. 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 ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
In weapons of mass destruction, the just war theory is an important deterrent to ensure that proportionate action is taken during war. It is important
to have some rules for war than none at all because guidelines such as the just war theory make war more humane and can set the foundation for
international law, like the Geneva Convention. The rules also have a psychological benefit as well; one side will want to keep to the rules so that the
other side does as well. To prove that the just war condition works there would have to be wars that would have been just, like the Falklands war, this
shows us that it can work in

Morality Of War And Peace
Kirsten Young
ID#: 817086784
Phil 340
Morality of War and Peace
Exam #1
For Aquinas, there are three conditions for Just War. The first is that the war must be declared by authority of a head of state or a proper authority.
The requirement for a war to be declared comes from the Roman law. There is no specific time limit between hostile activities and the declaration, but
the act of declaring war does invite the second party to the pending hostilities for the opportunity to offer redress in lieu of war. An aggrieving
nation must have refused to render the satisfaction to proceed with a just war. War is not a last resort, but the cause of war cannot be considered just
unless the aggrieved party has first tendered the opportunity for a peaceful settlement and been refused. War becomes a means of sanction for some
injury received in those cases where there is no alternative means seeking redress. The second of Aquinas ' conditions for a just war is for a
proportionally good reason or just cause. If one can seek redress from some higher authority, then one is not justified in resorting to violence. Aquinas
states that the natural order conducive to peace among mortals demands that the power to declare and counsel war should be in the hands of those who
hold the supreme authority. States have no common weal against internal disturbances, meaning that it is their business to have recourses to the sword
of war in defending the common weal against external enemies. Lastly,

Declaration For War In 1917 Essay
Declaration for War in 1917
Welcome fellow Senators. We are here today to discuss what the United States should do following Germany's announcement of unrestricted submarine
warfare and the sinking of the three American merchant ships. A resolution is put forth in front of the senators. The first section of the resolution says
that: The U.S. Government authorizes President Wilson to use the Armed Forces of the Unit6ed States to wage war against the Nation of Germany.
The second section says that: The U.S. Congress supports the president's request for a declaration of war against the Nation of Germany. I fully agree
with this resolution 100%. I agree with war against Germany, as I have said ever since the ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Now, I ask you fellow Senators, when is enough? I have many good reasons for wanting to go to war against Germany, which are somewhat
different than the reasons of the President. It's hard to put these reasons in order of significance since they are all significant in the same, but one of
my main reasons for wanting to go to war is national pride. Germany had violated the rights of United States citizens. They had restricted us from
traveling across the high seas without being in danger. They had slapped us in the face by killing innocent citizens of a neutral nation. I had used
this example in my other speech but I think it is appropriate in this one as well. When the Germans had attacked us as a neutral nation, it was like
being slapped in the face. If you get slapped in the face, you are not going to just let it slide. You are going to do something about it. I think the United
States should do something about the killing of innocent citizens of a neutral nation by Germans.
The Germans had violated international law plenty of times. When they did it the first time, we gave them another chance by sending them demands.
When they did it a second time, we gave them yet another chance by threatening to break diplomatic ties with them and they then did it a third time.
The third time, we gave them another chance by breaking

Arguments Against ISIS Targeted Killings
In regards to fighting this type of barbaric activities, it is important that the military understands the Law of Armed Conflict when it comes to targeting
ISIS in reagrds to international law. It is clear that ISIS fighters do qualify as lawful targets under the LOAC. However, it is not clear what to do with
the many potential noncombatants who engage in combat activities that support ISIS. Understanding LOAC and how it applies to targeting is
important due to ISIS's unique status. Unlike many transnational armed groups, ISIS has taken advantage of regional turmoil to carve out its own
territory and establish a self–proclaimed caliphate. After establishing a base of operations in Ar Raqqah in eastern Syria, ISIS launched a massive
campaign... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
has acted morally in the fight against ISIS despite critiques from many in the international community. As stated, this paper pointed out the out
history of humanitarian and international law in regards to war. The war must be just with little collateral damage/civilian losses. LOAC must be
followed even when conducting a war against an enemy, even if that enemy is not a state. Many want to argue that the war on ISIS is immoral
because of the practice of what many calls targeted killings. It's implied that the killings are illegal and a death sentence against suspects that
cannot defend themselves in a court of law. One way in which the use of targeted killing might be justified is as an enforcement of the Human
Right to Life against personal threats. In the case of ISIS, the innocent persons who might be regarded as claimants on this rightful use of defensive
force fall into a variety of categories: Iraqis and Syrians, Shia, Yazidis, and Kurds, Sunnis subjected to the violent rule of the ISIS 'caliphate,' and
Europeans, Americans, and any other citizens globally whom ISIS might threaten (Finley, C.,2016). Without the fight of ISIS on its own turf with the
use of targeted air strikes, the possibility of the group growing to take over land much like Nazi Germany did in Europe is too great to the freedoms
of the world. That is the necessity needed to conduct the war on ISIS, and it

Examples Of Justify The Declaration Of War
Can a nation justify a war if it results in death? Over thousands of years, many wars resulted in millions of deaths. War killed civilians for the sake
of land, money, and resources, however lives have also been saved because of a country protecting the innocent. Winston Churchill once bravely told
the people of England, "We shall defend our island, whatever the cost may be, we shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we
shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender." Can war be Justifiable for self–defense? A country can
justify the declaration of war when a country must defend oneself or others, and when a country government is forced to obey an alien country. ... Show
more content on Helpwriting.net ...
For instance, Japan bombed America during World War Two, America responded by declaring war on Japan. America declared war because they knew
they if they did not retaliate they would repeat another unexpected attack, which results in the deaths of more innocent lives. Also America passed laws
declaring to remain neutral until Japan bombed them. Another example of a nation attacking an innocent nation during September eleventh two
thousand and one a Al–Queda attacked America unexpectedly crashing planes into the world trade centers and other building across the country which
resulted in over three thousand deaths. At the moment America was determined to not to seem vulnerable. George W. Bush in response to the terrorist
spoke declaring, "I can hear you! The rest of the world hears you! And the people– the people who knocked these buildings down will hear all of us
soon." If a nation attacks a nation not in war that country, who was attacked, can rightly justify military

Aquinas Double Effect
Elyde Vargas
RED ID: 817482127
PHIL 340
EXAM #1
1. A. According to Aquinas the 3 conditions for just war are: proper authority, a just cause, and a right intention. The first condition, proper authority,
specifies that a war in order to be just must be declared by the authority of the head of a state. A declaration ofwar gives the opposite nation the
opportunity to reconsider things and resolve the issue in a peaceful way. Only if the highest authority rejects or deny this opportunity a war is consider
just.
The second condition is a just cause, which means that a war must be declared for a proportionally good reason. Basically, if a nation that is effecting
justice through violence, the harm must not exceed the injustices from the other ... Show more content on Helpwriting.net ...
Furthermore, Vitoria supports his argument by using Aquinas' doctrine of double effect by applying its conditions to the Spanish Conquest. He stated
that no greater evils result from the unintended bad effect or the killing of innocents. If such unintended bad effect is deliberately not proportional to
the "good effect," the war is automatically not just. Furthermore, there should be no other alternatives available. He also emphasized that; all three
conditions must be present in order to be able to justify the killing of the innocent. Victoria did a immense contribution to the jus war tradition by
pointing out the role of the "innocents" on wars. He prohibits the slaughtering of people who are not directly participating in war (innocents), which
include women, children, farmers, foreign traveler, clerics and religious persons, as well as "the rest of the peaceable population."
C. Vitoria stated that it is impossible that a war can't be just on both sides. He explains that war is use to defeat the enemy or the guilty, hence, this
exclude the innocent. It is unlawful to punish the innocent because of the wrongdoing of the guilty, nevertheless, this rule does not apply among
enemies, cause otherwise, a war could be just on both sides. This gives the opportunity to the innocents to defense themselves because of natural

The Influence Of The Nuremberg Trial On International...

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

More from Kristin Reyes

More from Kristin Reyes (9)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

The Influence Of The Nuremberg Trial On International...