The Moral and Legal Obligations of Battlefield Neutrality
“If a body of enemy troops is repulsed, give to the wounded the same care as you would give your own men; treat them all the forbearance due to the one who is stricken…After the battle, restrain the fury of your troops; spare the vanquished…People should say of you: they fought courageously when they had to, but remained generous and humane throughout.” –General Guillaume Henri Dufour (Moorehead, 1998)
No truer words have ever been spoken by a General to his men before battle. General Dufour not only understood the nature of war but also that of being humane. The General agreed with Henri Dunant, the founder of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that certain basic rules should be in place to protect all sides in conflict. This argument is based on the idea that certain human rights should always be protected; that even in the worst of conflicts a sliver of hope should prevail. To distribute this hope evenly on the battlefield, there must be an organization to provide this aid impartially. For an organization to be truly neutral, it is never an easy path. Said organization will continually be pulled in all directions in a conflict by the interests of all sides. An impartial organization must answer the question of how to render aid, protect basic human rights, and yet not to become part of the conflict. Perhaps the answer to that very question is this: For the Red Cross to truly maintain battlefield neutrality they must offer training, medical aid, and support to friendly combatants, enemy combatants, and people on the battlefield who are not connected to either side. Some would argue that providing aid to each side would cause the conflict to b...
... middle of paper ...
...ccordance with international law, it is demonstrative of treating others as you wish to be treated.
References
Anderson, M. B. (1999). Do no harm: How aid can support peace—or war. London, England: Lynne Rienner Publishers
Barnett, M., Weiss, T.G. (Ed.). (2008). Humanitarianism in question: Politics, power, ethics. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press.
Foot, R. (2010, May 26). Red Cross aid to Taliban reflects moral dilemma of Afghan war. Canwest News Service. Retrieved from http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=3076804
Geneva Conventions III. (1949). Article 3 & 4.
Jordans, F. (2010, May 26). Red Cross defends first aid kits for Taliban. Time Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.time.com.
Moorehead, C. (1998). Dunant’s Dream: War, Switzerland, and the history of the Red Cross. London, England: Harper Collins.
"Peacekeeping and Peacemaking." Reading and Remembrance . N.p., n.d. Web. 12 Jan. 2014. . (tags: none | edit tags)
Wheeler, Nicholas J. ‘Pluralist or Solidarist Conceptions of International Society: Bull and Vincent on Humanitarian Intervention’, Millennium: Journal of International Studies 21,3 (1992)
... that of a ‘competing obligations dilemma.’ Faced with a wounded insurgent, who was ’98 per cent dead,’ the decision to shoot him at point blank range and ‘put him out of his misery’ caused confliction among the ethical obligations of Capt. Semrau. The obligations in conflict were integrity, loyalty and responsibility. Each of the obligations that are used to guide Canadian Forces personnel could easily have been applied to the ‘soldier’s pact.’ In Capt. Semrau’s mind he had rationalized that he was morally justified in shooting the insurgent as he ended the misery of the Taliban guerrilla and hoped someone would do the same for him if the roles were reversed. Regardless of how he interpreted his ethical obligations, his use of them contravened the overriding authority of Principle I of the ethical principles which is entitled ‘Respect the dignity of all persons.’
part in official argument about war" (Walzer XI). He proceeds to discuss in a greater
...ture of Peacekeeping Operations: Fighting Political Fatigue and Overstretch . European Journal of International Law, 1(3), 1-14.
Renee C.Fox’s novel Doctors Without Borders: Humanitarian Quests, Impossible Dreams of Medecins Sans Frontieres is a sociological exploration of the French medical humanitarian organization Médecins Sans Frontières (MSF). MSF provides international assistance to those affected by war, disease, and natural disaster while adhering to their core principles of neutrality, impartiality, and independence. Fox begins by showcasing MSF staff blogs that give insight to the reader into why people join MSF, their experiences, and their emotions while serving in a foreign country. She then discusses the moral and medical dilemma that arises when humanitarian action conflicts with political and military power. Fox gives us in depth reports of past field
The first aspect is reciprocity, which describes how one country will not violate another country in fear of the consequences that the action would bring. It is based on the simple statement: you comply, I comply. (Hillebrecht 2017) International regime also play a huge role in reciprocity. According to Professor Hilbrecht, “Krasner (1983): International regimes are a “set of rules, norms and procedures around which the expectations of actors converge in a certain issue area.” There is the fear that what you do today could affect you negatively tomorrow. Other institutions such as the United Nations (UN) also have a set of rules that each country that is a member is required to follow to avoid conflicts with all the other
For most of the world’s conflicts until the presence of violent non-state actors, clashes have occurred between large state entities. The wars and skirmishes consisted between the two states with a separate armed forces contingency battling each other on a set stage with defined ethical and political motives. This black and white model of violent conflict resolution became the standard for a long stretch of time and was agreed upon by all state actors. One of the reasons that Coker discusses for the advantageous nature of the set battlefield and soldiers includes the preservation of humanity for the civilian population and the soldiers. The mutual agreement of ethical boundaries even in war protect those not taking up arms and helps to maintain decency when regarding prisoners of...
Many people in the world wonder why the United States spends so much money on its military force, defending allies, and countering terrorism. The United States foreign aid, and its policies regarding the defense of other countries have always been in place, but few truly realize what would happen if the United States withdrew its help from other countries. The economy of the entire world would collapse. Russia and China would immediately assert themselves over Asia, causing further instability in the Middle East. Simply put, the first act of foreign aid by the United States to another country can be viewed as a trap. The United States wanted to save the ideal of democracy and keep the peace but, in doing so, couldn’t return to the way it was
...? The Moral and Political Issue. By David Cartwright, October 1995: http://www.sanctionsandsecurity.org/wp-content/uploads/humanitarian_sanctions_.pdf (accessed 18 March 2012).
When people read about foreign aid they immediately think of food and water. However foreign aid involves one nation giving resources to another nation that is struggling. Based on the country’s situation the aid can be financial, military, or simply food. The problem is there have been several of unsolved issues with these nations receiving their aid. Several of events has happened where our donations or the money the government gives have been misused or stolen.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by man. There are many reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party, war is the last remaining option. Muslim historian Ibn Khaldun wrote in fourteenth-century Spain, that “War is a universal and inevitable aspect of life, ordained by God to the same extent as the sky and the earth, the heat and the cold. The question of whether to fright is not a significant moral question because fighting is constant; the minor decision not to fight this war will be made only in the context of knowing that another war will present itself soon enough because it is simply always there.” (Peter S. Themes. The Just War)
...on preservation of human lives, in particular the civilian population. Due to the tendency which has outlined since Napoleonic wars of the increasing involvement of the civilian population in military operations relevance of the principles of fair war steadily increases; creation of weapons of mass destruction in particular increases value of fair war. Though the idea of fair war has centuries-old history and its principles are fixed in a number of the international documents accepted after the II world war, ethical reliability of the principles of fair war for ordinary people is unevident especially as in one war they completely weren't executed. The moral and legal sense of fair war consists that they allow to rationalize standard restrictions of military actions and to formulate accurate criteria of a moral and legal assessment of such immoral phenomenon, as war.
Soldiers have the moral right to kill other soldiers in wartime regardless of whether their cause is just. One reason is that soldiers are allowed to act in self-defense. Another reason is that peacetime morality is suspended in wartime: war makes things distinctive and what was once morally impermissible gets to be admissible, even celebrated. These and other broadly held, revered perspectives are shattered. There are morals when it comes to justified and unjustified killing of another person within the context of military action.
War has always been, and will always be, a necessary action perpetrated by the human race. There are many different reasons for war: rage, passion, greed, defense, and religion to name a few. When differences cannot be solved or compromised through mediation with an opposing party and anger burns with a fiery passion, war is the last remaining option. Obviously, the purpose of any war is to win. How are wars won? Perhaps if we were to ask a member of the Defense Department during the early stages of the war in Iraq, his answer might be, “To win this war we must force the enemy into submission by means of ethical warfare.” If we were to ask a marine in the Second World War what he was told by his commanding officer he would reply, “To close with the enemy and destroy him.” (Fussell, 763).