War and Criminal Justice

analytical Essay
1793 words
1793 words


Since time immemorial, man has always lived in perpetual fear of his enemies. To ensure a secure environment or reach a desired goal conflicts in diverse forms have been the order of the day in suppressing objects that impede the desired goal. However, among other needs and wants for man, security has been a foremost requirement. Enemy objects take various forms. This can be man against man which has been the basis of both old and new wars. Many reasons have sparked war between man and his fellow man. Men may wage war because of a scramble for a resource such as water, minerals, and a range of others. Other reasons for war may be a scramble for land, national sovereignty, religious differences, ideological differences, and race to mention just a few. These reasons have dominated specifically old wars (UN Conventions 1)

However, in more modern times, new reasons for waging wars have emerged. One of this is terrorism. Terrorism has taken the center stage in the international arena popularly known as “the war on terror” .Nations have been drawn into the conflicts from every part of the globe (The Future of International Justice 1).

International war on terrorism became more pronounced and gained international focus when over three thousand people were killed in a single terrorist attack on the twin towers of the trade center in America. Fear, disbelief, anger, despair, frustrations, economic reactions, and a host of other emotional feelings gripped the international community. Leaders all over the world condemned the heinous act. That was when the war on terror was declared on a global scale. The goal was to capture and punish perpetrators of the ghastly terrorist attack. The then Bush administration was drawn into war with ...

... middle of paper ...

...national laws is ineffective soldiers involved as combatants, civilian’s rights abridged, and the politicizing of human rights are core elements worthy focusing on. Constraints on the use of force should be the responsibility of Nations and a legal framework should be for trying terrorists and cases of terrorism should be internationally enforced. It should be made clear from the onset that politicking and trampling of human rights should be comprehensibly covered in the event of war. The road ahead remains a tormenting one. The justification for war, peace and justice where international courts have not had any means of enforcing their laws and the enforceability of orders issued by the ICC, US policies in war against terror and the hostility accruing thereof is a matter of concern. War, human rights, peace, and justice should be the responsibility of all nations.

In this essay, the author

  • Opines that war on terror is the responsibility of every nation against those who breach the peace. every democracy in the world is bound by the rule of law.
  • Explains that criminal justice forms the cornerstone of international criminal law with jurisdiction over individuals and states for acts of genocide, acts against humanity, and war crimes. however, these international courts lack the means to enforce their rulings as they are not legally binding.
  • Opines that disputes should be resolved amicably to ensure a smooth transition between states and peaceful coexistence.
  • Explains that the geneva conventions, articles and protocols provide explicit definitions and distinguish acts of terrorism and just war and the enforcement of fundamental human rights.
  • Argues that international conventions and legal frameworks distinguish war form terrorism, but the international laws are ineffective soldiers involved as combatants, civilian’s rights abridged, and the politicizing of human rights are core elements worthy of focusing on.
  • Explains that man has always lived in perpetual fear of his enemies, which has been the basis of both old and new wars.
  • Argues that governments have created legal frameworks and policies that infringe upon the basic human rights of citizens, prisoners of war and refuges.
  • Argues that the moral justification for war is illegal under the international legal framework.
  • Opines that the war on terrorism does not fall under the jurisdiction of international law, but an extrapolation from positive law justifies it.
Get Access