International Humanitarian Law (IHL) is seen as the law in which provides basic human rights in time of armed conflict. The use of IHL in a modern scenario is needed now more then ever with the increase of entities that wish to disrupt the peace by ignoring basic human rights. Organisations and treaties have been created to help govern the IHL; which will need to be analysed to provide insight into IHLs. This essay aims to critically analyse IHL and outline how it can be improved. To gain an understanding
actors. This paper shall discuss the contemporary challenges facing international humanitarian law with regards to civilian protection during such armed conflict. It will concentrate on the situation in Afghanistan after the 9/11 attacks of 2001. The aim of the paper will be to analyze the reasons why civilians are neglected during conflicts and how the different actors involved in the conflicts influence international humanitarian law. This purpose is guided with the need to understand why most of the
role of ICRC in implementation of IHL in international and National level and the challenges of IHL in the world today. A brief history of the ICRC. The formation of the ICRC dates back to the year 1863 where there was need to provide relief and reduce the suffering of those involved in armed conflict and other disasters and development of laws and regulations to govern conducts of those who took part in this armed conflicts as International Humanitarian Law. Henry Dunant on his way to Italy to meet
discourse surrounding humanitarian intervention has focused on the responsibility to protect (R2P). Prevention is a key component for good international relations and few would say it is not important, but as evidence to date would show prevention is very ineffective, the legality of military intervention still needs to be debated, as to date there is no consensus. For any intervention to be legitimate, whether unilateral or multilateral, it must comply with international law. So as not to cause
CHAPTER 1 Introduction According to Schaffer R, “International humanitarian law refers to those rules for how nations treat combatants, non-combatants, refugees, and other civilians during war or civil conflict”. The aftermath of World War II on the non-combatant civilians and civilian properties led to the need for a worldwide parameter to protect non-combatants civilians and civilian property from the effects of armed conflict. Humanitarian law principles has been in existence throughout several
Connecting international human rights law and international humanitarian law i. Justifications used for developing these two branches of law Both branches of law evolved from the universal declaration of human rights (UDHR) in 1948, which was adopted by the UN shortly after the end of WWII. This international effort came as a response to the ethical obligations to seek better recognition and respect to the states’ obligations towards their people. International Human Rights law (IHRL) is the set
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
In Total Remission Valentine's Day will never be the same. Four years ago, Cupid's holiday coincided with my discovery of a tumor in my cheek. Later diagnosed as a rare sarcoma, this capricious cancer has provoked me to understand myself and my passions. While I have developed new life perspectives since vying with cancer, my metamorphosis was not induced by my illness, but through learning to confront myself. My renewed outlook manifests in my leadership with the American Red Cross where I
War on Civilians During times of war, civilians lives are hardly ever thought of. Most people and news sources are covering the gunfire between armies or the riots in the streets. What they are least worried about are the civilians that have to live through these wars for months and even years. The soldiers in the war are not the only ones trying to stay alive. Not only do the soldiers have weapons to use against threats, but they have a plan and have been trained to act during situations. Civilians
Since Barack Obama has been in the White House, drones have killed over 3,300 Al Qaeda, Taliban, and other terrorist operatives (Byman 32-43). That is 3,300 fewer terrorist operatives in this world. The deaths of these terrorists is just one of the benefits of using drone strikes in the Middle East. However, the use of drones is a controversial topic because some believe it is unethical warfare. For example, drone strikes affect the civilian population by including unintended targets, which causes
In the article “Is Terrorism Distinctively Wrong?”, Lionel K. McPherson criticizes the dominant view that terrorism is absolutely and unconditionally wrong. He argues terrorism is not distinctively wrong compared to conventional war. However, I claim that terrorism is necessarily wrong. To support his claim, McPherson argues there is nothing morally relevant to make a distinction between terrorism and conventional war waged by states. In other words, from the moral angel, there is no difference
In the movie, Eye in the Sky, a team is set out on a mission to apprehend Al-Shabaab militants in Kenya. We are shows some of the moral difficulties or debates that come with drones being used in warfare and more specifically in this case the war on terror. This movie illustrates a more up-close and personal viewing of what collateral damage is. It also gives us, the viewer, a stronger sense of how each different position involved throughout the movie/mission has its own degree of burdens. To fire
Throughout history, civilians have been subject to the violence of war. The legality of targeting civilians has been especially scrutinized in recent history, but the issue has existed since the earliest tales of conflict. Although it may seem brutal to attack noncombatants, targeting civilians is an effective strategy, which can be understood by examining the role of civilians during war, the objectives of such a strategy, and cases stretching from the past to the present. During war, the line
Cruel and unusual punishment is banned in many countries, including the United States. It is a big argument if torture should be acceptable to use in certain situations for justice to prevail. There are pros and cons to this argument but using torture can be used to save lives and find out critical information. The definition of torture is the act of causing severe physical pain as a form of punishment or as a way to force someone to do or say something (Webster). There have been different hypothetical
Drone strikes have become a popular solution to taking out targets in the Middle East. Although their use is controversial, some say they are effective, and should be allowed, because of how effective they are at killing on the battlefield. Others argue that drones run a high risk of killing innocents, and shouldn’t be allowed. In addition some believe they are helpful at taking out targets, but they set a dangerous precedent that other nations could use. Drone strikes, otherwise known as targeted
“Collateral damage” seems like a nice term for manslaughter. The question is, is it morally acceptable to kill innocent people because of the war? Is killing innocent victims inevitable especially in a war-torn country and where militants can roam freely? Is it ethically acceptable to sacrifice the lives of the people for the sake of greater good? Who gets the blame when innocent lives are taken? The decision by Colonel Powell to shoot the militants with a collateral damage of a one innocent life
The ethic of impartial lifesaving aid has been captured and codified in international law, most obviously in the Geneva Conventions, which seek to limit the extremes of warfare and its effect on those not directly engaged in fighting (Walker et al, 2012, p.116). The principle of impartiality stems from article 3.1 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, which states that “persons taking no active part in hostilities shall in all circumstances
in Geneva Switzerland, and were immediately ratified by twelve countries. Now there are one hundred and ninety four countries that have signed and ratified the conventions (ICRC 1 – 6). The Geneva Conventions set the standards in international law for the humanitarian treatment of the victims of war. There are four conventions in total, and all of which deal with a different aspect of war. The first Geneva Convention, which deals with the treatment of wounded and sick soldiers on the field during
(2004)17 (4): 460-472. Tiefenbrun, Susan. Child Soldiers, Slavery and the Trafficking of Children. (2007). 31 (2): 417-439 Young, Aaron. Preventing, Demobilizing,] Rehabilitating, and Reintegrating Child Soldiers in African Conflicts. The journal of international policy solutions. (2007) (4): 1-24
prominence of humanitarian intervention as a subject of debate in the study of international relations (Atack 2005: 125). Humanitarian intervention, at its core, is an incredibly problematic phenomenon, clashing with various IR schools of thought, compromising international law and questioning the ethical standards of international actors (Fixdal & Smith 1998: 284). This essay will address what makes humanitarian intervention so contentious. The first half will address the implications of humanitarian intervention