8. War is a blunt instrument by which to settle disputes between or within nations, and economic sanctions are rarely effective. Therefore, we should build a system of jurisprudence based on the International Court—that the U.S. has refused to support—which would hold individuals responsible for crimes against humanity. 9. If we are to deal effectively with terrorists across the globe, we must develop a sense of empathy—I don't mean "sympathy," but rather "understanding"—to counter their attacks on us and the Western World.
To gain a better understanding you must first know what the Federal Government defines deadly force as : § 10 CFR 1047.7 Use of deadly force. Deadly force means that force which a reasonable person would consider likely to cause death or serious bodily harm. Its use may be justified only under conditions of extreme necessity, when all lesser means have failed or cannot reasonably be employed. A protective force officer is authorized to use deadly force only when one or more of the following circumstances exists..... The circumstances mentioned above encompasses self defense, serious offenses against persons and apprehension to name a few, for the sake of this paper we are going to look at when law enforcement uses self-defense and its legality.
Like genocide, terrorism has been used in warfare since warfare was first instituted. As the name states it is used to create a state of terror in the society that it is used against. This tactic is not only used against military targets, but also against civilian targets, in order to pressure the public against any retribution towards the group. Terrorism is very efficient and cost effective, as has been seen in recent years. As with genocide, terrorism does not create any moral dilemma to the society that implements it, yet the one that it is being used against is of the opinion that it is one of the worst things that can be used.
There is no proof that this story has any truth. There is something no one has considered, the danger to our own soldiers when they are captured. Here again I quote: “Worse, you'll have the other side effects of torture. It "endangers our soldiers on the battlefield by encouraging reciprocity." It does "damage to our country's image" and undermines our credibility in Iraq.” (Applebaum) It undermines the work of our soldiers that are helping make Iraq into a country ruled by its people instead of a dictator.
Can a single person be held responsible for crimes against humanity? Crimes against humanity can be defined extreme and sustained degradation or humiliation of one or more individuals, as a part of a wider and systematic practice condoned by a higher authority, and i think, taking this definition into account that Ultimately, while an individual may be the controlling force and ignite the wave of extreme violence and discrimination, he has to be supported by others in order to build a culture of such extreme hatred; implicating his allies and as such an individual cannot be held wholly responsible for crimes against humanity, although he can be allocated a great portion of the blame. An individual cannot be wholly responsible for such a widespread and sustained practise of atrocities as actions of many are due to being subjected to oppression or under orders of someone of higher authority. In such a case, when the order comes form a higher authority, most often people do not have an option to rebel against their orders. It is usually a "kill or be killed order".
Preferably including economic violence and even threats of violence). The failure to oppose violence encourages or allows violence, and the effectiveness of opposition directly correlates with the level of discouragement of violence. But the opposition needed to stop the rape of a woman may vary greatly according to circumstances (particularly, the personality and experience of the rapist). Such situations can be only of metaphorical use in analyzing the opposition needed to stop a sugar corporation from bribing presidents and congressmen to order the US Army to murder 2 million peasants in order to take their land (as happened when the US grabbed the Philippines in
During this period of time Benjamin Franklin described, “everything seems in this country, once the land of peace and order, to be running fast into anarchy and confusion.” In the book this is clearly apparent with the power balances between colonist, natives and the present British army. Life in the Americas during this time was tough for many due to the changing political powers between the British, Spanish, French, and the Colonist. Immigrants came to the colonies in search of free land, low taxes, and political freedom. Immigrants also brought many diseases with
Presidential War Powers H. Hansana San Antonio College Professor Delagarza Presidential War Powers The current political debate between Congress and the President regarding the legality of using U.S. troops to intervene in foreign domestic issues when no declaration of war has been declared has negatively impacted generations of Americans without any effective legislative or judicial intervention. This power to deploy troops into hostile environments around the world has been a legitimate abuse of Presidential power, the action has impacted our standing in the world and is not an effective foreign policy tool. Less presidential war powers or use of military authorization would do the United States good, the Commander in Chief
Sovereignty in Global Criminology In the age of globalization and the emergence of new technologies, where crimes have become border-less and state actions have become far-reaching, global awareness of state-sponsored atrocities and humanitarian issues are said to have taken centre stage. It is then logical to expect sovereignty, the ability of a state to behave with immunity and act with absolute supremacy over internal affairs, to continuously be discarded little by little , in the name of human dignity and rights, However its safe to say that sovereignty and national jurisdiction lives on and continues to impede the development of global criminology and the human rights discourse. Even though principles of sovereignty or political legitimacy in theory, are only affirmed or reclaimed by the state through taking on specific right and obligations such as the protection of human rights and its citizens, these principles can nevertheless, in practice survive on their own. State crimes, which involve civil, political or gross human rights violations and corresponding moral and legal responsibilities are still not effectively conceptualised and addressed. They continue to be sent to the back burner, while political agendas brew.
The necessity of peacekeeping and the importance of sound legal justification for the employment of use of force has been a key issue in international law since the days of Grotius and his “Just War” doctrine. Increasing interdependency of states and the authority the United Nations Charter and Security Council results in a complex system of law where the legality of use of force depends as much on defensibility of the act as it does on the rules of international law governing use of force. Response to a threat is naturally when use of force is most desirable and most complicated as the interpretation of the scope of Article 51 of the UN Charter is debated and will be discussed in great detail here. Then there is also the problem of applying this complex set of rules to the challenges of the contemporary world. The rise of nuclear states, the expansion of covert operations in other territories and of course the growing destabilisation of areas such as North Africa are problems which perhaps are not best met by the current approach of international law to use of force.