The law means order and restraint, which can play a role in stopping the war, while war means that both are absent. Efforts to regulate war are as old as the war itself. Since ancient times, countries have been trying to use laws and regulations to restrict war behavior. Proponents of these efforts believe that triggering war within the scope of rational rules may somehow "humanize" the war and control its barbaric behavior. History tells us that the development of finer legal territories precedes the growing barbarism and destructiveness of modern warfare. It also supports the view that ancient warfare is lawless and has laws and regulations that are similar to modern warfare laws. Despite this, the two world wars lacked the characteristics of humanitarian law. They saw that the law subverted the instructions of the war and became a propaganda battlefield. The warring parties organized attacks and counterattacks. In the end, the law failed to protect civilians from rushing to adopt new weapons and tactics. Both world wars have shown the lack of war laws to prevent frequent wartime atrocities.
Today, International Humanitarian Law [IHL] distinguishes between jus ad bellum and wartime wartime law [wartime law]. Jus in battle is further divided into "humanitarian law" and "humanitarian law." [Geneva law], protecting certain categories of war victims, such as prisoners of war and "war laws." [The Hague Law], the general means and methods of regulating war. It is worth noting that the laws of Geneva are in the interest of more powerful countries.
The rules of humanitarian law & the law of war ' show the interests of the countries that lead the international conferences that draft these laws. Humanitarian law is characterized by a strict ban, while the Hague rule is vague, tolerant and less concerned with humanitarian consequences. It is important to understand that with the development of these legal principles, war has long been dominated by factors that are independent of the law. Due to complex military, political, and economic reasons, warring parties tend to use the minimum power needed to achieve their political goals.
A detailed understanding of this requires an in-depth understanding of the role of law in the atrocities of war. By imposing military necessity, the law of war requires that only military personnel act in accordance with the military's own interests. Belligents, who meet this requirement, have gained a powerful platform to persuade and protect their controversial condensation from humanitarian challenges. Moreover, the ability of the law of war to undermine its own humane rhetoric raises an implicit warning of future attempts to control war, and the promotion of so-called humanitarian law may contribute to the purpose of violent tension.
Rousseau correctly quoted: "The purpose of war is to subdue a hostile country. The soldiers have the right to kill the defenders of that country when they are armed; but once they let go of their weapons and surrender, they are no longer enemies or tools of the enemy; they Once again, they become men, and no one has the right to take their lives. In this way, Rousseau used rationality as the basis of the law of war. However, modern laws of war claimed precedents in the practice of knights in the Middle Ages. However, the depth of this era is deeper. The view found the same coexistence of law and atrocities.
It is very cruel that the law of war should be revised and re-edited from time to time, taking into account the prohibition of the use of force in the Charter for the Settlement of International Disputes. War not only affects combatants but also civilians. In most cases, the nature of war makes it impossible to observe the rules of war. In this regard, it is necessary to protect the population more specifically during the war to implement human rights. In the case that power is above the law, the authority to help maintain power is the basic function of law. International humanitarian law serves this purpose appropriately in a variety of ways.
Orignal From: International humanitarian law and the philosophy of war
No comments:
Post a Comment