Proportionality in War
The principle of proportionality in war is something that is hotly contested and debated. How the principle could and should apply in terms of response to military action or aggression, the incidence or possibility of civilian casualties and other things are all considerations when it comes to proportionality in war. In general terms, the argument to be made is that there should be consistence between a strike and a counterstrike. Obviously, the idea is to win whatever conflict is at hand. However, there are limits to this approach. For example, responding to a cruise missile strike with a nuclear strike is obviously not going to fly. However, there are some times where proportionality is clouded and made difficult to figure out. At the very least, it can be controversial. The dual nuclear strike on Japan during World War II is one example. The manner in which the often-stateless armies of today unapologetically use civilians as human shields and otherwise ignore the commonly held laws of war is another. Regardless of what side one happens to come down on in the modern age, it is clear that while the rules may not have changed in the eyes of many, the playing field and how certain people are playing has certainly changed. This means that it should perhaps be considered whether the traditional rules should apply and/or whether there should be more of a focus on winning via any reasonable means rather than worrying about proportionality and fairness. Even with any expansion of guidelines and rules when it comes to war, the usual rules about avoiding civilian casualties and not using nuclear in any instance unless someone else strikes first would generally hold. Even so, the fact that that the rules of engagement and war are often ignored by today's fighters and rogue regimes is something that cannot be ignored and there is the suggestion by many that while devolving to their level of depravity is not acceptable, staying with the honorable and traditional rules is not a good idea either given how soulless the other side can often be.
Analysis
Even with the fact that the landscape and paradigm of war and how it could or should be waged is changing, it is important to consult all relevant and applicable sources. Of course, one of the "gold standard" sources when it comes to the rules, expectations and laws of war is the Geneva Convention and its associated guidelines. One part of the Geneva rules set that is important to know about and cite when it comes to this topic is Article 51. That is the section that refers to the protection of the civilian population. The rules about that subject are pretty basic. It is noted that they shall "enjoy general protection against dangers arising from military operations". Further, they are "not to be the object of the attack. Lastly, there is the idea that indiscriminate attacks where civilians are caught up in the conflagration are not allowed [footnoteRef:1]. Article 57 of that same convention is relevant and has similar rules. Indeed, the first item in that section says that "in the conduct of military operations, constant care shall be taken to spare the civilian population, civilians and civilian objects". Of course, that mean avoiding the killing and harming of civilians, their homes and their other property whenever possible [footnoteRef:2]. These parts of the law were passed in the 1970's. A good and obvious example where a military action that happened would not be allowed for under this part of the law would be the dual nuclear bombs that were levied against Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Those two bombings were clearly civilian rather than military in nature and they were also surely indiscriminate in nature. As such, those bombings would have violated both of those parts of the Geneva conventions. [1: ICRC. 2017. "Treaties, States Parties, And Commentaries - Additional Protocol (I) To The Geneva Conventions, 1977 - 51 - Protection Of The Civilian Population." Ihl-Databases.Icrc.Org. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750065.] [2: ICRC. 2017. "Treaties, States Parties, And Commentaries - Additional Protocol (I) To The Geneva Conventions, 1977 - 57 - Precautions In Attack." Ihl-Databases.Icrc.Org. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/WebART/470-750073?OpenDocument.]
D. joined the Majority. Justices Blackmun, H.A. And Powell, L.F. wrote a special and regular concurrence respectively. In addition to voting with the majority, O'Connor S.D. joined Powel's concurrence. Writing Dissenting Opinion(s): Stevens, J.P. filed a dissenting opinion in which Marshall, T. And Brennan, W.J joined. Brennan also filed a separate dissenting opinion in which Marshall T. joined. Case 5 Citation: Santa Fe Independent School District v. Jane Doe (2000) Argued: March 29, 2000 Date
391). Padilla's counsel subsequently filed a petition for certiorari with the United States Supreme Court, which was again denied in April of 2006. Meantime, Padilla had been transferred to civilian custody, essentially rendering the petition for a writ of certiorari in the highest court in the land a moot point. The question before the Court of Appeals was whether the President of the United States had the constitutional authority to detain a
War on Terror & Human Rights The so-called "war on terror" -- initiated by former president George W. Bush after 9/11 -- has not succeeded in ending terrorism but it opened the door to numerous violations of human rights. A survey of verifiable, peer-reviewed sources in the literature show clearly that the Bush Administration and members of the military under Bush's command carried out human rights violations in the name of
War of 1812 Causes The early part of the nineteenth century was eventful in United States history because it marked a time when the country was trying to grow from its infancy. The government had been functioning well for almost two decades, the monetary system was gaining the U.S. trading partners overseas, and the military was growing as the U.S. added heavy frigates to their small arsenal. One problem was the
War The Experience of War War has changed greatly in character from the days of knights in shining armor. The concept of a "state" rather than just a regional ruler has changed the dynamic of war. Rather than meeting on a battlefield and duking it out, two armies now willfully attack civilian targets to demoralize a population, cut off trade routes to starve a population, and, if it comes to it, invade
Others say Omar "was chosen by God," Rashid writes. When interviewed by a journalist from Pakistan (Rahimullah Yousufzai) after taking control of Kabul, according to Rashid's book, Omar stated, "We had complete faith in God Almighty. We never forgot that. He can bless us with victory or plunge us into defeat." Omar was born around 1959 (albeit much of his life is carefully guarded in secrecy), he has only one eye,
Our semester plans gives you unlimited, unrestricted access to our entire library of resources —writing tools, guides, example essays, tutorials, class notes, and more.
Get Started Now