Modern Rules of War - Term Paper Example

REACTION PAPER #2 War is an extended conflict that is carried out by or non actors; it has become a legal institution with laws or techniques used to carry it out in the absence of peace. Basically law of war refers to the aspect of public worldwide law that is concerned with the satisfactory justifications to engage in war. Modern rules of war outline their origin to the chivalric practices of the medieval time in Europe, which asserted that there should be a distinction between a civilian and a soldier, the difference between just and unjust wars; it further stated that children, women and older persons should be protected from bloody fields of combat (Slomanson,1999). With the progressive change in warfare after the Second World War, more questions have been raised on how to deal with asymmetrical warfare under the Geneva conventions. After this convention of 1949, most nations’ security has been threatened non-state actors organizations such as ISIS and al-Qaeda are not fully covered by the rules of war. The armed groups have over and over again sought to defeat their military weakness by employing strategies that deliberately violet international law. These range from planned attacks against civilians, sexual violence, forced conscription as well as using civilians to guard military objectives (Slomanson, 1999). The risks of civilians are further increased as military superior parties, in fighting the rival that is often tricky to identify, responds with means and methods of warfare that may violet the principles of difference and proportionality, giving rise to further civilian victims. International armed conflict between the states and terrorist non-state actors raises a concern on how states in question should actually respond to these groups considering the fact that they have comparatively few rights under the international Humanitarian Law. There is also a big concern as to whether the wars on the non-state actors are international or non-international under Geneva Conventions. But on the other hand, the involved states also consider these rebellious groups as illicit combats who are dispossessed of any legality; their actions are unsympathetically punished in line with the domestic laws of the state. The context of these armed conflicts is claims of legitimacy, as the state pretends to have a greater claim to legitimacy than non-state actors. States seek to de-legitimize non-state actors’ claim while advancing their own claims of legitimacy (Slomanson, 1999). The non-state actors should not be blindly referred to as terrorists before actually recognizing what they agitate for. They should be actually involved in finding a lasting solution to the conflict that would eventually lead to a personal and proficient growth. Successful conflict resolution can help in solving many troubles that it has brought as well as receiving benefits that the countries in question might not at first anticipate. It is advisable that the state and the non-state actors should enter into International Humanitarian Law Convention that will aim at regulating conflicts and having a lasting solution to the frequent wars. It rules function on a theory of equal application of law in spite of of one party being a state or a non-state actor and regardless of any other power or status difference. This is because non-state actors cannot be part to the Geneva Conventions simply because they are not representing any state, and it is this incapability to become a party to a treaty that creates the irregularity in the conflict (Johnson & Patterson, 2015). The Convention should be based on the concept of reciprocity that would seek to uphold a sufficient balance in party dealings with one another in order to ensure that both parties have fair advantage. It will demand that the states give up their freedom of action in relation to insurgent groups; this is because unsystematic laws mostly in regulating the waging of warfare can eventually put the states at a sharp drawback. It should be noted that the ultimate goal of a systematic reciprocity is to be able to uphold and to protect the treaty signed between the antagonist parties. It is appropriate to have mechanisms that are intended at securing approval with the rebellious groups in order for the International Humanitarian Law conventions to turn out to be truly binding, and eventually successful. The governments should give the rebellious forces the recognition of lawful combatants and removal of the incentive will make such groups to conform to the International Humanitarian Law norms (Milner & Moravcsik, 2009). The non-recognition gives the government a chance to deny such groups the protections of the Geneva Conventions to engage in attacks that violet International Humanitarian Law, devoid of incurring legal penalty. In view of the as dissatisfied groups terrorists, governments claim merely the applicability of domestic legal norms somewhat the International Humanitarian Law, to the commission of crimes within the national framework. And such actions will for sure provide the rebellious groups to regard as themselves free of the confines imposed by international humanitarian laws. The benefit of governmental forces would be that rebel forces would put up with by these norms. Both the government and the non-state actors’ representatives should be called on to a negotiation tables to successful solve the difference among them for the benefit of innocent civilians who have suffered. Amicable agreements should be reached at based on the international humanitarian laws; the agreements should in fact reflect existing general social values by both the parties (Bellamy, 2015). The understanding between the two pacts should be able to protect the commonly alleged social interests. In the agreement, they should both sign against a conduct of action commonly deemed to build up a social harm on the innocent civilians. They should prohibit a conduct which is undoubtedly enunciated in the natural laws. If any one goes against what has been agreed upon, then there is a strong likelihood of prosecution, apprehension, arbitration as well as severe punishment, a punishment that outweighs the benefits of committing the violations. By having all these put in place and the legal document is signed, the rebellious groups will be forced to comply to the international Humanitarian Laws without necessarily using force that would put the lives of innocent civilians at risk. It is obvious that non-state actors that are willing to sit for the negotiations with the government is different from those with their own personal interest of going against the government, and shielding themselves by the use of innocent civilians. References Bellamy, A. J. (2015). The responsibility to protect: A defense. Johnson, J. T., & Patterson, E. (2015). The Ashgate Research Companion to Military Ethics. Milner, H. V., & Moravcsik, A. (2009). Power, interdependence, and nonstate actors in world politics. Princeton, N.J: Princeton University Press. Slomanson, W. R. (1999). Fundamental perspectives on international law. Australia: West/Thomson Learning. Read More