![]() Total war, where neither discrimination nor proportionality serve as mitigating considerations, is to be avoided. The rules of warfare aim to safeguard human life and some other fundamental human rights, and to ensure that war is limited in its scope and level of violence. The principles of humanitarian law are thought to apply in conflict, and to regulate the conduct of military forces. These restraints aim to limit war once it has begun. ![]() There are restraints on the extent of harm, if any, that can be done to noncombatants, and restraints on the weapons of war. Belligerent armies are entitled to try to win, but they cannot do anything that is, or seems, necessary to achieve victory. Just war theory, on the other hand, sets forth a moral framework for warfare and rejects the notion that "anything goes" during times of war. War is hell, the argument goes, and one is entitled to do whatever is necessary to ensure victory for one's own side. Some maintain that morality does not exist in warfare, and therefore object to just war theory. The rules of jus in bello (or justice in war) serve as guidelines for fighting well once war has begun. Must such warfare be rejected as a moral possibility on just war grounds? Many note that the methods of contemporary war, nuclear warfare in particular, are inescapably in violation of the principles of proportionality and non-combatant immunity. The rules of jus in bello aim to confine the destructiveness of war, rule out certain kinds of weapons, protect civilians, and limit the area and range of fighting.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |