INTL 5860: Issues in International Politics: International Humanitarian Law
Question 3
The rules that make up the international humanitarian law (IHL) are all centered at regulating conflict with an aim of minimizing the human suffering. It therefore tries to balance the military necessities that often arise with the needs for humanitarian protection. IHL is founded upon six basic principles that govern the conflict regulation at both the state and international level. Each principle is bounded within specific rules and norms whereby they help in the interpretation of the law when controversial matters arise within the governments. This section will discuss exhaustively the principles on which IHL is founded (ICRC, 2016).
The first principle is that of distinction between civilians and the combatants. This is a principle that tends to differentiate between the civilians and the combatant. The military force is only allowed to attack combatants such as criminals, terrorists or any other form of enemies. Any direct attacks that are done by the military forces upon the civilians is considered as a crime attack as penned down in Article 48 and 52 of Additional Protocol 1 to the Geneva Conventions (ICRC, 2016).
The next principle prohibits attacks against those hors de combat. These are people who are either sick, wounded or prisoners of war. It is actually a fundamental rule which protects the harmless from being attacked. Closely related to this is the principle that prohibits infliction of unnecessary suffering. The IHL provides a protection even to those who are lawfully attacked such that superfluous injury should not be crowned by an attack. One of the rules that fall under this principle is the prohibition of using blinding laser weapons (ICRC, 2016).
Next is the principle of proportionality. Under Article 51(5) (b) of API, the civilians have been protected against excessive hostilities from the military bodies. It rather demands that the least possible harm should be caused to the civilians with respect to the proportionality of the military advantage.
The notion of necessity is the other IHL principle that is often clashes with the humanitarian protection. It allows the military bodies to fully take a destructive move regardless of the consequences that may arise as a result. This is however required when necessity demands such that full exertion is the only option. The military is required to interpret and understand the other principles of humanitarian protection hence implying that they are not supposed to ignore any of the principles (ICRC, 2016).
Lastly is the principle of humanity. This is a principle that basically stipulates the fact that all human beings have the capacity to respect and care for others even the adjacent enemies. The notion argues that humans and animals are made difference by this principle such that respecting life is a mandatory obligation for everyone around the globe.
Asymmetric warfare is conflicts where the warring parties significantly differ in strength. In most cases such warfare is not prone to breaking the IHL principles because the decision to follow is in the hands of the stronger party. In this case, the stronger military force is directly held accountable of any irresponsible attack and therefore a clear expectation is outlined. In addition to this, the asymmetrical warfare is friendly enough to remind the stronger army that regulation is part of its requirement. Failure to comply with the IHL rules and principles would hold the militant responsible of any irresponsible attack.
United Nations Security Council Resolution 2249
Question 4
Terrorists have become the greatest threat to the international security in the recent past and the current age. The Islamic state and the Levant (ISIL) are particularly screened by the United Nations Security Council Resolution as the main terrorist that destructs security among the United Nations. Combating ISIL sounds as a sophisticated move since the international humanitarian protection still protects the terrorists based on the IHL principles (Security Council, 2015). The terrorists have actually taken advantage of this privilege to continue taking people captive, committing crimes and destruction. In response, the security council of the United Nations has recently adopted a resolution that could help in combating the ISIL among other terrorist’s organizations. Based on the various declarations that have been voted and agreed upon by the Security Council, it is vivid that the United Nations haven raised an alarm to attack ISIL as a way of denying them a safe haven in both Syria and Iraq (U.N, n.d). The resolution however does not give a direct authority to the states’ militaries to apply direct force on the terrorists from their places of residences. This section will in this regard elaborate more concerning the authority of force application against ISIL as written down in the resolution (Security Council, 2015).
In the first place, a careful reading and interpretation of the Security Council resolution shows that it does not provide any legal basis for massive destruction such as airstrikes either in Syria or in Iraq. It does not mention Article 42 of the UN charter which gives authority to the states to use massive force against terrorism. It also doesn’t also mention Chapter VII either which also puts emphasis on the same (U.N, n.d). Contrary to the claims that were recently made by the Prime minister, David Cameroon, airstrikes have not been permitted by the security council of the United Nations. From this perspective, the council took caution when delegating the powers and authority to combat terrorism through the use of force. The resolution clearly points out that the members of the state must work in compliance to the humanitarian law, the UN charter and the human rights. This confirms that authority to take a force action is not based on this resolution (Security Council, 2015).
The structure of the resolution however condemns acts of terrorism with the strongest terms. It places the authority of combating terrorism under the office of the Security Council such that whenever necessity measures shall be required, it shall give directions on what shall be done. Basically, in order to provide legal authority to apply military force against the ISIL, the Security Council shall be required to constitute decision based on Chapter VII of the UN charter. It states that all necessary measures must be taken against Islamic state (ISIS) (Security Council, 2015). This therefore limits the action of the individual states against the ISIL hence the becoming the decision of the council.
Lastly, the fight against ISIL has been fully supported by the Security Council with great assurance that every support that shall be need by any nation under UN shall be provided. In this regard, the council has promised to tem all the threats and bringing the perpetuators into justice. The resolution has been presented in weighted words that confirm that the Security Council is purely against ISIL among other terrorist organization. It however urges the states to comply with the humanitarian law, human rights, the UN charter as well as the international law in their operations.
Assessment of the High Court's conclusions with respect to jus in bello as applied to United States drone attacks in Pakistan.
Question 6
The assessment of the High court’s conclusion with respect to jus in bello is key in identifying the credibility of the high court when it comes to dealing with international security matters. Jus in bello is basically a doctrine that justifies a war between two parties (Khan, 2013). In particular, it focuses on the morality of conduct while at war such that moral standards, the observance of humanitarian law and every principle that is applied at the battle. From this perspective, the case has of United States attacks in Pakistan has raised a concern because the attackers, U.S. forces broken the jus in bello doctrine. The court rulings have been carried out on facts and substantial evidences that the United States crossed the boundaries that altered the security of Pakistan. This section will therefore assess how valid the conclusions made by the high court were concerning the drone strikes with respect to jus in bello.
First, the fact that the U.S. militants damaged properties, killed livestock and killing of wildlife among other evils is enough evidence to hold the state accountable. The U.S. military invaded in a very crude manner. They went forth to damage the heritage of Pakistan such as the wildlife, killing of infants, babies, women and children whom are considered harmless by the humanitarian principles. The court made the right judgment because the conduct of the military while at the battle was unethical, unlawful based on the numerous laws that prohibit the killing of the innocent and destruction of property (Khan, 2013). The term uncondonable perfectly fits that kind of war crime if one takes the perspective of sound reasoning and conscious.
The conclusion that U.S. government is bound to compensate the civilians of Pakistan the losses that were undergone is also a wise ruling. Many civilians lost their loved ones, their property and even peace in their own country and therefore the United States was responsible in compensating back the loss. If the military could not have carelessly destroyed the property, there could be no complaining as such (Khan, 2013).
Lastly, the court conclusions indeed proved CIA and the United States guilty. It is after all the evidence has been gather that the court condemns drone strikes. The court further shows how much harm the drone caused to the sovereignty of Pakistan’s territory which is an independent state. The acts committed during the attacks were indeed not adorable since rationale is not substantial enough to justify the drone attacks. The action of condemning the attacks was also a wise step for the court so as to warn against any other state from repeating the same tragedy (Khan, 2013).
References
ICRC, 2016). Practice Relating to Rule 1. The Principle of Distinction between Civilians and Combatants. Retrieved from: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter1_rule1
U.N., (n.d). Charter of the United Nations. Retrieved from: http://www.un.org/en/charter-united-nations/index.html Security Council., (2015). Resolution 2249 (2015)Khan, D. M., (2013). IN THE PESHAWAR HIGH COURT, PESHAWAR JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT
