Jus ad bellum

the author’s beliefs is that drone technology do not adhere the principals that international laws consist of. The authors talk about jus ad bellum – the right of war, also interpreted as the right of retaliation on the basis of self-defense – and how that justification is based on false principals. The other principal that the authors feel is being misused is jus in bello – the justification (or lack thereof) to engage in a war – due to the issues with interpretation that is existent in modern warfare

Mainstream media has extensively covered the war called Operation Iraq Freedom where thousands of our armed forces were killed leaving millions without their mother and father. It has been said that this was a senseless way that should have never begun; in the same manner, it is a war that many feel was needed and very necessary. The purpose of my extended is to uncover the facts of this topic that has been considered off limits and inappropriate especially in the mainstream media. In efforts to

Anticipatory (Pre-emptive) Self-defence: The Need for a Modern Approach The use of military force is a valid customary international law norm and it is enshrined in the United Nations Charter. Nevertheless, the use of force is only authorised if it falls under one of two categories: self-defence (article 41 of the United Nations Charter), or Security Council authorisation. To justify a resort to pre-emptive war, a state must give reasonable proof that the action is necessary to the vital

Is there a 'right' to self-defense? Criminal Justice Ethics, vol. 78, pp. 78-89. 23, No. 1 -. 1, 2004, pp. 113-114. 20-32, DOI: 10.1080/0731129X.2004.9992157. Kretzmer, David. A. “The Inherent Right to Self-Defence and Proportionality in Jus Ad Bellum.” European Journal of International Law, vol. 24. No. -. 1, Feb. 2013, pp. 113-114. 235–82. The 'Secondary' of the 'Secondary'. EBSCOhost, https://doi.org/10.1093/ejil/chs087. McMahan, Jeff. A. The limits of self-defense. The ethics of self-defense

I. INTRODUCTION On 8th August, 1945, shortly after the end of World War II in May of 1945, the Allied governments entered into a joint agreement establishing the International Military Tribunal for the purpose of trying those responsible for the war atrocities. Whereas some 5,000 Nazi’s were charged with war crimes, the Nuremberg trials were designed specifically to prosecute high ranking Nazi officials with whom the authority for the commission of heinous atrocities rested. The Nuremberg Trials

The contemporary era has made conflict an international priority, a world phenomenon, and a global concern for the welfare of all states. Ostensibly, war has existed for quite some time, and the current global hegemony has not conclusively provoked further conflict, but rather, developed mechanisms to protect those affected by the circumstances of an armed conflict. International Humanitarian Law (IHL) was devised by the Geneva Conventions, a paramount composition of accords that followed the Second

INTRODUCTION During the Second World War, Benito Amilcare Andrea Mussolini was the leader of the Italian Nationalist Fascist government. He was head of the Italian government from 1922 till 1943. The significance of Mussolini is that he played a key role acting as the Italian Prime Minister and established a totalitarian regime, during this time, as the unchallenged supreme leader, known as ‘Il Duce’. Fascism consisted of many contributors of which Mussolini with all his quirks was the key to