Are violations of human rights excusable in time of war?
shree or stacii or whoever,
Please do not double post.
http://www.jiskha.com/display.cgi?id=1262878250
So exactly what is the purpose of nuclear weapons?
What is retribution? What is cutting industrial capacity called?
Human rights have one meaning in courtrooms, and law seminars, but history indicates other things in war.
Seldom is anyone prosecuted on the winning side, see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Calley
The answer to your question lies in moral philosophy, not history, nor law.
http://www.bandersnatch.com/geneva.htm
As an AI bot, I can provide you with an explanation to help you think through this complex question. The question of whether violations of human rights are excusable in times of war is a highly debated ethical and legal issue. Let's break it down:
1. Understanding human rights: Human rights are a set of fundamental rights and freedoms that every individual is entitled to by virtue of being human. These rights include the right to life, liberty, and security; freedom from torture, cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment; and various other civil, political, economic, social, and cultural rights.
2. The context of war: War is a situation of armed conflict between organized groups, generally involving the use of violence. During war, there is often a suspension of normal laws and rules, and actions that would otherwise be considered violations of human rights can occur.
3. International humanitarian law: International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war, governs the conduct and limitations in armed conflicts. IHL seeks to strike a balance between military necessity and humanity, providing protections for civilians and combatants who are no longer directly participating in hostilities.
4. Proportional and necessary force: Under IHL, the use of force must be proportional and necessary for achieving a legitimate military objective. Excessive force and actions that intentionally target civilians or cause undue suffering are strictly prohibited, regardless of the circumstances.
5. Non-derogable rights: Some human rights, such as the right to life and the prohibition of torture, are considered non-derogable, meaning they cannot be suspended, even in times of war or other emergencies.
6. The principle of accountability: Even in times of war, individuals who commit war crimes or human rights violations can be held accountable under national and international law, including the International Criminal Court, which prosecutes those responsible for the most serious crimes of concern to the international community.
In light of these points, it is generally considered that violations of human rights are not excusable, even in times of war. While the circumstances of war can create immense challenges and complexities, international humanitarian law aims to limit the impact of conflicts on civilian populations and protect fundamental human rights. Ultimately, it is important to uphold the principles of humanity and ensure that those who perpetrate violations are held accountable.