Download file to see previous pages...
Despite the attempt by several government to develop peaceful societies, conflicts exist even at personal levels thereby presenting several ethical dilemmas. War is an evil necessity that as Grotius explains presents realistic solutions to most of the conflicts while at the same time has severe ramifications (Bonevac, 2005). Choosing to engage in war thus presents myriad effects to the people.
While war is a social vice that causes extensive loss of lives and destabilization of the society, Grotius explains particular circumstances that justify war. In considering the possibilities to engage in wars, it becomes realistic to weigh the ramifications of war thereby making an informed decision. Firstly, war results in the loss of human life. Nothing justifies the death of another. Engaging in war presents a substantial threat to the lives of the civilians most of who are often unarmed. Additionally, war results in the displacement of many other civilians. The displacement results from large-scale destruction of homes since such readily become battlefields. People therefore flee from their homes in order to seek safe refuge elsewhere. Another equally important effect of war is that it curtails socio economic developments. The heightened insecurity during wars curtails investments besides resulting in massive displacement of people. The two are empirical manifestations that curb both economic growth and social cohesion.
While the above are major concerns that require effective consideration and often serve to prevent people from engaging in wars, wars are at times the only plausible solutions to the social problems in a society. Different countries including the United States have engaged in different wars most of which, the government justified. As Hugo Grotius explains, a war offers realistic solutions to some of the major social problems and is therefore unavoidable in such circumstances. Grotius provides three circumstances which he claims justifies
...Download file to see next pagesRead More
Both sides fight for the same land and call it by different names. Both parties are of the opinion that God blessed them with the land and giving it away to other people is a sin and an insult to God. Many factors have been attributed to the existence of the war, but opposition mobilization has been the steering factor to the existence of the conflict even today (Bennis 54).
It surveys the historical development of the war of reasoning and its incorporation in the international religious concern. The conflicting moral and legal obligations of the state in the peacekeeping and peacemaking have found concern in the religious rhyme.
ius’ mare liberum also advocates that all mankind have a natural right to navigate and fish in the outer seas.4 This right has also survived UNCLOS III.5 What has changed however, is the limits of the inner sea. By the 20th century it became obvious that given the depletion of marine resources, policing responsibilities of states and the right of states to maintain sovereignty over ships carrying their flags, there was a need to expand upon the definition of the inner sea.6 Article 76 of UNCLOS III effectively expands the inner sea of states by expanding on the dimensions of a coastal state’s continental state.7 It therefore follows that coastal states have been expanding their respective
For Machiavelli the law was a means to an end. The law was purely that which enabled the principality to be held together and the prince to hold on to power. Hobbes, in a different way, also saw the rule of law as a thing which was necessarily imposed from above.
The definition of sovereignty is a very delicate matter which many people have not been able to agree on for years. The matter of whether or not a state is sovereign depends solely on whether there is a set of institutions which have direct control over a certain populace and region.
istent conduct, then these states may be performing in that manner, for the reason that they owe to themselves a good judgment of legal obligation – as expressed in the Latinism, opinio juris. International law on its part can aptly be considered as a system of rules or
Chimpanzee and Paranthropus had strong jaws sizes that were relatively similar in size. However, differences existed in the structuring of the cranium and dentition. The cranium of the Paranthropus was relatively higher as compared to the one for chimpanzees. The