Body of Laws - Essay Example

? International Law International Law “International law is an arcane for those at all levels of opinion, ranging from the general public to top opinion leaders” (Perry, 1998). It is a body of laws governing relations between nations which define the structure and conduct of sovereign states and intergovernmental organizations. This paper analyses the international laws with respect to the use of nuclear weapons and the evolution of international law (1864-1993) to shape and modify the rules of war and armed combat. Use of Nuclear weapons On July 8, 1996, the World Court, the International Court of Justice at Hague, banned bomb. This was in answer to a question certified by the UN General Assembly, "Is the threat or use of nuclear weapons in any circumstance permitted under international law?" The answer was No, nuclear warfare is not permitted. Nevertheless, the Court considers that it does not have sufficient elements to enable it to conclude with certainty that the use of nuclear weapons would necessarily be at variance with the principles and rules of law applicable in armed conflict in any circumstance (The world court and the bomb, n. d) Legally, the above ruling of International court of justice clearly prohibits country B from using nuclear weapons even if country A uses chemical weapons against them. The unique characteristics of nuclear weapons made it more dangerous than the chemical weapons. Chemical weapons have less after effects compared to that of the nuclear weapons. Nuclear weapons can create immense damage even after years of its use on a particular place. Hiroshima and Nagasaki are better examples of the long term damages nuclear weapons can cause not only to human generations, but also to the entire living organisms. At the same time, the question of how can country like Country B defend its sovereignty when countries like Country A uses chemical weapons. Country A may have better chemical weapon arsenal whereas Country B may have better nuclear arsenal. If country B stays away from using nuclear weapons, they will face severe damages from the hands of Country A and their sovereignty could be in danger. If the usage of nuclear weapon is the only option for Country B to prevent Country A from using chemical weapons, how can Country B stay away from it? For example, Iraq was accused of possessing chemical weapons during the Saddam regime. Suppose, Iraq used their chemical weapons to kill Israeli people, how can Israel stay away from using nuclear weapons? That is why the international court of justice stayed away from completely banning the uses of nuclear weapons. A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict particularly those of the principles and rules of international humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons (Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons, 1996)  The international court of justice is of the opinion that use of nuclear weapons result in violation of various international laws like Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Geneva Conventions, The Hague Conventions etc. it urged the countries to think in terms of rule of necessity, rule of proportionality, principle of neutrality etc before using nuclear weapon. In other words, only at unavoidable circumstances like when the country’s sovereignty is jeopardy, Country B can think of using nuclear weapons. Moreover, Country B should attempt to do so only to attain neutrality in the war; not for gaining supremacy. The principles of humanitarian law are applicable both to Country A and Country B. If United Nations failed to stop Country A from using chemical weapons against Country B, then Country B would have no other options left behind. The uses of biological and chemical weapons are prohibited just like the prohibition of nuclear weapons. Under such circumstances, Country B cannot remain silent when their civilian people struggled to escape from the attacks of Country A. “The Court finds that international law leaves no doubt that the principle of neutrality, whatever its content is applicable, to all international armed conflict, whatever type of weapons might be used” (The world court and the bomb, n. d). Sovereignty is one of the fundamental rights of all the independent countries. It is the claim of having supreme, independent authority over a territory which is recognized by the United Nations. When sovereignty is in question, it is the duty of the country to defend it at any cost. In case, Country B decided to use nuclear weapons, it should target the chemical weapons manufacturing sites in Country A. Country B should try to reduce the civilian casualties as much as possible. The primary intention of Country B should be to prevent or stop Country A from using further chemical weapons against them rather than killing innocent people. Since political administration in Country A is responsible for using chemical weapons against Country B, threatening or attacking of Country A’s administration centers like the Parliament or presidents’ office would be better than attacking the heavily populated areas. Evolution of international law (1864-1993) Many people think that the term international law evolved recently. However, history says that international laws were in place even in the 16 th century. “The last quarter of the 19th century saw many international conventions concerning prisoners of war, communication, collision and salvage at sea, etc(Evolution of international law, 2011). International laws with respect to the use of weapons, treatment of civilians in war, treatment of prisoners of war, naval warfare etc also evolved subsequently. Chapter VII of the United Nations Charter states that “the use of force is justified under only two circumstances: in individual or collective self-defense, as outlined in Article 51, or pursuant to a Security Council resolution, as outlined in Article 42” (The War on Iraq: Legal Issues, 2003). Article 33 of UN charter states that “whenever two parties have any disputes, they should at first seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means of their own choice” (Chapter VI: Pacific Settlement of disputes, n. d.). In other words, UN always stresses the importance of settling international disputes through diplomacy. However, in some unavoidable circumstances, UN allows its member countries to attack other countries or some specific groups or organizations using weapons as it currently happening in Afghanistan and Iraq. The use of weapons As mentioned earlier, international law prohibits use of weapons of mass destruction such as nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. However, weapons which cause less civilian casualties can be used moderately. The aim of weapon usage should be to prevent the enemy from advancing further rather than causing civilian damages.  The treatment of civilians United Nations recently allowed NATO to use forces in Libya in order to prevent Gaddafi from attacking protestors against his regime. UN asked NATO to create a no fly zone over LIBYA in order to prevent Gaddafi from attacking the innocent people using air forces. In other words, the core of every UN resolution with respect to the uses of weapons is to reduce the civilian damages as much as possible. The treatment of POW’s According to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War on 27 July 1929, “Prisoners of war shall at all time be humanely treated and protected, particularly against acts of violence, from insults and from public curiosity. Measures of reprisal against them are forbidden” (International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents, 2005). Prisoners of war should be given respect according to international laws. War prisoners are innocent people who were forced to participate in wars because of the pressure from the top administration or the military leaders in their country. Under such circumstances, international law believes that it is unethical and illogical to torture the war prisoners. However, many of the countries which engage in war treat the POW’s brutally we have witnessed in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. American military leaders tortured the Iraq war prisoners at their own will even though international law is against it. Naval Warfare It is easy to fix frontiers on land; however it is difficult to make frontiers on sea or air. Sea is used extensively for the transportation of passengers and commercial goods between countries. In other words, putting restrictions in the sea transport is against international law. It should be remembered that during the later part of twentieth century, Egypt tried to restrict the passage of commercial ships through Suez Canal and failed miserably in their efforts. “The Second Geneva Convention of 1949 deals only with the protection of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked at sea” (San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, 2010). However, later international community realized the strategic importance of keeping the sea routes easily accessible and made lot of laws with respect to the usage of sea in a naval warfare. The Second International Peace Conference at The Hague in 1907 “regulated bombardment of land targets by naval forces” Moreover, “hospital ships, small craft used for coastal rescue operations and other medical transports and vessels granted safe conduct by agreement between the belligerent parties” are also exempted from attacks in a naval warfare (San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea, 2010). Gulf of Aden has created new questions regarding the implementation of international laws in naval routes. Somalia sea robbers are causing big problems to the safe passage of ships through Gulf of Aden. In 2008 alone, “About $100 million is believed to have been paid in ransoms to the pirates” (Piracy pushes up costs as vessels come under attack off the coast of Somalia, 2008). More than 20000 ships pass through Gulf of Aden every year and international community cannot stay calm after seeing the attacks from sea robbers. Collective efforts are needed for defeating the attempts of sea robbers in this area. An attack on Somalia is meaningless as the administration has no control over the activities of sea robbers even though they are of Somalian origin. Posting of some warships from different countries in the Gulf of Aden is necessary to ensure the safe passage of ships through Gulf of Aden. References 1. Chapter VI: Pacific Settlement of disputes (n. d.), Retrieved from http://www.un.org/en/documents/charter/chapter6.shtml 2. International Humanitarian Law - Treaties & Documents. (2005). Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/full/305?opendocument 3. Legality of the threat or use of nuclear weapons.(1996). Retrieved from http://www.fas.org/nuke/control/icj/text/9623.htm 4. San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflict at Sea (2010). Retrieved from http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jmst.htm 5. Piracy pushes up costs as vessels come under attack off the coast of Somalia.(2008). Retrieved from http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2008/11/2008111971844162942.html 6. Perry G.E. (1998), Attacking Iraq and International Law, Retrieved from http://www.questia.com/googleScholar.qst;jsessionid=L7TQpP7lmQnpjBXfLxD9CtBZPbJMbN6Tw9Gxy60xvpHJj4xG2nSt!2027753819!-1358995715?docId=5001388978 7. The world court and the bomb. (n. d). Retrieved from http://www.gthunt.com/icjop.htm 8. The War on Iraq: Legal Issues, (2003), Retrieved from http://www.hrcr.org/hottopics/Iraq.html Read More