Law of Armed conflict. Is it viable in today's world - Essay Example

The Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) was formulated with the intention of making armed conflict a more civilized exercise. That is, participating countries themselves decided to incorporate certain laws to prevent unnecessary destruction and suffering of human life, through the use or removal of excess military power. By following the Geneva Convention regarding human rights during war time, countries rationalized and codified various rules, guidelines and stipulations to be followed during armed conflict, resulting in the formation of LOAC.

Although, it is clear that LOAC has included many key and constructive stipulations while conducting an armed conflict, my research paper will discuss how in current times, its viability cannot be guaranteed due to few extraneous situations or events that continue to occur in conflict without any specific geographical focus. o One reason why LOAC may be considered unviable in modern warfare is due the rise of terrorists or armed groups, who mostly indulge in a ‘non-direct’ form of warfare, without directly taking on a country’s military in a ‘battlefield’.

Attrition warfare as practiced through the twentieth century is no longer the method in warfare. Due to these extraneous situation, conflics could take place between a country’s military and a terrorist group in ‘Third party countriey’, which mays not be governed ‘aptly’ or adhere toe international laws and conventions relating to human rightr. This ‘unclear’ geographical focus as well as unclear ‘target group’ became visible mainly in the aftermath of the September 11 World Trade Center attack, and particularly visible in the mission to eliminate Osama Bin Laden.

Conflict in a particular geographical area and against a particular country’s military are becoming irrelevant nowadays. Along withLOAC also seems to have become irrelevant. “.the boundaries between "war" and "nonwar," and between "national security" and "domestic issues," have been eroding for some time. September 11 and its aftermath have highlighted the increasing incoherence and irrelevance of these traditional legal categories.” 1 When Al-Qaeda launched the terrorist attacks on the American soil, U.S. launched military attacks on Afghanistan.

Although, the country of Afghanistan is not the real culprit, the Taliban government in Afghanistan harboured al-Qaeda in its territory. Thus, it was not viewed as an ‘innocent’ neutral territory by United States and its Western allies. “In sharp contrast to most wars, the geographic distinction between belligerent and neutral territory is highly unstable in the conflict with al Qaeda.” 2 In addition, the Taliban government was also not recognized by majority of the world countries. So, in this case, non-state actors and non-military forces with the aid of unauthorized government indulged in ‘armed’ aggression against United States.

This being the case, the American government and its military went into the free country of Afghanistan to punish the non-state actors of Al-Qaeda. Thus, in such case, the LOAC could not be applied, because the American forces did not fight the regular military or even the official government of this country country. “..al Qaeda is neither a state nor a domestic insurgent group, the law of armed conflict does not apply at all to the U.S. struggle against terrorism,”