Are there ever circumstances in which nations are justified in suspending the laws of war - Essay Example

The law also gives a time period that the war should continue. This is considered in the international humanitarian law that insists that the war time conduct should be limited to acceptable volumes. Therefore, the war should only continue to a certain length of time. On the other hand, just war theory deals with issues that are related to why and how wars are fought between countries, states and regions. Some wars are justified as they have a noble cause. This brings the point where countries have to engage in wars that have a solid bearing and they should be fought.

In this historic aspect of war, there are traditions that are directly inclined to rules of agreement where they have been applied across many wars across the world. In many times, people use their philosophical conventions to decide on these particular decisions. War does rely on the use of weaponry and strategy, to ensure a country protects its interests. Since time immemorial, people have been fighting in the world with different causes implicated to the beginning of the war. With the prevalence in fighting, people have been blaming each other for the fighting (Shanahan, 2005:34).

There are many aspects that go beyond historical philosophy, philosophy of the incumbent law and the political history of a place or country that could lead to suspension of laws of war. They deem to protect countries, human race and any group of people (Duffield, 2007:31). They have to consider all other options that would be prominent in securing human life. Many historical figures have had their fair share of reflection on the issue of war and have generated their strong recommendations. This includes philosophical leaders, religious leaders and political bigwigs.

There are many circumstances where a country has to suspend laws of war, since there are other interests that should be protected. As a fact, war is openly referred to as a brutal enterprise that is used to solve problems. However, Carl von Clausewitz states that war is a continuity of policies that are implemented in other means. In this statement, he suggests that war is violent ways of ensuring people adhere to the stated rules. The leaders in such countries do not have an option of solving and implementing the policies in a peaceful way, and have to consider forceful implementation (Nathanson, 2010:45).

This leads to eruption of war in a country, which could go on for a long period of time. In his word, circumstances that lead to war are about the will to perform what other people are suggesting. Therefore, war only erupts when people refuse to do what is to be done and oppose the will of the implementing leaders. Before engaging in any warfare, countries have to consult the law of war. However, countries evaluate the laws of war and decide to suspend them. These are set criteria that countries should use before engaging in any war.

Therefore, countries do make decisions before engaging in any act of war. This is well explained in the jus ad bellum which gives the country the right perspectives before engaging in any war. As such, this is a universal law that has to be consulted before taking any actions that might jeopardise the peaceful coexistence of the world. As a fact, these laws were incepted to ensure that countries only engaged in wars that were justified (Coady, 2007:41). Therefore, this is a law that ensures countries and other parties engage in wars that are justified, and should avoid any