This article explores the idea that governments knowingly victimize civilians under war when they feel weakened or defenceless. The article provides two main reasons that states engage in victimization of civilians; desperation or appetite for territorial conquest. The former refers to lowering costs of war on the states part by increasing the enemy’s cost and lowering the enemy’s morale for continuing the battle. The latter refers to a states want for more land to claim, using force and death to get what they want, by subduing or eliminating the enemy. The civilians who are targeted for these purposes are also chosen strategically. Mistreatment of civilians of the enemy occurs when specific values or traditions are seen as barbaric to the …show more content…
Some of these long term effects might include a political, ideological shift and a positive effect on the victim’s political perspective. In brief, it was discussed that survivors of wartime victimization become more involved in political debate, and develop trusting relationships with other citizens than those who did not experience victimization. The overall thesis of the article was that civil war victimization affects long term political identities. In addition the extent of the identity differs depending on the type of victimization that was done; physical, psychological, etc. Being a witness or victim to a harsh crime has extreme effects on one’s psychological state, which can then lead to changes in political identity. The effects of war victimization are divided up into 3 categories; 1. Rejection of identity of the armed group (perpetrator of violent act experienced), 2. Acceptance of identity of perpetrator (due to fear of retribution), or 3. Demobilization/apathy (rejecting all parties involved in conflict). The first leads to political support of rivaling group(s), the second leads to support for armed group, and the third leads to a decreased political interest in general. Finally, there is the possibility that victimization has no effect on a person’s political …show more content…
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
War is the means to many ends. The ends of ruthless dictators, of land disputes, and lives – each play its part in the reasoning for war. War is controllable. It can be avoided; however, once it begins, the bat...
Throughout history, war has been the catalyst that has compelled otherwise-ordinary people to discard, at least for its duration, their longstanding beliefs about the immorality of killing their fellow human beings. In sum, during periods of war, people’s views about killing others are fundamentally transformed from abhorrence to glorification due in large part to the decisions that are made by their political leaders. In this regard, McMahan points out that, “As soon as conditions arise to which the word ‘war’ can be applied, our scruples vanish and killing people no longer seems a horrifying crime but becomes instead a glorious achievement” (vii). Therefore, McMahan argues that the transformation of mainstream views about the morality of killing during times of war are misguided and flawed since they have been based on the traditional view that different moral principles somehow apply in these circumstances. This traditional view about a just war presupposes the morality of the decision to go to war on the part of political leaders in the first place and the need to suspend traditional views about the morality of killing based on this
“War at its basic level has always been about soldiers. Nations rose and fell on the strength of their armies and the men who filled the ranks.” This is a very powerful quote, especially for the yet young country of the United States, for it gives credit where credit is truly due: to the men who carried out the orders from their superiors, gave their blood, sweat and tears, and in millions of cases their lives while fighting for ideals that they believed their country or government was founded upon, and to ensure the continuation of these ideals. Up until the end of the 20th Century, they did so in the worst of conditions, and this includes not only the battle scene, but also every day life. In this essay, I will examine the daily life of the Civil War soldier, including: identifying WHO he was, drill and training, camp life, supplies he used, clothes he wore, food he ate, on the battlefield, psychological aspects including morale and his attitude toward the war, and his sexual life. That’s right, you read it correctly: HIS SEX LIFE!
There have been many humanitarians that strive to help countries suffering with human right abuses. People think that the help from IGOs and NGOs will be enough to stop human rights violations. However, it hasn’t been effective. Every day, more and more human rights violations happen. The problem is escalating. People, including children, are still being forced to work to death, innocent civilians are still suffering the consequences of war, and families are struggling to stay firm together. Despite the efforts from the people, IGOs, and NGOs, In the year 2100, human rights abuse will not end.
Political violence is action taken to achieve political goals that may include armed revolution, civil strife, terrorism, war or other such activities that could result in injury, loss of property or loss of life. Political violence often occurs as a result of groups or individuals believing that the current political systems or anti-democratic leadership, often being dictatorial in nature, will not respond to their political ambitions or demands, nor accept their political objectives or recognize their grievances. Formally organized groups, Non-Government Organizations (NGOs), businesses and collectives of individual citizens are non-state actors, that being that they are not locally, nationally or internationally recognized legitimate civilian or military authorities. The Cotonou Agreement of 2000 defines non-state actors as being those parties belonging to the private sector, economic and social partners and civil society in all its forms according to national characteristics. Historical observation shows that nation states with political institutions that are not capable of, or that are resistant to recognizing and addressing societies issues and grievances are more likely to see political violence manifest as a result of disparity amongst the population. This essay will examine why non-state political violence occurs including root and trigger causes by looking at the motivations that inspire groups and individuals to resort to non-conforming behaviors that manifest as occurrences of non-state political violence. Using terrorism and Islamic militancy on the one side, and human rights and basic freedoms on the other as examples, it will look at these two primary kinds of political violence that are most prevalent in the world ...
The idea of intervention is either favoured or in question due to multiple circumstances where intervening in other states has had positive or negative outcomes. The General Assembly was arguing the right of a state to intervene with the knowledge that that state has purpose for intervention and has a plan to put forth when trying to resolve conflicts with the state in question. The GA argues this because intervention is necessary. This resolution focuses solely on the basis of protection of Human Rights. The General Assembly recognizes that countries who are not super powers eventually need intervening. They do not want states to do nothing because the state in question for intervening will continue to fall in the hands of corruption while nothing gets done. The GA opposed foreign intervention, but with our topic it points out that intervention is a necessity when the outcome could potentially solve conflicts and issues. In many cases intervention is necessary to protect Human Rights. For instance; several governments around the world do not privilege their citizens with basic Human Rights. These citizens in turn rely on the inter...
I have explained the concepts of individual and large-group identity based on Volkan’s article. Also, particularly focuses on chosen trauma which refers to the shared mental representation of a past historical event. The historical event which they receive from an enemy group during suffering losses or humiliation. Due to the immeasurable of the trauma, group members leave with psychological wounds or humiliation which they pass down from generation to generation. Subsequent generations have gone through many tasks just as mourning losses or humiliation. The mental representation original trauma becomes a group identity’s larker since the given tasks are shared by most members of the group. A political leaders tend to reactivate chosen traumas during times of extreme change in a large-group’s history or during the large-group regression. This reactivation might become a foothold to go further the existing large-group
In Khaled Hosseini’s novel titled “A Thousand Splendid Suns”, the concept of man’s inhumanity to man describes the ways that war has a ripple effect, such that any inhumanity carried out has consequences for many more people than are involved in that act. One can clearly see that war leads to destruction during different regimes in Afghanistan. The destructive effects of war can be seen in the death of so many people. It leads to the suffering of the younger generation and it demolishes the infrastructure of the country.
society. A question is raised, scrutinizing the accountability of civilians and whether or not their
Rethinking Violence: States and Non-state Actors in Conflict. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press, 2010. eBook Collection (EBSCOhost), EBSCOhost (accessed April 22, 2014).
Relations between countries are similar to interpersonal relations. When the conflicts between countries escalates to some extent, any resolutions become unrealistic except violence, and wars then occur. Although wars already include death and pain, moralists suggest that there should still be some moral restrictions on them, including the target toward whom the attack in a war should be performed, and the manner in which it is to be done. A philosopher named Thomas Nagel presents his opinion and develops his argument on such topic in the article “War and Massacre”. In this essay, I will describe and explain his main argument, try to propose my own objection to it, and then discuss how he would respond to my objection.
Violence marks much of human history. Within the sociopolitical sphere, violence has continually served as a tool used by various actors to influence and/or to control territory, people, institutions and other resources of society. The twentieth century witnessed an evolution of political violence in form and in scope. Continuing into the twenty-first, advances in technology and social organization dramatically increase the potential destructiveness of violent tools. Western colonialism left a world filled with many heterogeneous nation-states. In virtually all these countries nationalist ideologies have combined with ethnic, religious, and/or class conflicts resulting in secessionist movements or other kinds of demands. Such conflicts present opportunities for various actors in struggles for wealth, power, and prestige on both national and local levels. This is particularly evident in Indonesia, a region of the world that has experienced many forms of political violence. The state mass killings of 1965-66 mark the most dramatic of such events within this region. My goal is to understand the killings within a framework of collec...
Around the world and around the clock, human rights violations seem to never cease. In particular, torture violations are still rampant all over the world. One regime, the Convention against Torture and other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, establishes a strong elaboration of norms against torture. Despite its efforts, many countries still outright reject its policies against torture while other countries openly accept them, but surreptitiously still violate them. The US, Israel, and Saudi Arabia all have failed to end torture despite accepting the provisions of the Convention.
...th 2001). Roth argues that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new idea but was exercised by the US government in the 1970 after an aircraft hijacking. Also the war crime courts established after the end of World War II exercised international jurisdiction. In fact the Geneva Convention states that is a person regardless of their nationality should be brought before the court of any state in which that person has committed grave breaches of law and convention. Roth states that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new one but that only in recent years have states been willing to act on universal jurisdiction and go after criminals of the international community regardless of their stating or power within the international community. Roth believes in the ability and authority of international organizations and institutions (Roth 2001).
Humanitarian Intervention has been the target of much criticism, essentially in the past several decades. Particularly, questions arise when analyzing how nations decide whether or not to intervene in another sate’s internal affairs. Politics plays a large role in most nations’ internal and external decisions. When faced with the question of if or where to intervene, concerning parties, being governments or IGOs, resort to the concept of a cost-benefit analysis to generate their verdict. Despite the magnitude of the violations, parties will ignore the violation of human rights in nations where the cost may outweigh the benefits. This concept generates a structure in which one’s right to liberty or one’s right to deny another’s liberty is based upon your social status as well as your networks. It is not typical for a political leader to intervene in another state’s internal affairs if they do not expect to succeed. Conditions such as the success rate and the projected time till outcome are reflected upon whilst deciding to undertake a policy. The lack on involvement during the genocide in Rwanda in 1994 is a clear example of this. According to Samantha Powers, despite the degree of brutality, it was believed that the United Nation decided against the mediation because they could not afford another failed intervention like Somalia, which could hurt the future of the its peacekeeping program. Moreover, she believed the United States failed to make a contribution to the closure of the genocide largely because of the aftermath of Somalia that left eighteen deceased American soldiers. Rwanda was not seen a possibility after a public outcry of Americans dying “needlessly” (2002, p.541) The American choice not to intervene makes it less ...