Ignatius Lieola became their first general.
Nice juinParis, Pedone,pp. Footnotes  For example, civilians. It is not necessary to harm civilians, only combatants. It is not necessary to destroy the enemy country, but only to occupy it. It is not necessary to destroy civilian infrastructure, but only objects contributing to military resistance.
To understand IHLone must start with the concepts and inherent features of the traditional layer: IHL was conceived as a body of law regulating belligerent inter-State relations. It is to a large extent irrelevant, however, to contemporary humanitarian problems unless understood within the second layer.
Indeed, inter-State armed conflicts tend to have disappeared, except in the form of armed conflicts between the members of organized international society or, on the one hand, those who claim to represent it and, on the other hand, States outlawed by it — a phenomenon of the second layer. From the perspective of both layers, IHL is perched at the vanishing point of international law, but is simultaneously a crucial test for international law.
From the perspective of the first layer, it is astonishing but essential for our understanding of the nature and reality of international law to see that law governs inter-State relations even when they are belligerent, even when the very existence of a State is at stake, and even when the most important rule of the first layer — the prohibition of the use of force — has been violated or when a government has been unable to impose its monopoly of violence within the territory of the State.
In the latter case, which is tantamount to a non-international armed conflict, what is most striking is not so much the fact that international law regulates a situation that transcends the axioms of the first layer, but the fact that its international rules apply not only to the use of force by the government but also directly to all violent human behaviour in the situation.
From the perspective of the second layer, it is perhaps even more difficult to conceive — but essential to understand — that international law governs human behaviour, even when violence is used, and even when essential features of the organized structure of the international and national community have fallen apart.
No national legal system contains similar rules on how those who violate its primary rules have to behave while violating them. IHL exemplifies all the weakness and at the same time the specificity of international law.
If the end of all law is the human being, it is critical for our understanding of international law to see how it can protect him or her even, and precisely, in the most inhumane situation, armed conflict. Some have suggested — albeit more implicitly than explicitly — that IHL is different from the rest of international law, either because they wanted to protect international law against detractors claiming to have an obvious prima facie case proving its inexistence, or because they wanted to protect IHL from the basic political, conceptual or ideological controversies inevitably arising between States and between human beings holding diverging opinions on the basic notions of international law and its ever changing rules.
This suggestion, however, cannot be accepted, as it fails to recognize the inherent inter-relation between IHL and other branches of international law. IHLdistinct from humanitarian morality or the simple dictates of public conscience, cannot exist except as a branch of international law, and international law must contain rules concerning armed conflict, as an unfortunately traditional form of inter-State relations.
Indeed, law has to provide answers to reality, it has to rule over reality; it cannot limit itself to reflecting reality. The latter, the necessarily normative character of law, the inevitable distance between law, on the one hand, and politics and history, on the other, is even more evident for IHLgiven the bleak reality of armed conflicts, which cannot possibly be called humanitarian.
Quotation 1 [I]n the matter of those parts of the law of war which are not covered or which are not wholly covered by the Geneva Conventions, diverse problems will require clarification.
These include such questions as to implications of the principle, which has been gaining general recognition, that the law of war is binding not only upon states but also upon individuals i.
In all these matters the lawyer must do his duty regardless of dialectical doubts — though with a feeling of humility springing from the knowledge that if international law is, in some ways, at the vanishing point of law, the law of war is, perhaps even more conspicuously, at the vanishing point of international law.
He must continue to expound and to elucidate the various aspects of the law of war for the use of armed forces, of governments, and of others. He must do so with determination though without complacency and perhaps not always very hopefully — the only firm hope being that a world may arise in which no such calls will claim his zeal.
The very idea of a legal regulation of a condition of mere force has appeared to many incongruous to the point of absurdity. This view, which is entitled to respect, is controversial — at least so long as the law permitted or even authorized resort of war. And it may be argued that even if war were to be unconditionally renounced and prohibited — which is not as yet the case — juridical logic would have to stop short of the refusal to provide a measure of legal regulation, for obvious considerations of humanity, of hostilities which have broken out in disregard of the fundamental prohibition or recourse to war.
The same applies to hostilities and measures of force taking place in the course of collective enforcement of international law or in the course of civil wars. Single laws have tried to turn aside the sword. But legal rules have also been devised to help curb the new violence.
In my opinion, this premise is false. On closer examination, it is not true that, when their essential military, economic and political interests are at stake, states trifle with the Tables of the Law [ It consists in preventing their legal crystallisation, or — if the pressure of public opinion makes this impossible — in wording them in terms as ambiguous as possible.
By so doing, they can then interpret these legal standards as best they please, adapting them to requirements of the moment and bending them to their contingent interests.
If we thumb through the records of the last forty or fifty years, we can easily see that no state, great or small, has ever admitted to breaking the commonly accepted legal canons. Take, for example, the ban on chemical warfare, or on weapons that cause unnecessary suffering; the ban on indiscriminate attacks on undefended towns, or, on a larger scale, on acts of genocide, and so on.
Whenever they are accused of violating these and other no less important international rules, states immediately make denials, or else they point to the exceptional circumstances which they feel legitimize their course of action; or they say that the international rules prohibit not their own but other forms of behaviour.
Thus in the eminent English jurist J. Today, the growing power of the press and of the mass media generally has greatly increased the importance of public opinion especially in democratic countries. But even states in which the media is manipulated by government authorities cannot ignore the repercussions of their political, military and economic action on the opinion of foreign governments, promptly alerted by the various often western channels of information.
By relying on these forces, as well as on many non-governmental organizations which are more and more committed and pugnacious, there is hope that something may as yet be achieved. International law, then is voluntary and only hortatory.Hannah Arendt and the Banality of Evil.
Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil” while covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official charged with the orderly extermination of Europe’s ashio-midori.com herself was a German-Jewish exile struggling in the most personal of ways to come to grips with the utter destruction of European society.
Faith & Heritage is a consortium of Christian writers from a traditionalist perspective. F&H features a diverse range of opinions among its writers, and any particular opinion expressed is not necessarily indicative of universal .
The 13th amendment abolished slavery and the 14th amendment provided that representation would be determined according to the whole number of persons in each state, not by the “three-fifths” of the slaves.
Hannah Arendt and the Banality of Evil. Hannah Arendt coined the term “banality of evil” while covering the trial of Adolf Eichmann, a Nazi official charged with the orderly extermination of Europe’s ashio-midori.com herself was a German-Jewish exile struggling in the most personal of ways to come to grips with the utter destruction of .
Justice in Blue and Gray: A Legal History of the Civil War [Stephen C. Neff] on ashio-midori.com *FREE* shipping on qualifying offers. Stephen Neff offers the first comprehensive study of the wide range of legal issues arising from the American Civil War.
Most recent additions 01Dec04 - Wired News - US Military Daleks Ready for Iraq Duty 15Nov04 - Counterpunch - A War Crime in Real Time - Obliterating Fallujah.