Suchergebnisse

The issue of whether war crimes should be considered as a moral, legal, or political category is addressed. It is initially contended that only "crimes against peace" should be considered war crimes since other traditional categories of war crimes (eg, violations of human rights) remain criminal in nature outside the context of war. Moreover, it is claimed that crimes against peace possess specific moral & legal difficulties since defeated parties are generally labeled war criminals. The tendency to equate military success in war with absolution from blame is subsequently questioned on moral & legal grounds; specifically, it is argued that prosecuting those who achieve military victory may infringe on a state's universal right to self-defense. Moreover, the capacity to bring charges of war crimes against parties regardless of the outcome of war is deemed problematic since such reasoning suggests that certain entities have a right to victory during war. Consequently, it is maintained that only aggressor states that are defeated during war can legitimately be prosecuted. It is concluded that prosecutions of parties accused of committing war crimes ultimately constitutes a political act. J. W. Parker

Various notions of virtue ethics are used to create a framework for analyzing the ethics of war crimes. Although Aristotle's understanding of virtue ethics is deemed inadequate for such a project because it emphasizes what individuals deserve for committing such violations, Francis Hutcheson's & David Hume's moral sentimentalist perspectives are perceived as providing a more agent-based ethical perspective. In addition, Friedrich Nietzsche's notion of inner strength is viewed as offering an agent-based understanding of virtue ethics. Specifically, Nietzsche's notion of inner strength implies that powerful nations will not seek retribution against other countries that launch unsuccessful attacks. Despite the potential of Nietzsche's virtue ethics, it is suggested that a moral sentimentalist perspective is better suited to explicate why defender nations would not seek vengeance against aggressor countries. J. W. Parker

The issue of whether morally unjustifiable means (ie, war crimes) can be used by state military forces to accomplish morally justifiable ends in times of war is contemplated. It is contended that human rights impose certain constraints on the means & ends of wartime behavior. Consequently, crimes that violate human rights committed against aggressor forces are deemed morally permissible since the perpetrators were attempting to violate the human rights of the defenders. However, two categories of war crimes that essentially violate human rights are identified: actions in which (1) aggressor states attempt to dominate other groups for purposes of self-aggrandizement regardless of such groups' human rights & (2) military forces inflict unnecessary injury (eg, rape & torture) on subjugated groups. It is claimed that justifiable ends realized through the use of unjustifiable means cannot be morally legitimized. It is concluded that international law has a moral responsibility to establish guidelines for preventing & punishing violations of human rights during times of war. J. W. Parker

"Contemporary Sources of Human Rights Violations" published on by Oxford University Press.