Judaism and the ethics of war

2005 ◽  
Vol 87 (858) ◽  
pp. 295-309 ◽  
Author(s):  
Norman Solomon

AbstractThe article surveys Jewish sources relating to the justification and conduct of war, from the Bible and rabbinic interpretation to recent times, including special problems of the State of Israel. It concludes with the suggestion that there is convergence between contemporary Jewish teaching, modern human rights doctrine and international law.

2008 ◽  
Vol 77 (4) ◽  
pp. 319-364 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lena Skoglund

AbstractHuman rights organisations have warned repeatedly that basic human rights are being challenged in the so-called 'War on Terror'. One particularly controversial area is the use of diplomatic assurances against torture. According to international human rights instruments, the state shall not return anyone to countries in which they face a substantial risk of being subjected to torture. In the 'War on Terror', an increasing number of non-citizens are being deemed 'security threats', rendering them exempt from protection in many Western states. To be able to deport such 'threats' without compromising their duties under international law, states are increasingly willing to accept a diplomatic assurance against torture – that is, a promise from the state of return that it will not subject the returnee to torture. There is wide disagreement as to whether and/or when diplomatic assurances can render sufficient protection to satisfy the obligations of non-refoulement to risk of torture. Whereas the human rights society label such assurances as 'empty promises', others view them as effective, allowing states to retain their right to remove non-citizens without violating international law. This article reviews international and selected national jurisprudence on the topic of diplomatic assurances against torture and examines if and/or when such assurances might render sufficient protection against torture to enable removals in accordance with international law. The courts and committees that have reviewed the use of diplomatic assurances against torture have identified essential problems of using them, thus rejecting reliance on simple promises not to torture. However, they have often implied that sufficient protection might be rendered by developing the assurances. I argue that this approach risks leading the governments into trying to perfect a system that is inherently flawed – whilst, incidentally, deportations to actual risk of torture continue. Even carefully modelled assurances render only unreliable protection against torture. For this, and reasons connected to undesirable side-effects of their use, I argue that the practice should be rejected.


2020 ◽  
Vol 114 ◽  
pp. 193-199
Author(s):  
Sean D. Murphy ◽  
Claudio Grossman

Our conversation might begin by looking backward a bit. The human rights movement from 1945 onward has been one of the signature accomplishments of the field of international law, one that refocused our attention from a largely interstate system to a system where the individual moved in from the periphery to the center. Human rights champions point to numerous landmark treaties, numerous institutions, and the rise of NGOs as a critical vehicle for developing and monitoring human rights rules. Yet others look at the international human right system and still see the state as overly central, tolerating and paying lip service to human rights, but too easily discarding them when they prove to be inconvenient. The persistence of racism comes to mind. As a general matter, how would you assess the strengths and weaknesses of the system that was built essentially during your lifetime?


1990 ◽  
Vol 24 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 451-484 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ruth Lapidoth

Since the establishment of the State and up to the present day, Israeli law has had to deal with a great number of various problems in the field of international law, e.g. whether the State of Israel is a successor to the obligations of the Mandatory government; the jurisdiction of the Israeli courts with regard to offences committed in demilitarized zones or beyond the State's boundaries (on the high seas or abroad); the immunity of foreign states and their representatives from the jurisdiction of Israeli courts and from measures of execution; the status of international organizations and of their employees; the effect and implications of official acts performed within the territory of a state which is at war with Israel; the effect of international treaties in Israel; the question whether the Eastern neighbourhoods of Jerusalem are part of Israel; various issues concerning extradition, and of course, many questions regarding the laws of war: the powers of the military governor, and in particular his power to expropriate land in the territories under Israeli control and to expel residents from the territories, the extent of his legislative powers, etc.


2020 ◽  
pp. 219-241
Author(s):  
Timothy William Waters

This chapter explores strategies to achieve acceptance of a right to secede, whether as a legal rule or as a model for individual states. Secession is a hard sell, and the principal battleground is moral and political. A shift in attitudes must precede the legal project; only then will people see doctrinal arguments lining up and making sense. And, after all, the goal is not a new legal right for its own sake, but a change in how societies and states behave. The chapter then considers why a formal right of secession is implausible, and what that implies about the best strategies to adopt—the narrow but real possibilities that exist. The path is indirect: It relies on transnational diffusion of norms, and for this people can draw lessons from once-improbable projects that have become orthodoxies, such as decolonization and human rights; also, recent secession attempts suggest that constitutional projects could serve as models. The path leads through many small changes, rather than a single, quixotic swerve toward a new legal rule. But because the existing global norm limits the ability to create change within states, people cannot abandon the idea of a new rule: Advocates of secession need a point of triangulation outside the state to advance their cause, and that point will be found in international law.


2016 ◽  
Vol 2 (3) ◽  
pp. 349
Author(s):  
Aidir Amin Daud

Right to life is non-derogable rights. A natural right that should not be revoked arbitrarily by anyone, including the state. A mass murder in events 1 October 1965 and Timor-Timor is a double series of states’ failure in protecting the rights of Indonesian peoples. Moreover, these two events get different treatment in its handling. The disparity in treatment between two cases is a big question related to the consistency of human rights enforcement in Indonesia. This study is a descriptive-qualitative research. While, to prove the truth, this study will use a comparative study. The findings show that the attitude of the United Nations that treat serious human rights violations in Timor-Timor and the events of 1965 in Indonesia, cannot be answered differently in the perspective of international law. Since it has a weakness where the political interests of ruling is very strong in influencing the decisions of the UN. The disparity in law enforcement in the event of serious human rights violations in 1965 and Timor-Timor due to the dynamics of international politics when it does not allow for the demands of human rights violations to the UNs’ International Court due to advantage for a certain state after the event. In order to reduce disparities in human rights violations, reconciliation is the most rational solution at this time compared remains demand the state for the violations. Besides, many human rights violations in certain countries that have successfully resolved through reconciliation approach.


Author(s):  
Paul David Mora

SummaryIn its recent decision in Jurisdictional Immunities of the State (Germany v Italy: Greece Intervening), the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that Italy had failed to respect immunities enjoyed by Germany under international law when the Italian courts allowed civil actions to be brought against Germany for alleged violations of international human rights law (IHRL) and the law of armed conflict (LOAC) committed during the Second World War. This article evaluates the three arguments raised by Italy to justify its denial of immunity: first, that peremptory norms of international law prevail over international rules on jurisdictional immunities; second, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for serious violations of IHRL or the LOAC; and third, that customary international law recognizes an exception to immunity for torts committed by foreign armed forces on the territory of the forum state in the course of an armed conflict. The author concludes that the ICJ was correct to find that none of these arguments deprived Germany of its right under international law to immunity from the civil jurisdiction of the Italian courts.


Author(s):  
Meier Benjamin Mason ◽  
Murphy Thérèse ◽  
Gostin Lawrence O

This chapter examines the historical origins of human rights as a basis for public health. Tracing the idea of rights from philosophical notions of natural rights to human rights under international law, the normative foundations underlying rights have long been seen as central to health and well-being—from the political engagement with underlying determinants of health in 1848 to the international codification of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) in 1948. The modern human rights system that frames public health arose in response to the deprivations and atrocities of World War II. Giving rise to the notion of human rights under international law, the postwar creation of the United Nations (UN) provided the structure for a new legal regime under which individuals were seen as having certain rights by virtue of their humanity, ensuring a foundation for the evolution of rights to advance health.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document