International Relations Commons^™

Stopping The Killing And/Or Stopping Human Rights Violations, Edward Friedman

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The relationship between promoting human rights and stopping wars can be perplexing. The 19th century origins of the Geneva Convention and the International Commissions of the Red Cross (ICRC) are warnings about the moral danger, ambiguities, or tensions of bringing war within the arena of human rights considerations. Human rights and war can be a toxic cocktail. One should not want to make war more likely or legitimate or deadly by seeming to say that the killing machine on one side or the other is acting humanely, as if that makes war okay. War is hell.

Healing From War To End All Wars, Christien Van Den Anker

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The First World War was known as the war to end all wars. After the Second World War, and especially in reference to the Holocaust, the urgent slogan was “Never Again.” Although these hopes to end war and genocide have not yet been fulfilled, they inspired the worldwide moral stance against war and a host of international instruments and bodies contributed to the protection of both civilians and combatants during war.

Proportional To Life, Emma Gilligan

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The Economist piece entitled “Proportional to what?” poses a dangerous question. The notion, as the article suggests, that proportionality in war is a “slippery idea” or that the facts are “nebulous” is the work of either an intentionally provocative or idly cynical author. Whatever the motivation for the words, it is precisely the dismissive tone embodied in such statements that has contributed to and defined the attitude more recently of larger states, like Israel and Russia, to issues of accountability for the death of civilians.

Protecting Human Rights In Conflict, Clair Apodaca

Human Rights & Human Welfare

The Just War Theory of Jus in Bello is the international community’s attempt to ensure respect for human rights and human welfare during armed conflicts. The principle of proportionality and the obligation to distinguish between combatants and civilians in attacks are two related notions that are fundamental to the protection of human rights during conflict. The principle of proportionality limits the amount of violence and destruction that is morally permissible. By contrast, the principle of discrimination (or distinction) discriminates between legitimate targets, such as soldiers and weapons depots, and illegitimate targets, specifically noncombatants such as civilian populations and their property.

Proportionality And Unjust Wars, Sarah Stanlick

Human Rights & Human Welfare

As violence rages in the Middle East, policymakers, academics, and the public alike have been embroiled in debate over the proportional use of force. As The Economist article points out, historical grievances leave both Israelis and Palestinians with compelling arguments for defense and resistance. However, at this point, the cycle of violence has perpetuated blame that goes beyond a simple tally sheet. World leaders remain divided on the rights and wrongs of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but human rights groups internationally are crying out for Israel and Hamas to end attacks that “do not discriminate between civilians and military targets.” While …

February Roundtable: Introduction

Human Rights & Human Welfare

An annotation of:

“Proportional to What?” The Economist. December 30, 2008.

Nigel Parsons On Israel's Occupation By Neve Gordon. Berkley, Ca: University Of California Press, 2008. 318pp., Nigel Parsons

Human Rights & Human Welfare

A review of:

Israel's Occupation by Neve Gordon. Berkley, CA: University of California Press, 2008. 318pp.

Summary: Israeli- Palestinian Ethnic Conflict, Allen Gnanam

Allen Gnanam

The Israeli- Palestinian ethnic conflict will continue to escalate throughout both the short term and long term world future. The current and future animosity between both ethnic groups can be attributed to (a) history based accounts and religious tensions, (b) polarizing ideologies held by both sides, and (c) middle eastern resentment toward the Jewish state of Israel. History based accounts will refer to both biased historical accounts and factual historical events that have contributed to the Israeli- Palestinian ethnic conflict. Concepts such as ethnicity, nationalism, ideology, Palestinians, Israeli’s, Arabs, and religion will be conceptualized in the research paper.

Israeli- Palestinian Ethnic Conflict, Allen Gnanam

Allen Gnanam

This research paper discusses the historical, religious, and ideological factors linked to the Israeli- Palestinian ethnic conflict, and how these factors have contributed to middle eastern resentment toward the Jewish State of Israeli. The Modernist Theory, Perceptual Framework, and he Domestic Framework have been applied to the analysis of the Israeli- Palestinian ethnic conflict, in order to demonstrate the intensity of the above factors and their provocative role in the conflict. Other provocative issues that are discussed in this paper include territorial wars, ethnic nationalism, the competition for natural resources, the biased dissemination of historical text through educational institutions, and …

A Palestinian State, Jennifer A. Hileman-Tabios

UNLV Theses, Dissertations, Professional Papers, and Capstones

Should an independent, sovereign state of Palestine have the right to exist? The establishment of an independent Palestinian state is important because it could possibly end an extended period of violence with Israel, where civilian casualties have been high, and it could help to solidify a foundation of political tolerance and acceptance in the Middle East. Under the proposed two-state solution, an independent Palestinian state is possible. However, to determine if a Palestinian state is viable, it will be necessary to examine internal political struggles, economic resources, systems of communication, political systems and internal and external political policies. This qualitative …