War Laws Essays - International Criminal Law, Valerian Trifa

War Laws The term "laws of war" refers to the rules governing the actual conduct of armed conflict. This idea that there actually exists rules that govern war is a difficult concept to understand. The simple act of war in and of itself seems to be in violation of an almost universal law prohibiting one human being from killing another. But during times of war murder of the enemy is allowed, which leads one to the question, "if murder is permissible then what possible "laws of war" could there be?" The answer to this question can be found in the Charter established at the International Military Tribunals at Nuremberg and Tokyo: Crimes against Humanity: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war, or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated. Leaders, organizers, instigators, and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.1 The above excerpt comes form the Charter of the Tribunal Article 6 section C, which makes it quite clear that in general the "laws of war" are there to protect innocent civilians before and during war. It seems to be a fair idea to have such rules governing armed conflictin order to protect the civilians in the general location of such aconflict. But, when the conflict is over, and if war crimes have been committed, how then are criminals of war brought to justice? The International Military Tribunals held after World War II in Nuremberg on 20 November 1945 and in Tokyo on 3 May 1946 are excellent examples of how such crimes of war are dealt with. (Roberts and Guelff 153-54) But, rather than elaborate on exact details of the Tribunals of Nuremberg and Tokyo a more important matter must be dealt with. What happens when alleged criminals of war are unable to be apprehended and justly tried? Are they forgotten about, or are they sought after such as other criminals are in order to serve justice? What happens if these alleged violators are found residing somewhere other than where their pursuers want to bring them to justice? How does one go about legally obtaining the custody of one such suspect? Some of the answers to these questions can be found in an analysis of how Israel went about obtaining the custody of individuals that it thought to be guilty of Nazi War Crimes. Not only will one find some of the answers to the previously stated questions, but also one will gain an understanding of one facet of international law and how it works. Two cases in specific will be dealt with here. First, the extradition of Adolf Eichmann from Argentina, and second, the extradition of John Demjanjuk from the United States of America. These cases demonstrate two very different ways that Israel went about obtaining the custody of these alleged criminals. The cases also expose the intricacy of International Law in matters of extradition. But, before we begin to examine each of these cases we must first establish Israel's right to judicial processing of alleged Nazi war criminals. To understand the complications involved in Israel placing suspected Nazi war criminals on trial, lets review the history of Israel's situation. During World War II the Nazis were persecuting Jews in their concentration camps. At this time the state of Israel did not exist. The ending of the war meant the ending of the persecution, and when the other countries discovered what the Nazis had done Military Tribunals quickly followed. Some of the accused war criminals were tried and sentenced, but others managed to escape judgement and thus became fugitives running from international law. Israel became a state, and thus, some of the Jews that survived the concentration camps moved to the state largely populated by people of Jewish ancestry. Israel felt a moral commitment because of its large Jewish population and set about searching for the fugitive Nazi war criminals. The situation just described is only a basic overview of what happened. The state of Israel views itself as the nation with the greatest moral jurisdiction for the trial of Nazi war criminals, and other states around the Globe agree with Israel's claim. (Lubet and Reed 1) Former Israeli Attorney General

Knoblauch Summary Essays

Knoblauch Summary Essays Knoblauch Summary Essay Knoblauch Summary Essay It’s Knoblauch’s goal in his essay to show that there isn’t only one definition of literacy. His theory is that there are 4 senses of literacy and he not only defines them, but explains in detail what language is implied by each sense and how the group defining them use these different ways of literacy in everyday life. Knoblauch’s point is that there is no wrong or right way to view literacy but that is more than one way. The groups defining the 4 types are based on their belief system and what they value. The first sense is functional literacy. I would say this is the way most Americans view literacy. It’s basically being able to read and write at a level that makes a person capable to live fine in a society where writing is a big deal. If you have functional literacy, it’s easy to fill out job applications and to participate in activities where you are given writing instructions. It’s basically the low man on the totem pole. People with this literacy have little power in both social and economic groups; you probably wont see someone with only this literacy as a CEO or business owner. The second definition of a literacy being used today is Cultural literacy. This group is more advanced than the functional literacy group because they can not only read and write at a level high enough to survive, they read high culture literature and other types of writing that will help preserve their cultural beliefs and values. They have a more proper language. The next form of literacy would be the personal growth literacy. It’s to my understanding that their type of writing helps them find themselves. It exercises their imaginations and expresses their feelings. Poems may be a popular type of writing; songwriting maybe. And the last is critical literacy, critical meaning its of the most importance to sound smart and know what your talking about because it’s almost as if it’s a means of power, which makes sense. It isn’t often that you see a CEO or owner of a company using words like â€Å"ain’t† or prepositions. Basically, people in the group defining this literacy use their writing and their words as a way to get their ideas out there.