ipl-logo

Military Necessity Analysis

1093 Words5 Pages

1. “Military necessity” is a formal term that specifically addresses the tension inherent in attempting to minimize suffering through rules, while at the same time employing a method (violence) that necessarily causes the suffering of innocent people. On the other hand, “necessities of war” refers in a more general way to the suffering and hardship - both the military and civilian population - that is an inevitable by-product of the descriptive expression that reflects an inevitable aspect of the use of force. The view of Vitoria regarding these two critical concepts can be seen on his discussion of the protection of innocents, were he added the caveat that “it is right, in virtue of collateral circumstances, to slay the innocent, otherwise, …show more content…

In sum, military necessity justify immoral acts on the basis that they might contribute some way to military objectives. Consequently, this makes even more ambiguous and difficult for soldiers to distinguish lawful and unlawful acts. This principle needs a more precise definition, as well as a clear relationship to other principles articulated in law. First, we must determine the condition under which military necessity provides enough justification for overriding certain humanitarian laws, and specify which jus in bello principles are indefeasible even in light of military necessity. As we analyze the factors around military necessity, we’ll encounter with “ambiguous zones” such as determine when may innocents be intentionally …show more content…

Taylor’s necessity of success principle states that an action is justified by military necessity if it will contribute significantly to the success of the mission. He also sees as acceptable excuses for violating the laws of war the heat of combat, fear, anger, and shock. According to Taylor, the relationship between the laws of war and military necessity is that laws helps soldiers to distinguish legal killing on behalf of the state from illegal killing for self reasons. Nevertheless, his acceptance of of the heat of combat, anger, fear and shock as excuses for violating the laws of war during wartime encourages similar violation to international and national law during peacetime (p.159). The second justification is that the laws of war also reduce suffering. However, he believe that suffering that will contribute to military success is also

Open Document