铭信：北美演讲稿代写、Presentation代写、Presentation英国代写、PS申请信代写、Personal Statement代写、北美PS申请信代写、学期报告代写、网课托管、online exam代考、online exam代考、作业代写、课程作业代写、quiz代考、exam代考、online exam/quiz代考、网课代考、essay代写、assignment代写、exam代考、代考、exam代考、paper代写、report代写....
The laws relating to trades are enforced by the powerful nations, which mean that the developed nations often are the ones dictating the terms. To inflict punishment and forcing weaker states to obey is the market power which they possess. Therefore the developing countries lack the power to retaliate properly. It is the same situation when dealing with the international laws regarding the environment. The developed countries are unwilling to draft a law that puts pressure on their economies and instead want the developing nations to put a cap on their capabilities. In addition, it is also true that the stronger nations are choosing to obey laws that only benefit them and they are forcing other powers to obey the laws irrespective of their wishes. The entire system of international laws can be force of good, only if it is impartial, and all nations follow those laws. Only then is international law viable.
The international laws governing wars is nothing but a set of principles and rules to be followed by member states and it states the acceptable justifications to engage in a act of war against one or many nations. The law of war is generally considered to be a part of the public international law. Along with its dissimilarity and proportionality, the usage of lethal force, treatment of war prisoners, surrender terms and the declaration statements of war are included in the international laws of war. Perhaps one of the most famous treaties regarding the rules and justification of war was the First Geneva Convention in 1864.
After all drastic measures like economic sanctions and disturbances taking place in economic relations apart from other modes of communications such as radio, postal, air, sea, rail links, the military force would be authorized under the United Nations Charters article 42. Only for the purpose of restoring peace and security internally, the military forces can be deployed in any area of unrest.
I agree with all the international laws defined by the United Nations charter relating to wars. Use of military force should be considered only as the very last step in a conflict. I too believe that the right approach towards resolving conflicts is not more violence. However there are certain situations where the use of lethal force is necessary and in those situations, I believe the Security Council is the one to make the final decisions. An example of this is the Iraq war in 2003. The United States along with its ally, the UK invaded Iraq in the pretext of them building weapons of mass destruction. The issue here was that the term self defense was ambiguous and could be twisted to have different meanings depending on who was making decisions. Hence, the United Nations must take steps to make sure all its charters are absolutely clear before making those decisions.
In the end the United States could not prove the existence of any weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and simply said that it was still the right thing to do. Therefore the Iraq invasion was completely unjustified according to me and countries like the United States who try circumventing the United Nations Authority only shows us that the United Nations is just a puppet.
