The Just Conduct in War or "Jus in Bello," is a concept of Just War Theory that aims to limit the actions of war, to provide international rules that guarantee justice and rights combatants, prisoners, civilians and their goods in conflicts. The genesis of this concept was mentioned by Francisco de Vittoria, considered the father of public international law, who postulated that the war should be strictly limited for the most disadvantaged, as Nardin (P.60) pointed out: “Vittoria insist that war to protect the innocent must be strictly limited.” But who had the courage to face the authority of the Spanish rulers was Fray Bartolome de las Casas when he defended the Indians against the Spaniards for more humane treatment by the settlers in the
…show more content…
Who postulated in his treatise of law in war and peace in 1625, Which makes extensive reference to the treatise by Francisco de Victoria on the importance of defining the rights of participants in armed conflict. In his work leaves out certain principles of just war focusing on that in the light of international law do not exist neither good nor bad, as they all have the same rights, formally giving birth to “Jus in Bello” which establishes the rules that created the concept of the humanism of today. Although, the “Jus in Bello,” was created over 150 years ago when they began to codify international treaties and laws in the Hague. As Brian Orend (p.21) pointed out: “the culmination of this nineteenth-century move towards codification was the Hague Convention, drafted and proclaimed in ten different treaties between 1899 and 1907.” It was not until the Pact Kellogg-Briand 1928 was signed when attempting to reduce the number of just cause for going to war through international law, the man must go through two World Wars to realize that should regulate their actions in 1949 conflict and decides it by the Geneva …show more content…
Some writers pose a difference between "Jus ad Bellum” and “Jus in Bello ", and reserves to political leaders the responsibility to declare war or to go to war, while the "Jus in Bello" reserve the responsibility of leading the war to the military commanders of the Armed Forces of the State it is at war; as Briand Orend (P. 106) pointed out: “responsibility for the conduct of war, by contrast rest on the state armed forces.” This responsibility is not limited in strategic, operational and tactical levels. Except for that commander who formulates strategy, plan and executes military actions contrary to law in the war are liable to be considered war criminals, as Brian Orend (p.106) argued: “In general anyone involved in formulating and executing military strategy during wartime bears responsibility for any violation of “jus in bello” standards. In most cases such violations constitute a war
Who postulated in his treatise of law in war and peace in 1625, Which makes extensive reference to the treatise by Francisco de Victoria on the importance of defining the rights of participants in armed conflict. In his work leaves out certain principles of just war focusing on that in the light of international law do not exist neither good nor bad, as they all have the same rights, formally giving birth to “Jus in Bello” which establishes the rules that created the concept of the humanism of today. Although, the “Jus in Bello,” was created over 150 years ago when they began to codify international treaties and laws in the Hague. As Brian Orend (p.21) pointed out: “the culmination of this nineteenth-century move towards codification was the Hague Convention, drafted and proclaimed in ten different treaties between 1899 and 1907.” It was not until the Pact Kellogg-Briand 1928 was signed when attempting to reduce the number of just cause for going to war through international law, the man must go through two World Wars to realize that should regulate their actions in 1949 conflict and decides it by the Geneva …show more content…
Some writers pose a difference between "Jus ad Bellum” and “Jus in Bello ", and reserves to political leaders the responsibility to declare war or to go to war, while the "Jus in Bello" reserve the responsibility of leading the war to the military commanders of the Armed Forces of the State it is at war; as Briand Orend (P. 106) pointed out: “responsibility for the conduct of war, by contrast rest on the state armed forces.” This responsibility is not limited in strategic, operational and tactical levels. Except for that commander who formulates strategy, plan and executes military actions contrary to law in the war are liable to be considered war criminals, as Brian Orend (p.106) argued: “In general anyone involved in formulating and executing military strategy during wartime bears responsibility for any violation of “jus in bello” standards. In most cases such violations constitute a war