of jus in bello rely on a distinction between combatants and non-combatants. Stephen Coleman has questioned whether this distinction is relevant to conflicts in the twenty-first century. Write a paper in which you:
a. Explain the distinction and the justification for it.
b. Describe the features of contemporary wars that make the distinction harder to describe or harder to apply
d. Explain whether you think the distinction should be accepted as traditionally defined, accepted but revised, or rejected, and give an argument to defend your conclusion.
Introduction
The rise of irregular wars has marked a transformation of traditional warfare. Irregular wars have blurred the line between combatant and non-combatant on which the traditional …show more content…
These modern wars often involve guerrilla forces, irregular forces, or insurgencies (Coleman, 157). Under its traditional definition, a civilian is presumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise. However, what if the legitimate target looks like a civilian? Uniforms are no longer prevalent among enemy forces and these forces also tend to disguise themselves amongst the civilian population. These two factors of irregular war heighten the difficulty of differentiating between a combatant and a non-combatant. Without a specific uniform and hidden amongst the civilian population, enemy forces are able to, as Chairman Mao stated, “move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea” (Coleman, 181). It is even more difficult to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty when the population in which the enemy disguises themselves in is sympathetic towards their cause. It is plausible to say that it may seem that every member of the population is a legitimate target to military personnel. Under such circumstances, uncertainty emphasizes military personnels’ vulnerability and blindness in a situation. Therefore, military personnel must balance their morals and their own sense of preservation while blinded with
a. Explain the distinction and the justification for it.
b. Describe the features of contemporary wars that make the distinction harder to describe or harder to apply
d. Explain whether you think the distinction should be accepted as traditionally defined, accepted but revised, or rejected, and give an argument to defend your conclusion.
Introduction
The rise of irregular wars has marked a transformation of traditional warfare. Irregular wars have blurred the line between combatant and non-combatant on which the traditional …show more content…
These modern wars often involve guerrilla forces, irregular forces, or insurgencies (Coleman, 157). Under its traditional definition, a civilian is presumed to be innocent unless proven otherwise. However, what if the legitimate target looks like a civilian? Uniforms are no longer prevalent among enemy forces and these forces also tend to disguise themselves amongst the civilian population. These two factors of irregular war heighten the difficulty of differentiating between a combatant and a non-combatant. Without a specific uniform and hidden amongst the civilian population, enemy forces are able to, as Chairman Mao stated, “move amongst the people as a fish swims in the sea” (Coleman, 181). It is even more difficult to distinguish between the innocent and the guilty when the population in which the enemy disguises themselves in is sympathetic towards their cause. It is plausible to say that it may seem that every member of the population is a legitimate target to military personnel. Under such circumstances, uncertainty emphasizes military personnels’ vulnerability and blindness in a situation. Therefore, military personnel must balance their morals and their own sense of preservation while blinded with