23/03/2015 · Essay on Human Rights
Per Bauhn does not leave it at that. He attempts to show thatterrorism that targets non-combatants or common citizens can never bejustified by deploying a slightly amended version of AlanGewirth's ethical theory. Freedom and safety are fundamentalprerequisites of action and therefore must be accorded paramountweight. The need to protect them generates a range of rights; the rightpertinent here is “an absolute right not to be made the intendedvictims of a homicidal project” all innocent persons have(Gewirth 1981: 16). When the absolute status of this right ischallenged by invoking supreme emergency or moral disaster, Bauhnargues that there is a moral difference between what we are positivelyand directly causally responsible for, and what we are causallyresponsible for only indirectly, by failing to prevent other personsfrom intentionally bringing it about. We are morally responsible forthe former, but (except in certain special circumstances) not for thelatter. If we refuse to resort to terrorism in order not to targetinnocent persons, and thus fail to prevent some other persons fromperpetrating atrocities, it is only the perpetrators who will bemorally responsible for those atrocities. Therefore we must refuse(Bauhn 1989: chapter 5).
Human rights the laws of war and terrorism essay
The Australian Prime Minister hastold us repeatedly in recent weeks about the vicious human rights violationscommitted by the Iraqi regime and all the time has Iraqi men, women and, worst of all, children trying to flee this barbarousregime locked up behind razor wire fences in inhumane conditions. Childrenlocked up now for over a year and a half. The Australian Navy that isparticipating in the liberation of has ships at the same time patrolling the edge of Australian territorial watersjust in case anyone fleeing Saddam Hussein might be so unwise as to seek tocome here for protection. The Australian Air Force participates in bombing andmissile raids on this oppressive regime while Navy ships have instructions tofire across the bows of leaky, overcrowded boats bearing those who manage toescape. We Australians, every one of us, are diminished by this hypocrisy. Ourrightful moral superiority to terrorists and evil-doers is defeated by our ownactions.
In Held's justification of terrorism, it is justice thatrequires that inescapable violations of human rights be more evenlydistributed. There is a different way of allowing for the use ofterrorism under certain circumstances within a nonconsequentialistapproach to the ethics of violence. It could be argued that, as far asjustice and rights are concerned, terrorism (or, in Held'sterminology, the kind of terrorism that targets the innocent) is neverjustified. Furthermore, considerations of justice and rights carry muchgreater weight than considerations of good and bad consequences, andtherefore normally trump the latter in cases of conflict. However, inexceptional circumstances considerations concerning consequences—the price of not resorting to terrorism—may beso extremely weighty as to override those of justice and rights.
Does Human Rights Law Apply to Terrorists
After the heyday of totalitarian terrorism in the 1930s and 1940s,internal state terrorism continued to be practiced by militarydictatorships in many parts of the world, albeit in a less sustainedand pervasive way. But the type of terrorism that came to the fore inthe second half of the 20th century and in early 21st century is thatemployed by insurgent organizations. Many movements for nationalliberation from colonial rule resorted to it, either as the main methodof struggle or as a tactic complementing guerrilla warfare. So did someseparatist movements. Some organizations driven by extreme ideologies,in particular on the left, took to terrorism as the way oftrying to destroy what they considered an unjust, oppressive economic,social and political system. This type of terrorism is, by and large,indiscriminate in its choice of target: it attacks men and women ofwhatever political (or apolitical) views, social class, and walk oflife; young and old, adults and children. It shoots at people, or blowsthem up by planting bombs, in office buildings, markets, cafes,cinemas, places of religious worship, on buses or planes, or in othervulnerable public places. It also takes people hostage, by hijackingplanes and in other ways.
of Congress and declared war against terrorism, ..
Business And The Bill Of Rights Essay An Honest Writing Service. Are a ghostwriting firm obsessed with quality and customer care. R on line writing service has been in business since December, 2006.
CHRIS SIDOTI - Human Rights and the War on Terrorism
The evaluative meaning of “terrorism” has shiftedconsiderably more than once. So has its descriptive meaning, but to alesser degree. Whatever else the word may have meant, its ordinary useover more than two centuries has typically indicated two things:violence and intimidation (the causing of great fear or terror,terrorizing). The dominant approach to the conceptual question inphilosophical literature reflects this. Terrorism is usually understoodas a type of violence. This violence is not blind or sadistic, butrather aims at intimidation and at some further political, social, orreligious goal or, more broadly, at coercion.