I like to listen to this when im doing homework, i learn something and it's also like white noise when i finannly get into the rhythm with work. thanks!!
Why wasn't the wider set of criminal standards applied to NIACs in 1949? Are there any explanatory notes to the treaty law which state a reason, or should it be taken as fact that it wasn't palatable to extend the purview of LOAC at that time? Great video btw.
Hallo to you mister, thank you Regarding your explainations, what i wana offer you several questions... Those all the mortal act, coused becouse reason, the reason on the nation, then if as a mortal we parish each other, and then there a victim , so by the rool and law well get persecutes becouse of justice, how about the Angels who get command by GOD to take the lifes, are the Angel would be get the same to, meanwile wen will was he take the life from someone its gona be lefted so much legacy from lifes, how the resolutions and the management, so all will be fairs to the mortals and the Angels..
Ain't them buy law obligated to report and act to neutralize and prohibit such acts off such criminal acts they agreed upon that share the be done to citizens.....and if abiously neglect there duty and do otherwise then the answer will be obvious
I guess when two states decide to regulate the conflict through war, it is difficult for the international community to prevent such 'decision', but it rather can provide the law of proper behaviour to prevent civilian casualties and other human rights abuses while the war is going. The world is not yet globalized enough to declare wars as unlawful acts. And also, who is responsible? The leader? Military officials? On the contrary, there wasn't any war that did not violate human rights and humanitarian law in general. Gosh, it's freaking difficult to solve that problem
@@recordsden7735 War is a state affair, our wars are declared by congress, which means the President of the United States would be held accountable for the declaration of War.
@@redjupiter2236 but then there must be a treaty that prohibit starting wars, which the leader's State must be a party of. Who in the right mind would ever sign such a treaty?
i got this randomly reccomended with no context but it seems like you are a great teacher cheers!
I like to listen to this when im doing homework, i learn something and it's also like white noise when i finannly get into the rhythm with work.
thanks!!
Thanks . Greetings from Ukraine
Thank you so much for this video
Highly appreciate for your meaningful course and explanation!
This was so helpul. Thanks! Greetings from Chile
Very helpful during exam prep! Thank you :)
Why wasn't the wider set of criminal standards applied to NIACs in 1949? Are there any explanatory notes to the treaty law which state a reason, or should it be taken as fact that it wasn't palatable to extend the purview of LOAC at that time? Great video btw.
THANK YOU sir for this informative lecture
Hallo to you mister, thank you Regarding your explainations, what i wana offer you several questions... Those all the mortal act, coused becouse reason, the reason on the nation, then if as a mortal we parish each other, and then there a victim , so by the rool and law well get persecutes becouse of justice, how about the Angels who get command by GOD to take the lifes, are the Angel would be get the same to, meanwile wen will was he take the life from someone its gona be lefted so much legacy from lifes, how the resolutions and the management, so all will be fairs to the mortals and the Angels..
😘😘🥰
Ain't them buy law obligated to report and act to neutralize and prohibit such acts off such criminal acts they agreed upon that share the be done to citizens.....and if abiously neglect there duty and do otherwise then the answer will be obvious
This is whats happening here in the U.S. with our children.
Should war be illegal all together? Is that even possible? Is it dangerous to make war internationally illegal?
War is everything. You cant make that illegal.
I guess when two states decide to regulate the conflict through war, it is difficult for the international community to prevent such 'decision', but it rather can provide the law of proper behaviour to prevent civilian casualties and other human rights abuses while the war is going.
The world is not yet globalized enough to declare wars as unlawful acts. And also, who is responsible? The leader? Military officials?
On the contrary, there wasn't any war that did not violate human rights and humanitarian law in general. Gosh, it's freaking difficult to solve that problem
@@recordsden7735 War is a state affair, our wars are declared by congress, which means the President of the United States would be held accountable for the declaration of War.
@@redjupiter2236 but then there must be a treaty that prohibit starting wars, which the leader's State must be a party of.
Who in the right mind would ever sign such a treaty?
helpful