Legal Committee - World Model United Nations

ise of nonstate actors has been the impetus for many recent
military innovations, such as the use of unmanned drones
and cyberspace, technologies that have recontextualized
warfare beyond the limits of these dated laws. Recent issues
arising from these new frontiers of war have created the
impetus for new laws to be enacted or amendments to the
Conventions that already exist to enforce humanitarian law
more effectively.
The Geneva Conventions consist of four conventions, each
created for a different purpose. Together they make up the
core of international humanitarian law. The Conventions,
along with their Additional Protocols, contain the most
important rules regarding the humanity of war. They protect
those who are not participating in the
fighting, such as civilians and aid workers,
and those who can no longer fight, such as
the wounded and prisoners of war. They
regulate the conduct of armed warfare and
seek to limit its effects and the barbarity of
war. The Geneva Conventions have defined
international law for conventional warfare
for a large part of history. 1
However, war has now evolved and reached
new extremes, such as terrorist bombings; in
some cases, war has even become privatized
away from national armies to subnational
groups and organizations. These types of
unconventional warfare are not specifically
outlined in the Geneva Conventions and
their Additional Protocols, making it more
difficult to interpret and apply the principles
of international humanitarian law to these
acts and protect basic human rights. Thus,
in recent years the Geneva Conventions,
primarily tailored toward traditional
warfare (on battlefields and utilizing older
warfare tactics) have fallen short in sight of the increasingly
unconventional nature of war. New methods of war make it
absolutely necessary to update the Geneva Conventions and
make them relevant for war in the 21 st century. The War on
Terror, increasing in scope and severity, brings into question
many of the beliefs and ideas about war that make up the
Conventions. Privatization of war calls for an update that
ensures the protection of company employees. Terrorist acts
bring about the need for appropriate punishments for violent
groups. 2 An update to the Geneva Conventions would offer
a cohesive, multilateral foundation for international law
relating to modern warfare.
The fundamental idea of the Conventions and their Protocols
is for all breaches of human rights to be put to an end and
prevented in the future. They contain strict rules governing
what is allowed and what constitutes “grave breaches.” 3 Those
responsible for grave breaches must be sought out, tried, or
extradited. In order for the Conventions to do their job and
their intended function to persevere, updates must be added
to include ways to better pursue international terrorists
and other criminals without causing more violence. They
must also broaden protection to include those who may
be endangered by new warfare practices, such as military
company employees and those living in the presence of
nuclear weapons.
The origins of “just war” theory lie in Roman history and philosophy,
and it is one of the first attempts to limit the bloodshed of war. http://
upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/it/5/54/Sarcofago_amendola.jpg
History and Discussion of the Problem
Precedents to the Geneva Conventions: Just War
Theory
Just war theory, a doctrine of military ethics, is of Roman
philosophical and Catholic origin. It consists of a set of
mutually-agreed upon rules of combat that deal with the
justification of wars and how they are fought. Justification
can be through either theoretical or historical means. If the
justification is theoretical, it must be in accordance with
ethics and follow certain forms. The historical justification,
Harvard WorldMUN 2012 Legal 33