Let’s look at how the United Earth could use the new economic system to promote global security and peace around the world. Resolutionism is a doctrine that stands for the formation of reconciliation for the entire planet. The United Earth will provide protection against loss, assurance that something of value will not be taken away, and protection against attack from without, or subversion from within nations. The committee of the United Earth known as the Security Council, oversees peacekeeping operations throughout the world. The Security council will also create a global legal system, and enact and apply global law. In this section we will examine how this can be done.
Try to think of it this way: If your country joins the United Earth, they will be able to build homes, create jobs, draft doctors, teachers, and so much more. They will give your country money, technology and advancement. This will raise the standard of living in your country. Then we can begin solving the problems, and we can all start saving the world, together.
Even if a few countries were to start this movement, by creating the United Earth, they would be able to start developing the world, and more countries will want to join. Once these countries have made the world a safer, healthier place to live, then even more countries will want to join us, and we can begin solving even more problems. After 100 countries have joined, most of the world’s most powerful countries will already have joined, and the ones that haven’t, will want to join if they want to continue to thrive with the rest of the world. Even after 160 countries have joined, there will still be those countries that want nothing to do with us. Their governments might not want to co-operate with us, and they might not want to join what we have created. Some may even want to destroy what we have started. Well, the power of 160 nations joined together, will be able to stop any country that simply wants to wage war. 160 nations joined together will have the most formidable force the world has ever known. This new world government, this United Earth, will be economically, and militarily, the new “superpower” of the world, and the “evil” people won’t stand any chance against the good people united.
The United Earth is a union alliance of all countries, to help each other out, in all ways. It is a higher power, made up of people who will look out for us. But, as I said before, people will be the hardest thing in the world to change. Getting the ball rolling may be hard, and getting all 195 nations on board with our plan will be very difficult to achieve. There are those people who would want to stand in the way of peace, but we will still triumph. We will just have to get the information out there, to all the people.
Everyone can have everything they ever wanted; independence, freedom, justice, and peace. Once people incorporate the idea into their daily lives, that we can have these things, and that all we have to do is start living better lives, and start helping one another, it will be simple. We really have to commercialize these thoughts, and sell the ideas to everyone.
We have to sell the ideas to the huge corporations, saying that the industry of peace is hot on the new global market. We must sell it to the politicians, saying that the only way to govern is through peaceful ways. We have to sell the ideas to the bosses and employees, that peace is what you are selling. Peace is the only profit. We have to sell the idea to the parents and the children, that there is only one product to buy, and it is peace.
“President Kennedy believed the primary responsibility of a president is to keep the nation out of war, if at all possible.”
Former US Secretary of Defense, Robert S. McNamara
GLOBAL LAW AND ORDER
The United Earth Security Council will take every precaution to keep all people safe from crime, attack, or danger; and to help others by offering guidance, training, and support, and sometimes restrictions, in the maintenance of public order and safety. To do this, we will start by boosting civil support. For the enforcement of the law, and the prevention of crime within a community, the United Earth Police Force will set up an organized body of police in every municipality, with jurisdiction within that geographic area, who are given special legal powers by the government, and whose task is to maintain public order, and to prevent crimes. This will automatically lower crime rates, all over the world, and it will help protect all of the people of Earth.
Global Law is the body of law developed as a result of customs and judicial decisions of each nation in the world, to be distinct from the law of any separate legislative assembly. This means, that to create Global Law, we must investigate all forms of law around the world, and compare them, to see which laws are universal. These universal laws will become Global Law, which forms the basis of law to be applied on Earth. So for example, one of the rules that is applied virtually everywhere on Earth, is murder, or the crime of killing another person deliberately, and not in self-defense, or with any other extenuating circumstance recognized by law. So it is clear that the act of murder should be considered a crime under Global Law. We shall establish Global Law in the same way as common law has evolved over time, created by the observance and enforcement of the law within the global community. We will come back to this issue again, shortly.
The United States spends more money in its National Defense Budget, than all of the other countries in the world, combined. Remember the stats that we’ve looked at already, such as $522 Billion being spent in 2005, and over $1.6 Trillion in the War on Terror. Some say that the US is leading a campaign to end terrorism, and because of this, it is no surprise that their national defense budget is higher than other nations. Other nations just rode the coat-tails.
Some argue that other nations are also involved in the war, and their national defense budgets are just as high. Let’s investigate. The US spends around 22% of their total federal budget on national defense. If we compare that to other nations of the world, we notice drastic differences. First, let’s look at our allies. Germany spends about 2.5% of its total budget on defense, France--3.5, England--4%. Some people will say, that those countries are on our side in the war, but only cosmetically. Those other countries also ride on the coat-tails of Americans, as US troops do all the heavy lifting.
While that may be partially true, it does not justify such a high level of expenditures on national defense. Don’t you think that if other nations of the world, of comparable size, strength, and economic and political influence, can get by, spending less than 5% of their total federal budget on their defense, isn’t 22% just outrageous? Some would say that it’s not outrageous, because they are protecting the world from everyone’s so-called adversaries.
What about the nations of the world that threaten us? Who are the Americans protecting us from? Let’s look at some of our so-called adversaries. Iran--7%, China 16%. This is certainly much higher than our allies, but not nearly as high as the US. We also have to remember that these countries have a much smaller budget than America.
Other countries that we are at war with, are low-income countries, with hardly any noticeable federal budget whatsoever. Meanwhile, the Americans have the highest budgets, the most developed technology, and the most sophisticated weapons systems in the world. So… we have to think about the degree of the threats that we really face. We’re up against people who live in caves,…in dusty deserts. We’re up against people with guns, cannons, mortars, missiles, and small explosives, with no access to nuclear weapons, or any weapons adaptable to mass destruction, despite the allegations made by the previous administration. Meanwhile, the United States keeps advocating for ever-increasing budgets, and an unlimited commitment to the defense apparatus.
National Defense is about much more than bombs and wars. National Defense budgets are supposed to be for methods of protection. What is happening is the opposite of that. For example, when hurricane Katrina hit, and New Orleans was in a State of Emergency, why wasn’t the military helping to evacuate people immediately? Why weren’t they helping? Where were they? They were off in other countries around the world protecting other interests. Our protectors and defenders are away in far off lands, terrorizing other people. How can we let that continue?
For another thing, the amount of money being spent on National Defense budgets is disgustingly being redirected from where it is needed most. We need to turn that money around and put it back into the systems that also run the nation, and protect the people. Even if you really think that the War on Terrorism is a good thing, you must remember that an unhealthy people, is a people who are unfit for war. Remember that an uneducated people are an undefended people. If your own people don’t know what they’re doing, who will run the war machines? Put that money back into your health and educations systems.
Furthermore, the cost of just one new bomber is this: two fully staffed, and fully equipped hospitals…or a new school in more than 30 cities. We pay for a single fighter plane with over a million bushels of wheat. We pay for a new destroyer with money that could have housed over 8000 people. National defense budgets, and modern weapons takes food from the hungry, and homes from the homeless. Defense means more. The Eisenhower administration understood this, when they funded a system of highways connecting the major cities, called the Interstate, which defends and protects the people, by offering efficient evacuation routes in case of emergencies.
The United Earth Security Council will help nations reduce their national defense budgets and their military spending by creating a new United Earth military, which will defend all nations, unattached to any independent nation. Now nations can lower their national defense budgets, and those funds can be used to help improve other areas of society. The United Earth will be the only executive government that is responsible for maintaining global security. No longer will we let the fate of the world rest in the hands of one nation’s leader.
GLOBAL DEFENSE AND PEACEKEEPERS
The Global Defense strategy of the United Earth is the interdependent military of the world's nations, regarded as a single military defense system. This department will oversee matters of both national and international security, and oversees the armed forces of a global military unit. This military however, is not like any other military that presently exists. Today’s militaries consist of people who have equipped or trained for combat. They are comprised of people who have been instructed and educated only in matters relating to war. War is, by definition, a period of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions, that leads to fighting, and it is precisely what the United Earth wants to avoid. So why would we train our protectors, these defenders of peace, in matters of war? We should be training them in matters of peace. We can create a military that is able to promote the absence of violence, by being trained in negotiations to end hostilities between warring parties, while still being trained to handle any armed conflicts, or other disturbances in case of an emergency.
The UE will establish a charter of Peacekeeping, as a system of regulating order, to preserve and enforce the terms of peace. For the preservation of peace, for example, the United Earth Military will be called to peacekeeping missions, in which troops will attempt to discourage all combatants from fighting, and then to keep formerly warring armed forces from starting to fight again. UE Peacekeepers will be sent to any region where armed conflict is taking place, to act as an independent military which can stop the fighting. In times when peace agreements can be forged, UE Peacekeepers can be provided to discourage participants from resuming hostilities. By standing between enemies, and holding dominance, the UE gains a unique position to prevent conflicts. Through peaceful negotiations and tactics we will begin fostering an ideal of collective security.
The Peacekeeping Act would also address arms control and disarmament. It establishes concepts of arms limitations, and calls for immediate disarmament and elimination of all atomic weapons, and any weapons adaptable to create mass destruction. The UE will create a disarmament commission that will ensure that all weapons of Earth which are designed only for destruction, will be eliminated. This includes banning any weapons of mass destruction, especially, nuclear weapons. This also includes the banning of any chemical or biological weapons.
The disarmament commission will also cover many more conventional disarmament issues. The reduction of national military spending is one of those issues. We will create legislation that demands the reduction and limitation in the numbers of, and types of weapons held by all countries. They will also be looking further into the gun control measures that would control and restrict the ownership of firearms by members of the public, of all nations, and they will even look towards the future, with a goal of the outright elimination of guns. At the same time, the UE can, through many measures, relieve fear, doubt, and vulnerability from the people of Earth, by ensuring that all internal sources of danger are removed, and by putting us in a position that is safe and protected, by unifying and strengthening global security.
When the divisions of the world begin to seal in this way, by the separate nations of the world uniting behind a common goal, the way can be paved to solving underlying conflicts. This will happen in peaceful and determined negotiations, to come to mutual agreements about how to solve the real problems. The UE Peacekeeping agencies are believers in the course of upholding and implementing the principles enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and they will offer as much assistance as possible, to contribute to the worldwide democracy, by helping to provide free and fair elections, improving judicial structures, drafting constitutions, training human rights officials, and transforming armed movements into political parties. The UE Peacekeeping Charter will be an agreement and an agency of co-operation, for a better organized, and more peaceful world.
AN END TO WAR
From now on, war will be illegal. We will create Global Laws, as rules of conduct, that will be recognized by all nations as binding, and breaking these laws will result in legal proceedings from the highest judicial body, the World Court. In Resolutionism, and under the United Earth, War will now be defined as the illegal use of unjustified force, or the intimidating effect created by the threat of this.
We have reached the limits of what we can take. We’ve come to the boundary, the point at which war ends, and peace begins. This boundary I speak of, is the point at which the majority of people have become disgusted by war, and they demand an end to it. It was once said that World War II was so colossal and important that it would be “the war to end all wars.” It didn’t quite come true, but we are determined to make sure that the end of all wars is near.
We, the world, have failed at keeping and offering peace. We have failed at ridding the world of war. And the old warnings have not only become true, they are preposterously maddening. The nations of the world spend trillions of dollars on military expenditures, which is funding that is much needed elsewhere. The United Earth will help redirect that spending. We, the world, have failed, in our responsibility to the disadvantaged people all across the globe, to help them advance their welfare in the most fundamental terms of nutrition, literacy, health and employment. If all of these things were given to the people of the world, then the underlying roots of most wars will disappear.
This is the one of the biggest elements in the plan for the elimination of war. We have to make sure that the sources of danger are removed, and that the foundations of peace are laid, by putting ourselves in a position that is mutually safe and protected. After this, further steps can be taken in the direction of achieving other achieve peaceful resolutions.
Moral principles and policies are needed around the world right now, for the avoidance of such carnage as we have seen in the past. There were approximately 175 million deaths caused by organized armed conflict in the 20th century, and we will see to it, that the 21st century does not repeat such atrocities, by following Resolutionist rules of war, and using the principles of a Just War.
The human race may not totally eliminate war in this coming decade, and maybe not even in this century. There will still be quarrels and conflicting interests, which will provoke some fighting. But we can by many means, reduce war, and the level of killing, if war were done, pursued, or carried out, acting with fairness and impartiality, in accordance with what is ethically right, and adhering to the moral principles of a Just War.
Rules of a Just War
There is an old saying, that sometimes in order to good, we may have to resort to some evil. This is the reasoning behind the belief of a “Just War.” The main philosophy behind a Just War, is that in order to have peace, sometimes we must get rid of the enemy that threatens basic human existence. However, we must do so with fairness and impartiality, in accordance with what is morally right or reasonable.
Just War conduct should be governed by principles that protect the freedoms, rights, and lives of everyone on Earth. There are some principles of Just War that are very moral and respectable, so we will use them to reduce the dangers of war, and lessen the casualties on both sides of any armed conflict. We will now realize how these principles can be used to limit, and even stop wars from doing unnecessary harm, which is a requirement if we are to someday stop wars altogether. For that reason, we will go over some of the Rules of War, some principles of Global Law, and we will discuss how individuals can be held responsible for war crimes, crimes against peace, crimes against humanity and crimes against Earth.
First of all, we have to make sure that all wars are illegal. However, if the cause is considered just, and it is limited to achieving the political goals that started the war, and does not include unnecessary destruction to achieve that goal, it may be considered a Just War, and therefore not necessarily a crime under Global Law. When someone is accused of committing a crime of war, they may claim that their actions were justified. They may say that their behaviours were an act of desperation in a Just War, that their reasons for taking action against their enemies was morally right or just. Any war that is not considered just, is illegal, and punishable action will be taken.
All wars should be brought to an end as quickly as possible. People and property that no not contribute to the war effort should be protected against any unnecessary destruction or hardship. To this end, the Rules of a Just War are intended to:
1.) mitigate the evils of war by protecting both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering.
2.) safe-guard fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the enemy; civilians, prisoners, and also any people who are wounded or sick
3.) facilitate the restoration of peace.
War is a time of hostile relations between countries, states, or factions, that leads to fighting or other violence. Violence, in Criminal Law, is the illegal use of unjustified force, or the intimidating effect created by the threat of this. In Global Law, Armed Conflict is defined in the same way. As we discussed earlier, when we resort to violence to achieve any goal, we make a mistake in our lines of reasoning, that automatically invalidates whatever reason we had behind the goal in the first place. You do not fight fire, with fire, or will you just end up in a ferocious battle involving heavy flame, where everybody gets burned. Resorting to violence is such a poor solution to any problem. From now on we will achieve our goals through peaceful ways, through encouragement, combined with persuasion. If you actually wanted to achieve some goal, it is much easier to accomplish, and much more likely to succeed through mutual assistance, co-operation, and support.
As we said earlier, Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of proportionality. Proportionality means having the correct relationship of size, quantity, or degree as something else. So for example, let’s say that two countries are at war, and one side bombs the other. The destruction made was a certain size, quantity, or degree. The bombed side decides to retaliate. Proportionality states that they should only retaliate with equivalent, or less than the size, quantity, and degree of destruction in return. The force used, must only be proportional to the wrong endured, and to the possible good that may come. The more disproportional the number of collateral civilian deaths, the more suspect will be the sincerity of a belligerent nation’s claim to justness.
The principle of proportionality is an old political maxim which states that any layer of government should not take any action that exceeds that which is necessary to achieve the objective of the government. It is the idea that the punishment of an offender should fit the crime. Under Global Law, the United Earth declares to govern the use of force in any armed conflict, and directs proportionality as a Rule of War.
Any Armed Conflict is considered a crime under global law. If the accused pleads particular reasons or circumstances that excuse or justify their behaviour, it will be looked at as an act of Just War. However, any intentionally launched attack in the knowledge that such an attack will cause incidental loss of life, or injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects, that is widespread, long-term, or severe, or causes damage to the natural environment, which is clearly excessive, this is also considered a war crime under Global Law. The UE will hold the attackers responsible, and the leaders will be subject to trial in the World Court.
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of non-civilian targets. Acts of war should be directed towards the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in residential areas. This includes areas that are not military targets, committing any acts of terrorism, or any retaliation against ordinary civilians. This rule prohibits weapons of mass destruction of any kind, for any reason, and outright forbids the use of an atomic bomb. In order to spare the civilian population, armed forces shall, at all times, distinguish between the civilian population and civilian objects on the one hand, and military objectives on the other. Neither the civilian population, nor any civilian objects, shall be the target of military attacks, and intentionally doing so is considered a war crime under Global Law. The UE will hold the attackers responsible, and the leaders will be subject to trial in the World Court.
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of minimum force. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. This is different from proportionality, because the amount of force actually used in achieving the goal of a mission, might exceed the amount of force necessary to accomplish the goal of the mission. This means warring parties must maximize efficiency, to make sure that bombs don’t hit schools, or malls, or something else that is not a military target. This also means, that we must be able to get in and get out quickly, and professionally. The way in which armed conflict is carried out, is now restricted to minimal force. The right of parties in an armed conflict, to choose methods or means of warfare is not unlimited. A Just War must achieve their goal with the lowest possible amount or degree of destruction, or face the consequences.
From now on, a Just War uses the smallest possible force, and the lowest amount or extent of destruction possible to achieve their goals. You go to another country through diplomatic measures, with peace agreements and negotiations, not with guns, tanks and missiles. Intentionally using extreme force, causing excessive and unnecessary death and destruction is a war crime under Global Law. The UE will hold the attackers responsible, and all people involved, but especially the leaders will be subject to trial in the World Court.
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of objectivity. This principle is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary intolerance and discrimination against others. Just War conduct will be exercised without being influenced by personal emotions or prejudices, being accurate, unbiased, and independent of individual perceptions. Pre-formed opinions, usually unfavourable and based on insufficient knowledge, can lead to irrational feelings and behaviours. This is conducive to unfair treatment of others. Any unfair treatment of one person or group, because of any prejudice about race, ethnicity, age, religion, gender, or any other distinguishable characteristic, is a violation of human rights, and is considered a war crime under Global Law. The UE will hold all of the attackers responsible, especially the leaders who will be subject to trial in the World Court.
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of surrender. To surrender means to declare to an opponent that they have won, so that fighting or conflict can cease. This means that the lines of communication must be open between warring parties so that a side can offer their surrender. Even if a side doesn’t offer a surrender, warring parties can still cease the fighting at any time.
A side should terminate a war as soon as it feels it has been reasonably vindicated of the rights that were violated in the first place, to find out if the other side is willing to negotiate the terms of surrender. Have a minimum of 48 hour ceasefire to see if a country wants to end the fighting or not. If a country is not willing to surrender, the other side will likely let them know that within 48 hours, and the fighting will likely continue.
In times of surrender, the victors must terminate a war immediately, and begin the facilitation for peace agreements. If the country is willing to surrender, but the fighting continues, then the attackers will be held accountable. These terms of surrender require an agreement or contract, proposed by either side when negotiating a peace agreement. These terms of surrender may include some sort of formal apology, compensations, war crime trials, perhaps the break up and division of land, and possibly other methods of rehabilitation.
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of liberty. In times of conflict, Just War conduct must differentiate between political and military leaders, and combatants and civilians. When the conflict is over, there will be war trials. All punitive measures taken are to be limited to those directly responsible for the conflict. Civilians from both sides of the armed conflict have the freedom to think or act without being constrained by force, and the freedom from captivity or slavery. During war trials people may be declared guilty of a war crime under Global Law, and they may be subject to punishment. The victors will also be subject to war trials, and they receive the same level of objectivity and investigation into any war crimes its armed forces may have committed.
Just War conduct should be governed by the principle of humane treatment. Persons who are not, or are no longer, taking part in the hostilities shall be respected, protected, and treated humanely. They shall be given appropriate care, without discrimination. Captured combatants and other persons whose freedom has been restricted shall be treated humanely. They shall be protected against all acts of violence, in particular, protection from torture. When put on trial, they shall enjoy the fundamental guarantees of jurisprudence, and law. No amount of extra injury or unnecessary suffering shall be inflicted, and to do otherwise is a war crime under Global Law. The UE will hold the people responsible, and they will be subject to trial in the World Court.
Just War Comparison
Today, the words “just war” are thrown about in regular discourse, used in favour to excuse their favorite nation from the devastation that they carry out. The “war on terror” is often justified by saying that America was attacked first, so it is just. Let’s look at the “war on terror” and compare it with the principles of a Just War in Resolutionism, to see if it is truly just.
First of all we have to imagine that we are back in 2001, just after the horrible atrocities that occurred that September. America suffered from an attack against civilian targets. There was significant loss of life, and the people’s freedom felt threatened. They wanted someone to answer for those crimes, and they wanted to punish someone, so America went to war. They attacked Afghanistan, and then set their sights on Iraq. Ten years later, America is still involved in armed conflict with these and many other nations, there has been more and more loss of life, and more atrocities continue, as a result of their retaliations. The US is starting to pull out of Iraq, so I think this is a perfect time to hold a War Trial.
Now imagine that the United Earth exists, and that Resolutionism is the democratic socio-political economic configuration our governments follow. Now imagine that the UE Security Council and the World Court enacted Global Law, which states that war is illegal. The UE would want to hold the leaders of those nations accountable for the War on Terror and all incidents that led to and followed it, and they would be asked to stand trial.
So in this case, America was attacked first, but it would be the Bush Jr. Administration, which led their nation to war, financed the operation and ultimately created Armed Conflict. If they think that their actions were justified; that they went to war out of an act of desperation, to protect the freedoms, rights, and lives of the people in their nation, they may plead innocent to the charges of war crimes. They may try to convince the court that their behaviour was Just.
For the War on Terror to be considered just, the World Court would look at the principles we just talked about to determine if it was objectively limited to achieving the political goals that started war, if it was not excessive, and if it did not include unnecessary destruction. If that is the case, then the UE might determine that they are innocent, that they created a Just War. If not they may conclude that they are guilty of committing war, a crime punishable under Global Law.
So, let’s pretend that we are the jury at this epic trial. Let’s look at the principles of a Just War and apply them to the War on Terror. Well, the first rule of a Just War we discussed was the principle of proportionality. The War on Terror started as a retaliation to the attacks on America, which resulted in more than 2000 deaths. America and the “War on Terror” went into Afghanistan first and their casualties are over 20,000, and then they went to Iraq, who also reports casualties of over 20,000. So, was the force used proportional to the wrong endured?--No. Was there significant damage to civilians and civilian targets?--Yes. Was there widespread, long term, or severe damage to the society or the natural environment?--Yes. Overall, did the Bush Jr. Administration retaliate with equivalent or less than the size, quantity, and degree of destruction in return? No. The War on Terror was not proportionate.
The second rule of a Just War that we looked at was the principle of non-civilian targets. Acts of a Just War are carried out upon military targets, and the inflictors of the wrong, and not towards civilians caught in residential areas. Did the US try to limit or avoid the attacks on the civilian population?--No. They attacked the civilian population. The third rule was the principle of minimum force. This limits excessive and unnecessary death and destruction. Was the amount of force actually used by the Bush Jr. Administration, necessary to accomplish their mission?--No. They used excessive and unnecessary force to accomplish their mission. Did they get in and out quickly?--No. They are still there. The principle of objectivity is meant to limit excessive and unnecessary intolerance and discrimination against others, and to limit any unfair treatment or violations of human rights. Many prejudiced opinions about Islam, and the Muslim people, were formed, discriminating against them all over the world, therefore the War on Terror has not been conducive to the principle of objectivity.
The next principle we looked at was the rule of surrender. This principle allows for a time when conflict can cease to see if the either side is willing to negotiate the end of conflict with peace agreements. Did the Bush Jr. Administration allow the conflict to cease long enough to forge peace agreements or terms of surrender?--No…they did establish new Iraqi police and government systems, but neither are in full control, and it has taken ten years already.
The last principle we discussed was the rule of humane treatment which protects captured combatants and other persons whose freedom has been restricted, shall be treated humanely. They shall be protected against all acts of violence, in particular, protection from torture. When put on trial, they shall enjoy the fundamental guarantees of jurisprudence, and law. No amount of extra injury or unnecessary suffering shall be inflicted. Did the Bush Jr. Administration conduct their war under the principle of humane treatment?--No. Even to this day, Dick Cheney admits that prisoners at Guantanamo Bay have been administered a technique called water boarding, which is a strong, but not usually life-threatening torture of a prisoner, used especially in terrorist or combat situations, used by interrogators in order to obtain vital information, and is a form of torture in which water is splashed onto somebody's face repeatedly.
Without going too much deeper in the real gritty details of the War on Terror, we can already see that it doesn’t look like it is a Just War. Perhaps the people who were in the Bush Jr. Administration should face criminal charges for committing crimes of war.
To sum up, in Resolutionism war is illegal, and any person who commits an act which constitutes a crime under Global Law, is responsible therefore, and liable to face punishment. The fact that a person’s society has no internal laws that impose penalties for such acts which constitute a crime under Global Law, does not relieve the person who committed the act from responsibility under Global Law. The fact that a person who committed an act which constitutes a crime under Global Law, acted as a Head of State, or any other responsible governmental official, does not relieve him or her from responsibility under Global Law. The fact that a person acted as a pursuant to the order of their government, or of a superior, does not relieve him or her from responsibility under Global Law, provided a moral choice was in fact possible to that person. Any person charged with a crime under the law has the right to a fair trail, a formal examination of the facts and law in a civil, criminal, or global action, before a court of law, in order to determine an issue, or somebody's guilt or innocence.
The following list is by no means exhaustive, but it is just meant to be a clear inauguration of such a necessity. The crimes hereinafter are punishable as crimes under Global Law.
Violations of the Law of War, or the rules of a Just War, which include, but are not limited to, any infringement of the universal declaration of human rights, murder, or ill-treatment of the civilian population, of or in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, villages, or any devastation not justified by military necessity.
Crimes Against Peace
i.) Planning, preparation, initiation, or waging of a war, or any armed conflict and (ii.) Participation in a common plan, or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the actions mentioned before or after.
Crimes Against Humanity
This can include any infringement of the universal declaration of human rights, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, or other inhuman acts done against any civilian population, or persecutions of political, racial, religious or other cultural division.
Crimes Against Earth:
This includes any planning, preparation, or initiation of any nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons, and includes any wanton destruction of any property any property relating to the Earth including the solid land surface, the sea, or the sky.
**room for more…can you come up with some of your own?