Israel, Report of the Winograd Commission Case Study
Order ID: 89JHGSJE83839 Style: APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago Pages: 5-10 Instructions:
Israel, Report of the Winograd Commission Case Study
1. What does this report show about Israels attitude towards IHL? Towards accusations that it violated IHL in that conflict?
2.a. (Para. 20) What are the rules in IHL regarding its dissemination among armed forces? Is there an obligation for States to include the teaching of IHL in military training? (GC I-IV, Arts 47/48/127/144; P I, Art. 83; P II, Art. 19; CIHL, Rule 142)
b. (Para. 21) Do you agree with the Commission that the rules of IHL are unclear and indeterminate and that the mechanisms for [their] enforcement are lacking and in some cases politically biased? Is this also true of the rules on dissemination? What dissemination mechanisms does IHL provide for or recommend? (GC I-IV, Arts 47/48/127/144; P I, Art. 83; P II, Art. 19; CIHL, Rules 142 and 143)
3. (Para. 21) Do you agree with the Commission that there may sometimes be tension between the international legal rule and morality? According to you, what kind of situation does the Commission refer to? Could you think of examples where such a tension would exist? When could the duty not to harm civilians be contrary to morality or common sense?
4. (Para. 26) What do you think of the Commissions statement that [e]ven when the target seemed to be a legitimate target the political echelons took care to make their approval of action contingent upon explicit prior warning and reliable intelligence estimates that there was no civilian population in the location? Could it be otherwise? What must be done before launching an attack? Does the fact that the target is a military objective suffice? What does IHL say about precautions to be taken before an attack? (P I, Arts 51, 52, 57; CIHL, Rules 15-21)
5.
a. (Paras 26-33) Is there an obligation under IHL to consult legal advisers before launching an attack? What does the Commission recommend with regard to the involvement of legal counsel during operational decision-making? Should it be assumed that political and military leaders, when weighing military necessity against humanitarian considerations, will always follow IHL? What are the dangers of removing legal counsel from the decision-making process? What are the dangers, from a military and from a humanitarian perspective, of legal advisors being involved in operational decisions? Of them having the final word? (P I, Art. 82; CIHL, Rule 141)b. (Para. 37) Under IHL, is the legal advisers determination of a situation binding upon the political echelon? Should it be? Would this requirement be realistic?
c. (Para. 37) May necessity legitimize violations of IHL? Can necessity be a defence?
6.a. (Paras 38-45) Do you agree that IHL is no longer adapted to contemporary conflicts? Should IHL rules be reconsidered and reformulated to meet the specific needs of asymmetric conflicts? What are the dangers of such an argument? Should the existing rules of IHL cease to apply until new rules are agreed upon?
b. (Paras 38-45) What are the difficulties of applying IHL in an asymmetric conflict? Could they be overcome without reformulating existing rules?
7. (Para. 46) Is there an obligation to investigate violations of IHL? Is there an obligation to investigate when a claim is brought to the States attention by an individual? Why are credible investigations into alleged violations important? For the victims of violations? For the State accused of violations? To enhance respect for IHL in future conflicts? (GC I, Arts
49 and 52; GC II, Arts 50 and 53; GC III, Arts 129 and 132; GC IV, Arts 146 and 149; CIHL, Rule 158)
8. (Paras 52-56) What do you think of the Commissions recommendations? Could you think of other recommendations it could have formulated? What other enforcement mechanisms does IHL provide for?Israel, Report of the Winograd Commission Case Study
RUBRIC
Excellent Quality
95-100%
Introduction 45-41 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Literature Support
91-84 points
The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned.
Methodology
58-53 points
Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met.
Average Score
50-85%
40-38 points
More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided.
83-76 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration.
52-49 points
Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met.
Poor Quality
0-45%
37-1 points
The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided.
75-1 points
Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration.
48-1 points
There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow Israel, Report of the Winograd Commission Case Study
Israel, Report of the Winograd Commission Case Study