Soldiers in war are called upon to do certain acts as part of the command proces

Question

Soldiers in war are called upon to do certain acts as part of the command process. At times we consider some of those acts as being against humanity. Should soldiers be permitted to argue that they are not responsible because they were following orders and had no say in the process. Also, consider whether we as a society should accept such a defense? How far down in the chain of command should we impose the crimes against “humanity?” Which is more important: what rank a person holds or the specific acts that the person may have done? What about the loyalty that a person show or owes his family, friend or country, does that matter, and is it as important, as the more general loyalty to your fellow human being?

Explanation / Answer

Soldiers in any organized troop, recognized under a certain law of the Country is to be deployed for self defense, protection of national interest, disaster management and to manage the internal unrest and external aggression that a nation may suffer from. The deployment of the forces are subject to the political intentions of the state. If the nation is convinced through its political interventions that action needs to be taken through the use of Force in the larger interest of the nation, then military is used as an instrument. However, under circumstances wherein it is seen that such strong decisions lead to humanitarian crisis, checks and balances are laid through legal standings where the decision of the State may be challenged with the help of Humanitarian organizations for example, the human rights wing of the United nations or other such organizations.

Moreover, the organizations such as the Red Cross Society, The Geneva Conventions and the other rules of the war, makes it very clear that the soldier is not allowed to perform beyond a certain manner, irrespective of exceptional commands received by the seniors. If they are part of such an act that is goes against the rules of the war, then they could be tried along with the seniors for participating in such an act.

Hence to the extent, the soldier acts responsibly, keeping the rules of the war, the Defense laws governing their job profile and the Political intentions incidental to the Defense mechanism of the State in mind, the chain of command could be followed. What is more important is the specific acts that the person have done, in this regard, which is important. If the senior is none for breaking rules of the war, then the soldier may choose not to be part of such an act. Loyalty is supposed to be towards the nation in an honest matter and not by the crooked means. So keeping that on mind, the question pertaining to whether the act is against humanity or for self-defense needs to be weighed for a decision.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse S
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.