here are the two post that i need to respond. think you can help?

post1:

One of the United Nations primary purposes is to maintain peace and security between every nation in the world. However, many States criticize its failure to respond to threats of violence and humanitarian crises when the need arises. Their lack of action has led to the requirement of other nations to intervene in defense of those States facing external hostilities without permission from the UN. Examples of this were seen with the United States’ and United Kingdom’s March 2003 actions against Iraq and NATO’s humanitarian intervention in Kosovo in 1999 against the war atrocities committed (Lewis, 2007). It is for these reasons that traditional armed conflict laws need to be re-evaluated.

Over time the threat landscape and how the world wages war has changed. Conflicts no longer happen in structured sequences as they did during the World Wars and previous centuries. Today’s battles occur as guerilla warfare with secretive tactics and strategies. There are more human rights violations, and nuclear weapons have upgraded the threat of the total annihilation of all human life on the planet. The rules of engagement have changed, and now threats of nuclear war against one State do not just threaten that state, they affect everyone in the world.

Anticipatory self-defense has come up often over the last several decades. This notion describes self-defense against the threat of force from an enemy State before they cross into the threatened nation (Van den hole, 2003). Most believe it falls under traditional self-defense rules and agrees that many judgments that the United Nations has made seem to recognize this. If another Law of Armed Conflict Convention is drafted, other conventions that address nuclear weapons or humanitarian issues should be re-visited or added to if there is little information present. The further definition could help States clarify self-defense versus anticipatory self-defense but likely will not stop actions like those that NATO, the U.S., and the United Kingdom took in previous incidents. If there is too much ambiguity in an armed conflict draft, it may better serve the United States not to sign the treaty. Ambiguity could lead the United Nations to interpret any self-defense actions taken by America as in violation of a treaty and lead the nation to incur penalties as a result.

Post2:

What conditions must exist in the U.S. for states to have the right to go to war, along with militarily defending itself and their rights, rules, and law? How in fact are states in the U.S. permitted the right to wage war, and if, what steps and processes go into official state law documents stating it to be so. One of the most complicated areas for lawyers, judges, and courts themselves is the Law and/or statute that had been carved up in a much too wishy-washy, or ambiguous way to define relevant events. As time passes, events once seen as a priority, reigning all-important, and powerful – mostly all in accordance with the state – now see that the law is being much too easily agitated, manipulated, or in fact changed. The matter that should be addressed in another convention of arms should be one that defines what a state can and cannot do. I think it is important for state security to be able to build up arms (weapons of war) for deterrence purposes. This has the effect of strength, and instead of going to war actually preventing it to keep the peace between nations. In other words, it is effective for that purpose (Helfer, L.R., 2012).

International courts, and judges, act according to international law. The U.S. has in our Constitution relevant laws pertaining to what we can, or cannot, do accordingly as it pertains to war aims. For instance, in Article 51 in the United Nations Charter it is written in that the U.N. Security Council that they might take military action to defend and protect their state and citizenry. As long as the international statutes cooperate with the U.S. Constitution, which takes precedence in the U.S., then the authorities are most likely to register their arguments in the international court as well even if the Constitution takes priority for the United States in matters such as these (Van de Hole, Leo., 2003).