Question: In the 20th century, Chechens, Abkhaz, Kurds, Palestinians and Irish Nationalists have all seen themselves as fighting a war against a colonising nation.
Nation states have always regarded the actions of such groups as terrorism. Wars are sometimes defined by the fact that they take place between nation states: but where does that leave civil war, or the so-called "War on Terrorism"?
These are regarded as so important and so fundamental that they should be observed even when a state's security is at risk.
A judgment of the European Court of Human Rights in 2011 (Al-Skeini and Others v.
It is hard to see any place for human rights when human life is deliberately targeted, or where it is seen as "collateral damage" in the course of mass bombing campaigns, which either directly or indirectly lead to sickness, disease, suffering, destruction of homes, and death.
In times of war, particularly wars which last for years on end, every human right appears to be affected adversely.
An act of terrorism normally has an end goal which is "bigger", and more strategic than the immediate effect of the act.
For example, a bomb attack on civilians is meant to change public opinion in order to put pressure on the government.
That until the basic human rights are equally Guaranteed to all, without regard to race Dis a war That until that day The dream of lasting peace, world citizenship Rule of international morality Will remain in but a fleeting illusion To be pursued, but never attained Now everywhere is war, war.
Bob Marley All members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations Article 2 (4) of the UN Charter Acts of war or terrorism challenge the human rights framework almost to the point where it seems to collapse.