Sample Solution
In the United States, the government structure is referred to as a constitutional democracy. This means that its citizens have the right to vote for their leaders and make decisions according to what they believe is best for the nation. In addition, this type of democracy allows for certain rights such as freedom of speech, religion and press (Jeffrey et al., 2019).
At the same time, this form of government also implements a system known as federalism which divides power between state and national governments. This division gives both levels of governance more flexibility in deciding how certain issues should be handled within their respective jurisdictions (Fenno & Nelson 2020). For example, while states are given authority when it comes to education policies – laws regarding taxes or immigration remain under federal control. However, due to overlapping powers there can be tension between these two levels on specific matters from time-to-time so it’s important that regulations are established with regard to who has ultimate jurisdiction (Gelman et al., 2017).
An additional component that makes up this governmental structure includes an independent judiciary branch composed of judges appointed and confirmed by Congress who interpret laws and decide cases based upon legal precedents rather than personal opinion or preference (Schwartz 2018). This ensures equality among all individuals regardless of race , creed etc since everyone receives fair treatment before any court or tribunal .
In conclusion , our current governmental structure consists primarily of a democratic system with components such as federalism and a separate judicial branch thrown in order ensure protections are put in place no matter what level decision making occurs at . All these elements work together in providing balance amongst different authorities while safeguarding citizens throughout entire country against potential injustices stemming from bias or other forms abuse power.
is leads to question of what qualifies to be a combatant, and whether it is lawful to kill each other as combatants. Combatants are people who are involved directly or indirectly with the war and it is lawful to kill ‘to shelter the innocent from harm…punish evildoers (Begby et al (2006b), Page 290).However, as mentioned above civilian cannot be harmed, showing combatants as the only legitimate targets, another condition of jus in bello, as ‘we may not use the sword against those who have not harmed us (Begby et al (2006b), Page 314).’ In addition, Frowe suggested combatants must be identified as combatants, to avoid the presence of guerrilla warfare which can end up in a higher death count, for example, the Vietnam War. Moreover, he argued they must be part of the army, bear arms and apply to the rules of jus in bello. (Frowe (2011), Page 101-3). This suggests Frowe seeks a fair, just war between two participants avoiding non-combatant deaths, but wouldn’t this lead to higher death rate for combatants, as both sides have relatively equal chance to win since both use similar tactics? Nevertheless, arguably Frowe will argue that combatant can lawfully kill each other, showing this is just, which is also supported by Vittola, who states: ‘it is lawful to draw the sword and use it against malefactors (Begby et al (2006b), Page 309).’
In addition, Vittola expresses the extent of military tactics used, but never reaches a conclusion whether it’s lawful or not to proceed these actions, as he constantly found a middle ground, where it can be lawful to do such things but never always (Begby et al (2006b), Page 326-31). This is supported by Frowe, who measures the legitimate tactics according to proportionality and military necessity. It depends on the magnitude of how much damage done to one another, in order to judge the actions after a war. For example, one cannot simply nuke the terrorist groups throughout the middle-east, because it is not only proportional, it will damage the whole population, an unintended consequence. More importantly, the soldiers must have the right intention in what they are going to achieve, sacrificing the costs to their actions. For example: if soldiers want to execute all prisoners of war, they must do it for the right intention and for a just cause, proportional to the harm done to them. This is supported by Vittola: ‘not always lawful to execute all combatants…we must take account… scale of the injury inflicted by the enemy.’ This is further supported by Frowe approach, which
