Administration, organization, and management are three distinct concepts often used together in business and healthcare settings. While there are similarities between the three, they each have unique roles within an organization (Gosling et al., 2017). Administration involves setting goals, establishing policies and procedures, providing resources to achieve goals, and monitoring progress towards those goals (Gosling et al., 2017). Whereas organization is concerned with the structuring of work activities so that tasks can be accomplished efficiently. This typically involves assigning responsibilities to different individuals or departments based on their expertise or capabilities (Wang & Lin 2018). Lastly, management is focused on implementing strategies for achieving organizational objectives through overseeing the work of others. To do this effectively it requires leaders to have a thorough understanding of both administration and organization so that they can effectively motivate staff members to reach their targets (Bass & Avolio 1994)
While administration focuses mainly on planning and goal setting processes while organization deals with structuring activities and delegating duties accordingly. Management encompasses both administration and organization by engaging in oversight activities such as developing teams and leading employees towards achieving a common goal(s) (Gosling et al., 2017). Thus administrative duties involve taking input from other areas of an organization while organizational duties involve applying that information appropriately. Management is then responsible for ensuring these elements come together cohesively in order to meet desired outcomes
ombatants. 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 is a lot more moral than Vittola’s view but implies the same agendas: ‘can’t be punished simply for figh
