Jump to content

Talk:Voluntary war

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Davidbena (talk) 21:37, 14 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Did you know nomination[edit]

(
)
  • Source: Eisenstein, Judah D. (1970). A Digest of Jewish Laws and Customs - in Alphabetical Order (Ozar Dinim u-Minhagim) (in Hebrew). Tel-Aviv: Ḥ. mo. l. pp. 228–229 (s.v. מלחמה). OCLC 54817857.; Babylonian Talmud, Kiddushin 21b–22a
  • Reviewed:
Created by Davidbena (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 6 past nominations.

Davidbena (talk) 04:30, 21 May 2024 (UTC).[reply]

  • Drive by comment: "forcibly have marital relations" should either be changed to "rape and forcibly marry" or attributed to a source, this is far too euphemistic to have in Wikipedia's voice. Rusalkii (talk) 05:03, 22 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I'll make the change, although I do think that it is a bit too strong.Davidbena (talk) 11:44, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't see how the word "rape" can be in the hook if it isn't in the article. I also think "traditional" may be misleading, unless they are still in effect or only recently stopped being active laws; if they haven't been in effect for hundreds or even thousands of years, then that should be clear as well. Note to Davidbena: rather than edit hooks in situ, please show any revised wordings as an alternate hook (i.e., ALT1, ALT2). I've done so to restore your original hook and show the requested revision as ALT1. Thanks. Also, don't forget to supply your QPQ review (see WP:QPQ); you're supposed to do so within seven days of nominating, and definitely within seven days of being reminded to do so. BlueMoonset (talk) 22:18, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:, thanks for your comment. Sometimes it is common practice among writers to use "euphemisms" in Belles-lettres and in prose, rather than use a word having the exact same meaning, but viewed as repugnant (e.g. "to forcibly have marital relations" instead of writing "to rape"). Would it help if I put, in the article, the word "rape" in parentheses, immediately following the words "to forcibly have marital relations"? If so, an alternate reading of the hook can be this:
Alt2 is my preferred hook, as it clarifies everything. I will also go ahead and add "rape" in the main article. As for your question about use of the word "traditional," the word is still applicable today, since Jews in Israel recognize these ancient customs as being bona-fide Jewish traditions. They, in fact, could still be upheld today if we had an active Sanhedrin, which, in this case, we don't. Another option might simply be to write, instead of "traditional," the word "obsolete." This word, however, is tricky, because if the Sanhedrin were ever to be reinstated, these laws of warfare would still be applicable today. Finally, I do not understand what you mean by saying that I must supply my QPQ review. Give me time to read-up on this.Davidbena (talk) 23:06, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To the best of my knowledge, I have nominated four articles on "Did you know...", and this present article, if accepted, will be my fifth. The rules in WP:QPQ state that if I've nominated 5 or more articles, only then would I be required to work on the nomination of another person's DYK. I take that to mean that I can begin doing that now. Okay, no problem.Davidbena (talk) 23:35, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@BlueMoonset:, I have begun the review process of the DYK article here.Davidbena (talk) 00:54, 10 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

History[edit]

The theorem had been advanced in the 2nd-century CE that "war[1] comes into the world because of a delay of judgment and because of the miscarriage of justice, and because of those who wrongfully apply[2] the constitution,"[3][4] The way to prosecute the war differs according to a nation's constitution, and is mostly grounded, both, in reason and in a country's Theocentric view.

International law may, occasionally, come in conflict with local, written constitutions having the force of law, such as where the UN Charter prohibits "the use of force" (Article 2, paragraph 4), as well as "the threat of the use of force," etc., in an effort to resolve disputes between nations, but where a local, written constitution may allow for such methods when the state's security is thought to be threatened.[5]

Roman law[edit]

The traditional laws of war, as defined in Roman law under the term occupatio rerum hostilium, or more commonly as occupatio bellica, provide for the occupation of the enemy's land after a victorious war, while the things belonging to the enemy are conveyed to the state on the condition that they were seized in war time by a common action of the army as booty.[6] If, however, chattels were seized during an isolated military operation by a lone soldier, they became his property.[6] Occupation of immovable property (e.g. lands; buildings) was excluded from such kind of acquisition of private ownership, since they were always acquired for the state.[6]

Lands acquired through an act of war became known as agar occupatorius (occupied territory), in ordinary Roman law.[7] Such lands were not only occupied by the victors, but effectually annexed to the territory of the conquering state.[7] Just as in modern law, where there were occasionally conflicts between a newer statute having international implications (such as a law enshrined in 19th-century law) and an older, more provincial law, and where there have been precedents where the older and more provincial law prevailed,[8] so, too, there have been cases in antiquity where legislators in ancient societies have enacted countervailing statutes to ensure the preservation and keeping of their own ancient laws and polity. Thus, using the nation of Israel as a case study, in the 1st and 2nd centuries CE, when the Imperial Roman army took lands away from Jewish peasants in Palestine by force,[9][10] a statute was devised by the rabbis under the laws governing Sicaricon ("the usurping occupant"), whereby any prospective buyer of such expropriated land was first required, by rabbinic edict, to gain the willful consent of the land's original owner, or of his heirs, before he could legally purchase the field held by a sicaricon. The original Jewish owner, or his heirs, retained the right of first refusal. In modern history, the same rule has been the practice whenever a local statute stands in direct contradiction to customary international law.[11]

Jewish law[edit]

As with ancient Rome, the laws governing the conduct of warfare (jus in bello) among civilised nations were often given an air of "legal status" by the writs then issuing in their legislative bodies and which were often enshrined in their constitutions. The nation of Israel, in the Late Bronze Age, had as its constitution that of the Hexateuch, namely, the Five Books of Moses and the Book of Joshua, and which the nation of Israel viewed as having an ascendancy over all other constitutions used in the Old World, as well as over all other legal codes that were to be subsequently compiled and written in future generations, being of a later origin.[12] According to Alt, the Mosaic law was originally a "customary law," later given a fixed literary form and "included in a unified legal corpus."[13]

International law[edit]

Women are protected under the laws of the UN against rape and other forms of sexual violence committed by soldiers of the occupying forces (The Third Geneva Convention of 1949 [in Articles 13 to 16]).[14]

References

  1. ^ Lit. חרב‎ = "a sword," being the word used to denote war.
  2. ^ Lit. מורים‎ = "instruct"
  3. ^ Danby (1977), Avot 5:7
  4. ^ Yerushalmi (1976), 38:3 (p. 103)
  5. ^ Wright 1917, p. 4.
  6. ^ a b c Berger 1953, p. 606.
  7. ^ a b Berger 1953, p. 357.
  8. ^ Wright 1917, p. 7.
  9. ^ Danby 1977, p. 313 (note 6).
  10. ^ Josephus alludes to this law in The Jewish War, VII.6.6 (VII, 216), where he says that "Caesar (Vespasian) gave order that all Judea should be exposed to sale." Although not conclusive, Emil Schürer thinks that this may have referred to the lease of confiscated Jewish property by non-Jewish tenants (farmers), with the money accruing unto the Roman treasury. See: Emil Schürer, Die Gemeindeverfassung der Juden in Rom in der Kaiserzeit (The Congregation of the Jews in Rome in the Imperial Age), Leipzig 1878, v. i p. 640. See also term, ager publicus, in Adolf Berger's Encyclopedic Dictionary of Roman Law, vol. 43, part 2, Philadelphia 1980 ISBN 0-87169-435-2, p. 357. Berger, citing Charles Giraud (Recherches sur le droit de propriété chez les Romains, p. 163), writes that in such cases the lessee paid monies for the lease either in periods of five years (quinquennial leaseholds) or perpetually, i.e. , by emphyteutic lease or copyhold. From these lands the Roman treasury (fiscus) received an income of from one-tenth to one-fifth of the annual crops.
  11. ^ Wright 1917, pp. 7–11.
  12. ^ Alt (1966), p. 80
  13. ^ Alt (1966), p. 92
  14. ^ Gardam & Charlesworth 2000, p. 157 (note 55).

-Davidbena (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Traditional laws of armed conflict" listed at Redirects for discussion[edit]

The redirect Traditional laws of armed conflict has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 May 29 § Traditional laws of armed conflict until a consensus is reached. voorts (talk/contributions) 22:51, 29 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Voluntary_war&oldid=1226325709"