Free Essay with the Discussion Questions on Modern Warfare

What are the key differences between Criminal Intelligence, Policing Intelligence, Regulatory Intelligence, and Detention Intelligence?

Criminal intelligence refers to the information that is collected, compiled, and analysed by law enforcement agencies with the effort to prevents and monitor any criminal activity within the country. The information concerns the types of crimes, the suspected criminals, and other known criminals within society. For instance, in Australia, the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission (ACIC) is a criminal intelligence agency that conducts independent research on crime activities within the country with the aim to stop these criminals from performing the crime.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

Policing intelligence is a system that is staffed with individual police officers with the aim to track and predict criminal activities in the country. The Australian Federal Police provide support by providing the necessary information concerning the criminal environment relating to illicit drugs, human trafficking, counterterrorism, people smuggling, and child abuse.

Regulatory intelligence involves the process of collecting, monitoring and analysing the relevant information within the regulatory environment. The purpose of this information is to track any underlying development and changes in the regulatory environment. The International Focus Regulatory Intelligence in Australia utilises the relevant data to create meaningful strategies in the defense force. It entails determining the risks and opportunities while developing the regulatory strategy.

Detention intelligence entails the process of detaining any criminal suspects for questioning with the intention together more information regarding any particular criminal activity in the country. The Australian Security and Intelligence Organisation (ASIO) has the power to detain crime suspect up to seven days for questioning.

How is the line being blurred between foreign and domestic security?

As a result of globalisation, the Australian government is strengthening the domestic defences and international borders which in turn blur the line between foreign and domestic security. Currently, globalisation concerning transportation and communication networks is affecting the individuals, communities, and more importantly the national government. It is affecting the international agreements that bridge the domestic and international affairs. Therefore, the government is bound to develop not only domestic policies that are meant solely for the national communities but also are responsible for integrating foreign policies that govern the international institutions within the wider international market. It is for this reason that the Australian political landscape is developing featuring significant groups such as the Citizens Electoral Council of Australia and Australians Against Further Immigration. Although globalisation is creating pressures in Australia; the Government is seeking interest in the international affairs to strengthen the security defence. For instance, Australia is strengthening alliances with many countries such as Asia, the United States, and Japan among others. In strengthening the engagement with Asia, Australia is focusing on various activities such as political exchange, political cooperation in combating terrorisms and other criminal activities, cultural exchange, and economic integration through the Free Trade Agreement.

Discussion Forum

Journalists have been described as combatants in modern warfare - do you agree?

I agree with the statement. A combatant refers to an individual or a group that actively participates in modern warfare. Based on the description, then, it is evident that the journalists and in particular the press were actively associated in World War I and World War II. For instance, in the First World War, the Australian press actively participated in conveying the information to the public by encompassing newspapers, press conference, editors, and journalists. The news made the public and especially the youth to crave for the war. In many of the cases, the journalist reported filtered information that did not capture the actual occurrences in the Great War. More often the newspapers would provide heavy number of causalities sparkling anger among the public. Although the Australian Government was determined to make efforts to regulate the reports concerning the war by sending few journalists and restricting their access to the first line happenings, it did not happen.

In other countries across the globe, the journalists have made a significant contribution to any underlying war. For instance, during the Spanish American war of 1988, the media participate actively by covering the event and providing new to the public. More importantly, due to the advancement in technology, a journalist can now share information easily regardless of the geographical location. It is the primary reason as to why in case of war in a particular country, the report reaches almost the entire globe through the journalists.

Why do you think scholars and commentators have placed so much emphasis on the importance of narratives and their impact on different audiences in contemporary warfare?

The use of strategic narratives is significant in explaining why, how, and what contemporary warfare occurred as a means to persuade the various audiences. Through sharing the narratives, the scholars convince people to make sense of the stories and hence create a shared meaning of the past occurrences, the present, and the future. Through the shared meaning, the audience can interpret an underlying obstacle and create an endpoint therein. More often, the political leaders utilise strategic narratives to connect any disjointed events and community structures by proving an interpretation that makes the audience to gain an understanding of the warfare. Currently, the concept of strategic narratives is becoming an increased focus among the various scholars who aim to study and understand the non-physical elements of the warfare. This, in turn, helps to understand the reason why some big nations lose small wars. Through the narratives, the audience gets to understand how war victory and its effects on the people, opponents, and the international audience. Therefore, the narratives are relevant in creating a shared understanding of the warfare on the various audiences including the local community, the international community, and the general public.

What are the positive reasons that explain why militaries and commanders seek to ensure their armed forces act according to the laws of war (as opposed to simple adherence for fear of prosecution, etc.)?

As per Australia's Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), the armed forces refer to a group under the command of a party to a conflict that is responsible in enforcing the compliance of the LOAC. The armed forces are however subject to any internal disciplinary. In the global perspective, the armed forces refer a group who engage in war on behalf of a party to a particular conflict. The armed forces operate in conformity to the rule of war. Furthermore, by creating laws to give a particular activity a guide on how to conduct the activities to avoid chaos and suffering of either of the parties in the conflict. More often, war is inherently lawless, and hence when armed forces follow the rules of law, it enhances the achievement of political goals such as territorial control and also prevents any unnecessary destruction of property. It also helps to protect both the combatants and the non-combatants of the war from any unnecessary suffering that may arise. It also helps to safeguard the fundamental human rights of the people who may become vulnerable to the enemies especially the sick and injured. More importantly, following the rule of war enhances the easy restoration of peace among the parties in conflict.

What are the challenges of determining what constitutes 'unnecessary suffering' - a central concept of IHL - in any particular case involving the use of force? Can you think of recent examples to illustrate your points?

The International Humanitarian Law (IHL) faces various challenges while determining the components of "unnecessary suffering" in a case of warfare. For instance, there was the additional for Geneva Convention, the protocols, and the various international IHL treaties. All these provide a wide range of principle and laws that acts as a guidance on the conduct supposed to be undertaken for person ho fallen victims to the enemy. Following the wide range of guidelines, the IHL faces challenges in determining the actual legal issues relating to the international armed conflict that requires to be examined. Sometimes, the IHL may find it challenging to differentiate between civilians who fall into the hands of enemies unwilling and the civilians who directly participate in the warfare. More often, the civilians are aware of the immunity upon falling victims of unnecessary suffering. For this reason, they may participate directly on the hostility with the aim of enjoying the privilege. In such a case, it creates controversies since the IHL may not sideline the civilians that participated actively on the hostility so that they may not receive the privilege but instead be prosecuted under the domestic law.

Do the laws of war need to be updated to account for new forms of war, actors and technologies? If so, why are existing restrictions insufficient?

Following the technological development and revolution of the warfare, it is significant to update the laws of war so that they can accommodate the emerging trends and revolutions. Currently, there have been several advancements of military technology creating a significant change in how the warfare is being conducted. In this case, the existing rules are thus not compatible with the underlying developments since the existing restrictions are not sufficient enough to encompass the technological revolutions. Furthermore, international lawyers have also examined the adequacy of the current IHL laws and the findings show that the rules of war have inadequate attention on the emerging technological developments that are changing the military forces. It is worth noting that existing laws maintains the controversies on the impact of the technological development on the military equipment and the society at large. The controversies hold that the underlying impact is may be acquired from the analysis of history regarding the relationship between technology and the military law. It is for this reason that the existing has been adamant to changes.