To what extent do you think violations of human rights are excusable in a time of war? at such times, how might our perception of the balance between rights and security alter what we think of as universal?

Human rights are considered the absolute basic rights that all people should possess simply because of the fact that they are humans. Despite this, human rights are not always protected or respected. For example, the right to security or the right to life are violated in a situation of war.

These violations can sometimes be excused due to the fact that war, by its very nature, necessarily violates these rights. It is impossible to engage in a war and assume no people will suffer or die. However, at this point in time, it is also unrealistic to assume no wars will happen again. Therefore, we need to think of the connection between these subjects.

Our perception of the balance between rights and security need to be different when we think about war. Under these circumstances, humans rights can no longer be universal. Instead, we should concentrate on reducing the number and severity of violations that take place in such an environment. This is related to the concept of "just war."

explanation:

a trial judge has broad powers in his courtroom. the judge's decision is usually final for the duration of the trial, and the party's one special type of witness is an expert witness.