I rather suspect there is no legal framework that caters for such questions.
Perhaps it would be a very good thing if there were.

Indeed, it might be very advantageous to humanity if a legal challenge could be issued against all owners of nuclear and non-nuclear weaponry as well. The list, I feel sure, would be a long one.

It may be a bit late in the day for laws to try tackling these matters, the present nuclear ‘club’ never being ones to openly question their ‘right’ to own and deploy such armament. (The ‘boys with toys’ syndrome somehow comes to mind here).

But a case could be made and enshrined into international law whereby penalties, for any offensive use of even the most basic instruments of warfare, could be handed down and action taken. A whole catalogue of infringements and similar illegal activities might then be addressed in a more efficient and satisfactory manner than obtains at present.

And, if there was one law I really would like to see placed on all the statute books throughout the world, this would definitely be it.
http://yorketowers.blogspot.com

War is not a disease.
It cannot be transmitted in the way a virus or an epidemic spreads itself.
It must be sanctioned first by men who see or sense in it a better or a preferable alternative to what peace can achieve.

Only much later does peace return and this is usually when men have reluctantly abandoned the battlefield to the dead and the dying. Abject defeat and one side’s almost total loss of any offensive or defensive capability is the most common signal for the halting of such terrible waste in human lives.

Such defeats occur often after much time has passed. In the Middle East, generations have come and gone and still an end to violent struggle there appears no nearer.

As mentioned previously, Aristeides, Japan during WW2 was only ‘persuaded’ to surrender by the dropping of two atomic bombs and this after years of pitiless struggle. Otherwise, at least one more year was in prospect before the US and her allies could be certain of victory.

The question that arises then is this.
Is it ever possible to speed up wars to the extent that their conclusion can be made in the fastest time possible? Speed here might save many lives and much destruction. Normally, this can never be the case since the cessation of war generally demands a victor and a vanquished. And there have been very few societies who would hurry to become the latter.

But what if that decision was never theirs to make? What if something else could determine the outcome and take precedence over all the martial prowess and military might that usually does the job?

Http://yorketowers.blogspot.com

In place of the more familiar ‘lightening war,’ why not try for a ‘lightening peace’ instead?
I mean, how hard can it really be? Certainly no harder than waging war itself. In all probability, it might be a damn sight easier and there would be a lot less of a mess to clean up afterwards.

The point I am pursuing here is that you, along with 99.99% of human beings would naturally prefer not to kill or injury anyone, even under conditions where you felt morally and legally obliged to do so.
In other words, you would find no pleasure in the process and would prefer alternatives that were the equal or better than those demanded by circumstances such as those previously listed.

So, let’s try again using slightly different scenarios.

I. You, or someone you love and respect, are being attacked by a person who is quite small in stature. He may have a large stone with him, intent on causing some injury to you or your companion. However, as you’re much bigger and stronger, you know that you can easily overpower and disarm him.
Do you kill him under these circumstances?

2. In a battle between two armies, it happens that a single soldier advances towards you. He has no weapon other than a small knife. You, on the other hand, are possessed of a quite a lethal collection of armaments, each one capable of dealing out instant death and destruction over a wide area. This lone soldier does not scare you in the slightest. You can take him out at any time.

Do you kill him under these circumstances or call upon him to surrender? Or, if that doesn’t work, do you just shoot him in the leg in order to stop him advancing any further?

3. A person is terminally ill and dying in great pain. You have the option to terminate this life or use a new type of medication that may prolong it for several years and in fairly moderate comfort.

Do you hasten his or her ending or do you extend that life as much as possible?

4.You are presented with the choice of executing someone who appears most deserving of this fate but a term of imprisonment for the remainder of his or her life is an equally suitable alternative.

Do you choose execution or imprisonment?

One reason why, after 64 years, there is still no settlement of the central issue regarding the Palestinian/Israeli conflict has been the lack of choice presented to those more immediately involved.

If you are born an Israeli, you inherit a troubled land where too many disputes are still determined by violence and not by justice. So too, if you are born a Palestinian. Any other options you might have are severely limited by the situation in which you find yourself.

What both sides have always needed is a thoroughly legitimate fall-back position, a raison-d’etre for saying no to those who see everything in terms of a life or death struggle.

‘No, I’m not going to harm anyone today. Even though they may deserve that harm and it seems to be the right thing to do, I, nevertheless, will not do it.’
Why not?
‘Because, by harming them, everyone knows that I may be the cause of inflicting far greater punishment on myself and all those around me. The option, therefore, to stop such activities is one I now choose and I choose it for the simple reason that it will be best for me and mine to do so.’

Http://yorketowers.blogspot.com

How do you make a big problem very, very small.

You do this by placing it within the shadow of an even bigger one.

I don’t want you to kill anyone.

What I want to know is how you would feel about killing someone under circumstances such as those outlined or these ‘other’ ones that you mention.

Would you enjoy the experience? Is it something that you would recommend to friends and family for instance?

Let me ask you a question here and you need not answer if it is your wish not to do so.
Are there any circumstances in which you would kill or deliberately injure another human being?

There are some that have been generally (but not universally) accepted as reasons for such action.

I.In self-defence, following an unprovoked attack on yourself or someone equally blameless.
II.In time of war, as an officially designated combatant fighting the enemy.
III.In order to end the suffering of someone experiencing the pain of unendurable agony or terminal illness ( Euthanasia).
IV.The execution of a person lawfully convicted of a crime so serious that the penalty for it must entail the loss of his or her life.

Are there any other situations where you might find yourself actively involved in the death or injury to someone else?

There is a reason for asking this question but it can best revealed only if an answer is forthcoming.