War Criminals, pt. 2: Wars of Law

As discussed in Part 1 of this two-part series, the average citizen isn't usually encouraged to think about war, and the reason why may well be because the longer a vicious war continues the more likely one or both parties will commit (or be accused of committing) a War Crime... but, as discussed last time, as abhorrent as war crimes can be, war criminals are also granted impunity, or immunity from punishment, if they so choose because the victims of these crimes have no authority to punish war criminals who commit such atrocities.

Which, to me, begs the question of why we created Laws of War in the first place.

Oh, if you ask anyone, they'll gladly tell you.

I at first thought that this was all just meant to be a justification of war. After all, if there are Wars of law, war must be legal, right? I assumed that we created laws of war not to punish war criminals, but because if there are war crimes, there must also be law-abiding war, meaning war can be legally justified.
Honestly, I find that whole line of thinking absolutely disgusting.
I fully admit that a lot of this is related to my position as a pacifist; I am philosophically and fundamentally opposed to all forms of war and violence. I don’t propose we abolish the military entirely, but that is because my position as a pragmatist cannot (at time of writing) see a way of doing so that doesn’t put people at risk of greater harm... but I also admit that that may well be due to military propaganda that has convinced everyone that they require a military.

See, this is where my confusion starts:

Why do we have a military? It may seem like a dumb question, but think about it - every single sovereign country on this planet either has a military or relies on another country’s military, so why is that? Well, the main reason given is that the potential for other countries or large groups of their citizens to attack, invade, or whatever “insert horrible militant action here” meaning that we require an army to defend against such attacks. Basically, other countries pose a clear and present danger of attacking, so we need to defend ourselves from armed assault.
However, that implies that the only reason a country has a military is because other countries have a military. So, they have one because we have one, but we have one because they have one? It’s a vicious cycle. Of course, some countries have a military not for defence, but because they actually plan to invade, attack or what-have-you “insert horrible militant action here” against their neighbours, which makes them the aggressors in this whole situation, but where does this madness end?
See, from my perspective, the existence of multiple militaries around the world means that every single country in the world is caught in a Mexican Standoff. Everyone has a gun pointed at each other, because some people want to shoot; some don't want to be shot; some have no bullets, but want to scare others from shooting them; & some are pretending they don't want to be shot, but really they're waiting to shoot that guy as soon as he lets his guard down.
It is, honestly, a ridiculously complicated and dangerous farce no matter how you look at it. TV Tropes defines it perfectly, a Mexican standoff is "a stalemate in which everyone must lose". And we do, all the time, because as soon as someone starts shooting, it causes untold injury, death and suffering.

So, we tend to all agree that in the international military situation, just like a Mexican Standoff, the person who fires the first shot is a monster. They're doing the wrong thing by starting the crossfire. They’re the aggressor; they’re the one starting the war. They’re the asshole, the Secret Hitler in this game. In fact, some countries (but not all) as well as laws of war, also have what's called laws of aggression. A law of aggression exists to prohibit acts that would deliberately disrupt the peace which is why crimes of aggression are also called "crimes against peace", or more commonly known as acts of war.

But, why criminalize an act of war, an act that starts war, but not war itself? That's like criminalizing threats of violence, but not violence and murder, I was more confused than ever. But, then, I was doing research and I came across an interview by Noam Chomsky, when he was talking about the war crimes committed by the American military, during the Vietnam War, and the philosophy of war crimes:

"If we do that to other people, that's 'normal'. It's if they do something to us that the world is coming to an end, but if we do it to them it's so normal, why should we even talking about it? [...] Defeated countries are forced to pay some attention to what they did. Victors never are."

—Noam Chomsky, Power and Terror (2002)

Finally, it all made sense, and I actually had to change my plan for this whole blog post when I realized that, because I wasn't confused anymore. See, war crimes aren't about justifying war—this belief was based on my own lack of empathy for those who are pro-war, since I think wars aren't justified, but to people who want to fight wars, war is already justified. In fact, a lot of the inspiration (and terminology) behind laws of war comes from just war theory. But, this being the case, war crimes aren't about being held accountable for your actions during war...

War crimes are one of the Spoils of War, an excuse to parade around defeated enemies as criminals.

Most of the countries that came together to sign the Fourth Geneva Convention did so in 1949, not coincidentally, just four years after the Nuremberg Trials in 1945. It's believed that World War 2 inspired a lot of what was discussed, because of just how devastating that war was, but that's not true. As Chomsky  points out, when charging the Nazi officials with crimes, whilst obviously genocide and unlawful movement of people and children was on the docket, it was a conscious decision by the courts that rather than punish the Nazis for their crime, the Nuremberg trials was also about forgiving the war crimes of the Allies. Nazis did a lot of aerial bombings of the civilian, urban populations—the Blitz was an infamous attack and well documented assault on innocent British civilians—yet that wasn't considered a war crime because the Allies bombed civilian German cities even more than they had them. So, that obviously couldn't be a war crime, because the Allies did that and Allies are the good guys, right?
It is laughable that whilst some remember the Nuremberg Trials as a just punishment of the Nazis—and there was some benefit, as it delegitimized the Nazi party in Germany—the Nuremberg trials were ultimately a farce, a kangaroo court, nothing more than a public humiliation of the losing side.

I'm not saying you should feel sorry for the Nazis, they were (and are) horrible bigots. What I'm saying is that you should blame Americans and the British for taking part in their own war crimes. After all, just five years after signing the Geneva Convention, Britain decided to take part in the Malay Emergency, in 1948.

Whilst it's not a highly publicised the U.K. also decided to take part in a lesser known conflict (at least, I hadn't heard of it until now), called the Malayan Emergency, that began in 1948. U.K. troops were actually the first army to use Agent Orange as a military weapon, but that's not the only atrocity perpetrated by British armed forces. According to some, these technically don't count as war crimes, since they weren't explicitly used as weapons against civilians (and don't count as "chemical weapons"). But either way, they definitely perpetrated the Batang Kali massacre, killing at least 24 civilians, were collectively punished in internment camps, and participated in headhunting, taking the decapitated heads of victims as trophies during the conflict. Despite these war crimes, indignities and atrocities, the British authorities either decided that the actions were entirely justified, or they simply claimed that there wasn't enough evidence either way—even claiming that genuine photos of soldiers smiling while holding severed heads were faked—and quietly censored the reports.

Then, America just 12 years after signing the Geneva Convention, took part in the Vietnam War in 1955.

America was infamous for using Agent Orange, even though the Brits beat them by seven years, but they also employed napalm, and land mines (at time of writing, it's estimated that 500,000 unexploded landmines are still hidden in the Vietnam landscape) against the people of Vietnam. Whilst it is known that many American soldiers engaged in massacres of Vietnamese civilians, and the rape of Vietnamese women, through forced prostitution and gang-rape, which is obviously a war crime... technically America is one of those countries that didn't ratify all of the Geneva Convention Protocols, including Protocol I which includes Chapter II Art 76, which explicitly makes rape and forced prostitution illegal.
One could argue that, regardless, Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions states that inhumane treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity are prohibited - despite this, not a single American soldier (or their superiors) that were responsible for raping or killing of Vietnamese civilians was charged as a war criminal... so, all such cases were either covered up by the military, or in the less than 50 cases where the criminals faced any kind of punishment, the criminals were merely court-martialed, serving only a few years in prison on reduced sentences.

These are not war crimes, because the definition of war crime, as discussed, is not actually an act that is prohibited by the laws of war. A war crime is: "When the enemy does something nasty to us, and we want to rub their noses in it".

The sad part about this is that it came from a good place.

Because the Geneva Convention was genuinely created by a humanitarian, a Swiss Businessman called Henry Dunant saw the cruel and pointless suffering of injured soldiers during the war, and decided to do something about it by establishing the Red Cross, and he was even the protocol leader during the First Geneva Peace Conference of 1863... he wanted to make the world a better place and reduce the suffering caused by war. He was an idealist. The problem is that ideals are no match for politics. Whilst outwardly supporting and ratifying the Geneva Convention, every cosigner did so under the same belief:
     "This is to stop you from doing harm to us,"

And ultimately, this is the reason why I am a pacifist. Because I don't believe in just violence or war... I don't hold the same belief as those countries that allows them to justify their own warcrimes.
See, they have the belief that violence, murder, atrocity and even war can be just, if done for the right reasons. What are the right reasons? Well, they're whatever reasons we decide upon. I mean, they have to be, right? Because we're "the good guys".

But the worst crime of all, as far as I'm concerned, is that when they fed you that garbage, you fell for it.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and until next time, I'm going to go listen to an Edwin Starr song...

War Criminals, pt. 1: Laws of War

The average citizen isn’t usually encouraged to think about war. At time of writing, however, one war that’s getting a lot of media coverage is the Israel-Hamas War in Gaza. It’s certainly not the first (or even worst) war in recent history. There has been the Sudanese Civil War; the Russian Invasion of Ukraine; the Azawad Conflict, in Northern Mali; & the Conflict in Rakhine State, between Buddhists and Muslims. Not to mention, the Mexican Drug War in America which may well have the highest number of fatalities—if some of the casualty reports are to be believed.

But, whenever you involve Israel in anything, it always becomes a huge issue. From Anti-Semites, to Christian Fundamentalists, to Conspiracy Theorists—everyone has an opinion on Israel, and wants to bring it up all the freaking time. Don’t believe me? Ask your racist uncle about it some time.
In a way, the innocent people of Palestine being victimized by this war are lucky that so many people are interested in their plight, even though they may be disappointed when they realize why...

Now, I can’t speak for every one of the ongoing conflicts around the world, as I don’t actually hear that much about the wars in Sudan and Mali, because… well, if I’m completely honest, I think it’s because the news is highly bigoted, and so it isn’t really interested in the suffering of poor people and non-white people, so it doesn’t give it any air-time. But, the two biggest wars, as far as the media are concerned, are the Russian Invasion of Ukraine, and the Israel-Hamas War and in both there has been a lot of talk of war crimes.

For the war in Gaza, the war officially began on Oct 7th 2023, and as early as Oct 8th both sides were accusing the other of war crimes. Similarly, there have been many war crimes committed in the Russo-Ukrainian, although they have all been levied at Russian officials.
For the most part, I feel that people understand that “crime is bad, so war crime is really bad”, and whilst I don’t think that’s inaccurate, it is imprecise. I think the average citizen just kind of assumes that a war crime is an act committed during war that’s really nasty. So, for this post, I plan on discussing what exactly a war crime is, and then I want to talk about what it means.

So, you should know what a crime is, I defined it in the first post, but you can simplify it down to the pithy, but accurate, term – crime is “any act or situation that is legally prohibited”. So, crime is, basically, anything that’s against the law. War Crimes are no different – a war crime is defined as anything that is against the Law of War... so, what the hell is the Law of War?

The rules of war go as far back as the Code of Hammurabi in 1750 B.C.E., but these rules were focussed on how a country was expected to treat its military and how soldiers were expected to act in times of war. However, the laws regarding how we must treat our opponents during international conflict were started with the Geneva Convention, you may have heard of it, these were treaties - agreements between countries about how we'd conduct international conflict - but most people only know of the one after World War 2, there are actually four Geneva Conventions:

The first Geneva Convention was established in the Geneva Diplomatic Conference in 1864, organized by the founders of the International Committee for the Red Cross, to establish how sick and injured soldiers are treated during war, as well as recognizing the Red Cross for this purpose.

A second Geneva convention was established in the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1906, it clarified the protections for the sick and wounded, including protections for medical equipment and means of evacuation.

The third Geneva convention was established in the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1929, and it proposed a long list of protections and rights for prisoners of war, such as how they are to be fed, dressed, kept and eventually repatriated.

The fourth Geneva convention was established in the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1949, and it determined protection for civilians and non-combatants from mistreatment during war, as well as attempting to prevent certain consequences of war from harming the everyday lives of citizens.

Later, the Geneva Diplomatic Conference of 1964, sought to revise and update much of these, from expanding some of these conventions, to entirely replacing the original second convention with the current second Geneva Convention (which was inspired by the Hague Convention, from the Hague Peace Conference of 1899, organized by Russian Tsar Nicholas II) and this new convention established rules during naval warfare, including protections for hospital ships and neutral trading vessels, and rules regarding shipwrecks.

[Editor’s Note: the Geneva Convention still protects medical equipment and means of evacuation, but those protections are now covered in the fourth Geneva Convention, in Articles 17, 22, & 49.]

There was also a series of Geneva Diplomatic Conferences from 1974-1977, to establish two further protocols, to amend and expand the four conventions, and a third protocol was added in 2008.

Protocol I sought to update protection of civilians by including “armed conflicts against colonial domination, alien occupation and racist regimes” under the definition of war, as well as expanding prohibitions to include updated developments in warfare tactics and technology.

Protocol II sought to include civil war, or “internal armed conflicts” under the definition of war.

Protocol III sought to add the “Red Crystal” to the Red Cross and Red Crescent, as accepted symbols to designate medical or religious personnel, property, and establishments.

So, that’s it, right? Well, no. Whilst every single sovereign state of the United Nations has ratified the Geneva Convention, not every sovereign state has ratified every one of the three Geneva Protocols… in fact, if you want to start talking about laws of war that haven't been ratified by every country, there are actually dozens more laws which may affect what is and isn't a war crime on a case-by-case basis:

• The Convention on Cluster Munitions, of 2008
• The Environmental Modification Convention, of 1978
• The London Convention on the Definition of Aggression, of 1933
• The Ottawa Treaty, of 1997
• The Protocol on Blinding Laser Weapons, of 1995
• The Protocol on Incendiary Weapons, of 1980
• The Roerich Pact, of 1935
• The Saint Petersburg Declaration of 1868, ...of 1868

And there are many, many more with much less “snappy” titles, such as my absolute favourite:
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, from 1980, which was commonly shortened to The Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

Okay, so that's how we defined the Laws of War... but what exactly are they? Well, you could go through and read the four Geneva Conventions, they're all public documents that you can read. Or, you can do what I did, and read the Rome Statute. This document, from the International Criminal Court, actually provides a pretty comprehensive list of what the laws of war are, under Article 8: War Crimes. It is pretty long, and I do recommend you read it if you're interested and have the time but I've simplified them for you. So, for the sake of this blog post, the Laws of War are:

A. In regards to persons or property, protected under the Geneva Convention:
     (i) Do not intentionally kill Protected Persons (i.e. civilians, P.O.W.s, wounded)
     (ii) Do not torture, or treat anyone inhumanely.
     (iii) Do not cause great suffering, or serious injury.
     (iv) Do not destroy or steal civilian property, unless it’s a military target.
     (v) Do not force any protected person to serve in your military.
     (vi) Do not deprive any protected person of the rights to a fair trial.
     (vii) Do not unlawfully deport or imprison anyone.
     (viii) Do not take hostages.
B. In regards to military attacks, or humanitarian aid as defined by the U.N. Charter:
     (i) Do not attack anyone not taking direct part in the war.
     (ii) Do not attack civilian objects/property (i.e. anything not a military target).
     (iii) Do not attack humanitarian aid or peacekeeping missions.
     (iv) Do not cause damage to civilians, property or the environment, indirectly.
     (v) Do not attack undefended places, unless it’s a military objective.
     (vi) Do not attack a soldier that’s surrendered, or can no longer fight.
     (vii) Do not hide soldiers with white flags, enemy uniforms or Red Cross symbols.
     (viii) Do not move your people in, or their people out, of any territory you occupy.
     (ix) Do not attack civilian churches, schools, galleries, museums, or hospitals.
     (x) Do not mutilate, or experiment upon, any person.
     (xi) Do not use sneaky or deceptive tactics to attack an enemy soldier.
     (xii) Do not declare that you will not spare survivors of any battle.
     (xiii) Do not destroy or steal civilian property, unless it is a military target.
     (xiv) Do not infringe upon the rights or freedoms of civilians from an enemy country.
     (xv) Do not compel civilians to fight against their own country.
     (xvi) Do not pillage any town or place, even when taken by assault.
     (xvii) Do not use poison or poisoned weapons.
     (xviii) Do not use asphyxiating/poisonous gases, liquids, materials or devices.
     (xix) Do not use expanding bullets (i.e. dum dums, soft-nose bullets).
     (xx) Do not use methods of warfare which cause unnecessary suffering.
     (xxi) Do not humiliate or degrade any person.
     (xxii) Do not commit rape, or any other form of sexual violence.
     (xxiii) Do not use civilians to protect combatants from attack.
     (xxiv) Do not attack anyone or anything with a Red Cross/Crescent/Crystal.
     (xxv) Do not deprive civilians of necessary resources (i.e. food and water).
     (xxvi) Do not use or conscript child soldiers.

So, that's pretty much it, all 34 of the Laws of War... of course, if you think there's thirty-four laws of war, I'm sure there's more... phwoar
I have rewritten every one of these laws into a language that's easier to understand, but the legalese is there for a reason, and whilst this is a pretty good list to start you off there's a lot more in the Rome Statute than that. There's differing laws for national conflicts and internal disturbances (such as riots, or sporadic acts of violence), as well as laws regarding "crimes of aggression", "crimes against humanity" and "genocide". There's also a lot of definitions and clarifications (such as what "unlawfully" or "unnecessary" actually mean). And of course, there's a lot about how exactly one goes about investigating and prosecuting war criminals...

See, that's the next thing that's different between Laws of War and regular Laws. National laws are enforced by governments through their police, and prosecuted by lawyers in a court of law. However, laws of war aren't enforced by police, or a government... the way a war crime is prosecuted is that the International Criminal Court, (or potentially some other form of impromptu war crime tribunal or court of humanitarian law) must first investigate accusations of war crime; then find proof that these accusations are true, and finally, prove this before the court.
However, every step along the way is littered with stumbling blocks. During times of war, it can be difficult to get accurate information, let alone access to active warzones in some cases... but, most damningly, many countries (even prominent members of the U.N.) do not recognize the authority of the International Criminal Court. This includes China, Egypt, Haiti, India, Iran, Israel, North America, & Russia. Many international human rights activists and humanitarian organizations (Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, Oxfam, etc.) work to collect and preserve evidence of war crimes, and that kind of work is often vital for an accurate prosecution, but if a country does not recognize the authority of the I.C.C.—or whichever court of humanitarian law is prosecuting them—even if someone is convicted of a war crime, that doesn't mean they can be punished for it.

Vladimir Putin, President of Russia, is a war criminal.

In February 2022, he ordered thousands of Ukrainian children to be abducted and deported to Russia. He has been found guilty of "unlawfully deporting and transfering children" by the I.C.C in June 2024.
What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

Yahya Sinwar, Leader of Hamas in the Gaza Strip, is a severe war criminal... but he's dead.

Even though he was found to be responsible for hostage-taking, sexual violence, torture and many other inhumane acts, he was shot by Israeli soldiers on October 16, just five days ago, at time of writing.
What does that mean? Ultimately, absolutely nothing, he also escaped justice.

Benjamin Netanyahu, Prime Minister of Israel, is a serial war criminal.

Since the beginning of the war, evidence has shown that he was responsible for deliberately starving civilians; wilfully causing great suffering and cruel treatment; intentionally directing attacks at civilian populations; & persecuting innocent civilians. He was found guilty of these crimes, and more, by the I.C.C. in May 2024.
What does that mean? Absolutely nothing.

And after all this, I can't help but go back to that very first definition, the simple definition that most people have for what a war crime is: “crime is bad, so war crime is really bad”
That is still true... so to me one of the things that is truly disturbing about war crimes is that they are so uncontroversially disgusting, some of the worst acts that we can commit, unless you start talking about crimes against humanity or genocide, and yet they're also the crimes you're least likely to be punished for.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and I also recognize that the I.C.C. isn't free from controversy. A lot of people have pointed out that almost all of the people that it's successfully prosecuted are African, making many wonder if this is a bigoted, or even racist organization. Also, even if a country doesn't recognize the authority of the I.C.C. some those same countries have been known to provide evidence against countries that do in efforts to cause political unrest, so there's a clear imbalance. It's not exactly a fair and equal court. So, I don't think the solution is giving more power to the U.N. or the I.C.C., but I don't know if there is a solution for this ridiculous situation. I am talking about it because I find it quietly horrifying, and that's kind of what I like to do here for my Halloween Countdown.
Until next time, I plan on talking more about the philosophical aspects of war crime, and crime in general, so stay tuned for that; but tomorrow night, I want to talk about something a little lighter. Tomorrow, stay tuned, for a post about some little mistakes...