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: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) 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.
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...
