I mean there are no referees on the battlefield.
In: 3
In theory, the signatories to the Geneva Conventions mutually agree that, regardless of who’s fighting whom and why, there are certain acts that are unconscionable in the context of international warfare. Generally, the Conventions are *intended* to discourage one side or the other from engaging in wartime cruelty (the torture of POWs, attacks against unarmed non-combatants, the use of weapons that indiscriminately target combatants and non-combatants alike, and so forth).
In practice, that ‘agreement’ is much more tenuous; like all such agreements, it will hold only as long as the signatories see fit to keep to the agreement. In the event that one side or the other doesn’t, it’s usually pretty clear that the Conventions have been violated, and the aggrieved party can call for reparations through a number of channels:
>States can enforce the rules through their national legal systems, diplomatic channels or international dispute resolution mechanisms. War crimes can be investigated and prosecuted by any State or, in certain circumstances, by an international court. The United Nations can also take measures to enforce IHL.
And, of course, as others have pointed out, brazenly violating the laws of war may cause one’s *opponent* to consider discarding them as well, so there’s strong extra-Conventional incentive to *not* take that road, lest the conflict devolve into mindless tit-for-tat brutality.
[https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-rules-of-war-faq-geneva-conventions#:~:text=States%20can%20enforce%20the%20rules,take%20measures%20to%20enforce%20IHL](https://www.icrc.org/en/document/ihl-rules-of-war-faq-geneva-conventions#:~:text=States%20can%20enforce%20the%20rules,take%20measures%20to%20enforce%20IHL).
Latest Answers