eli5 How does the Geneva convention work? How can it be enforced if nations are already at war? What incentive do armies have for following it?

537 views

I mean there are no referees on the battlefield.

In: 3

50 Answers

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s a tit for tat thing generally.

If you mistreat your prisoners the enemy will mistreat their prisoners back in return.

A good example is Canadian soldiers during WW1, Canadian troops were reputed for being ruthless and regularly killed or mistreated their German prisoners, as a result German army had an habit of specifically killing off Canadian soldiers they captured.

The same happened with Germans who severely mistreated Soviet soldiers and were severely mistreated by the Soviets in return.

Same happened with combat gases and over such things, basically if you acted in a way you had to expect to be treated the same way.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s a tit for tat thing generally.

If you mistreat your prisoners the enemy will mistreat their prisoners back in return.

A good example is Canadian soldiers during WW1, Canadian troops were reputed for being ruthless and regularly killed or mistreated their German prisoners, as a result German army had an habit of specifically killing off Canadian soldiers they captured.

The same happened with Germans who severely mistreated Soviet soldiers and were severely mistreated by the Soviets in return.

Same happened with combat gases and over such things, basically if you acted in a way you had to expect to be treated the same way.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s the Geneva convention, not the Geneva law.

You follow it in the hopes your opponent does too. That’s it. When they stop, you can choose to continue or not, depending on how much you value your reputation in the wider world.

Anonymous 0 Comments

It’s the Geneva convention, not the Geneva law.

You follow it in the hopes your opponent does too. That’s it. When they stop, you can choose to continue or not, depending on how much you value your reputation in the wider world.

Anonymous 0 Comments

One comment I heard recently about the rules of war is it also tries to give the people involved in it rules to stick to so they can believe they did the right thing and followed the rules.

I can’t imagine what being in a war is like. But having some rules to follow must somehow be helpful.

Found the video that mentioned it

Anonymous 0 Comments

One comment I heard recently about the rules of war is it also tries to give the people involved in it rules to stick to so they can believe they did the right thing and followed the rules.

I can’t imagine what being in a war is like. But having some rules to follow must somehow be helpful.

Found the video that mentioned it

Anonymous 0 Comments

The geneva convention is a treaty that the vast majority of western powers have signed and agreed to. Technically speaking, any country that wants to can violate it, and violations of the geneva convention do still happen. The consequences of doing so are as follows:

Sanctions – gross violations of the geneva convention can result in other western powers that are not directly involved in the war imposing economic sanctions against the nation violating it. These sanctions restrict the import and export of goods & services with the offending nation, thus harming their trade economy. Additionally, sanctions can be levied against nations that do not uphold the sanctions already in place. This is exactly what’s been done to russia over the war in ukraine, and the many war crimes comitted by the russian military in the process. On the other side of the coin, ukraine continuing to fight “cleanly”, has granted them unwavering logistical support from NATO, the US, and the EU.

War crimes tribunal – nations are politically pressured to prosecute their own soldiers for isolated war crimes. Alternatively, war criminals can be turned over to the ICC for trial. Cracking down on war criminals can be used as a political bargaining chip. Agreeing to prosecute notorious war criminals can build trust, and strengthen relationships with other nations.

Reciprocity – the most dangerous consequence of comitting war crimes is the prospect of giving the other side a reason to respond in kind. Although reciprocity is a war crime in and of itself, it is still human nature to want to “get even”. The best example of this is the protections that medical personnel are given on the battlefield. If you start shooting their medics, they’ll eventually start shooting yours. Torture & execute their POWs, and they’ll do the same to yours. And if you go around painting medical symbols on tanks, then neither your tanks or your medics will be protected by those symbols.

No one likes the bad guys – In general, comitting war crimes can make political enemies out of nations that would otherwise be neutral, indifferent, or even potential allies. Also, most humans are content to stand by until they are bothered. Harming civilians, and subjecting them to barbaric acts in the name of victory will only turn them into enemies.

Anonymous 0 Comments

The geneva convention is a treaty that the vast majority of western powers have signed and agreed to. Technically speaking, any country that wants to can violate it, and violations of the geneva convention do still happen. The consequences of doing so are as follows:

Sanctions – gross violations of the geneva convention can result in other western powers that are not directly involved in the war imposing economic sanctions against the nation violating it. These sanctions restrict the import and export of goods & services with the offending nation, thus harming their trade economy. Additionally, sanctions can be levied against nations that do not uphold the sanctions already in place. This is exactly what’s been done to russia over the war in ukraine, and the many war crimes comitted by the russian military in the process. On the other side of the coin, ukraine continuing to fight “cleanly”, has granted them unwavering logistical support from NATO, the US, and the EU.

War crimes tribunal – nations are politically pressured to prosecute their own soldiers for isolated war crimes. Alternatively, war criminals can be turned over to the ICC for trial. Cracking down on war criminals can be used as a political bargaining chip. Agreeing to prosecute notorious war criminals can build trust, and strengthen relationships with other nations.

Reciprocity – the most dangerous consequence of comitting war crimes is the prospect of giving the other side a reason to respond in kind. Although reciprocity is a war crime in and of itself, it is still human nature to want to “get even”. The best example of this is the protections that medical personnel are given on the battlefield. If you start shooting their medics, they’ll eventually start shooting yours. Torture & execute their POWs, and they’ll do the same to yours. And if you go around painting medical symbols on tanks, then neither your tanks or your medics will be protected by those symbols.

No one likes the bad guys – In general, comitting war crimes can make political enemies out of nations that would otherwise be neutral, indifferent, or even potential allies. Also, most humans are content to stand by until they are bothered. Harming civilians, and subjecting them to barbaric acts in the name of victory will only turn them into enemies.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I do a fair bit of japanese martial arts and went to a lecture once on “The Samurai Code” with a bunch of other foreigners.

Poor lecturer!

He went on about the code and then asked if there were questions and pretty much everyone had an example of “Well, famous and revered guy X broke the code when he did this. Why is that okay?”.

The answer boiled down to “Well I mean if you -really- want to you can ignore it” every time.

I think war time conventions are sort of on the same lines. If you’re famous and powerful enough then the conventions don’t apply. Even worse if you lose.

Anonymous 0 Comments

I do a fair bit of japanese martial arts and went to a lecture once on “The Samurai Code” with a bunch of other foreigners.

Poor lecturer!

He went on about the code and then asked if there were questions and pretty much everyone had an example of “Well, famous and revered guy X broke the code when he did this. Why is that okay?”.

The answer boiled down to “Well I mean if you -really- want to you can ignore it” every time.

I think war time conventions are sort of on the same lines. If you’re famous and powerful enough then the conventions don’t apply. Even worse if you lose.