I mean there are no referees on the battlefield.
In: 3
It’s a self serving treaty. Basicaly “I won’t if you won’t.” Both sides ideally don’t want their soldiers to suffer more than nessicary, so they agree to avoid tactics that create unnessary pain and suffering.
A stab wound takes someone out of the fight, so there’s no practical reason to use a knife that makes a wound impossible to close in the field.
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.
Treaties a nation has chosen to approve are part of the laws of the nation. It’s not legal to break them, or order someone else to break them. Doing so holds criminal penalties enforced by the military you are part of.
So the incentive not to break the rules of war, as a solider or officer, is not going to prison. A nation agrees to and enforces these rules because they are reciprocal and morally correct.
It’s a self serving treaty. Basicaly “I won’t if you won’t.” Both sides ideally don’t want their soldiers to suffer more than nessicary, so they agree to avoid tactics that create unnessary pain and suffering.
A stab wound takes someone out of the fight, so there’s no practical reason to use a knife that makes a wound impossible to close in the field.
Abiding by the Geneva convention is in the best interest of both belligerents for several reasons. 1) it looks good on the international stage. 2) your soldiers will likely be treated better as pows if you treat your prisoners well. 3) if you loose, mistreatment of prisoners will be prosecuted as war crimes. 4) if the enemy knows they will be treated poorly as prisoners, they will fight to the death to not get captured
Generally it’s basically a formal honor code during the war, in the event there is a ‘winner’ to a conflict, the victor sometimes is in a position to hold people accountable, and the international criminal court can hypothetically pursue charges against any individual that enters a country that honors their jurisdiction, but if a person were to commit war crimes then hide out in some country that both denies international courts and denies extradition, and doesn’t care you did warcrimes, then yeah theirs not much that can be done short of holding a trial in absentia and then violating the harboring countries borders and abducting the individual.
The simplest way to put it is:
The war will eventually end and the world will judge harshly
Generally it’s basically a formal honor code during the war, in the event there is a ‘winner’ to a conflict, the victor sometimes is in a position to hold people accountable, and the international criminal court can hypothetically pursue charges against any individual that enters a country that honors their jurisdiction, but if a person were to commit war crimes then hide out in some country that both denies international courts and denies extradition, and doesn’t care you did warcrimes, then yeah theirs not much that can be done short of holding a trial in absentia and then violating the harboring countries borders and abducting the individual.
Reminds me of Starfleet vs Klingons/Romulans. Starfleet abides by the moral high ground while the others do whatever they want. What would happen if Russia broke every single Geneva Convention rule? Probably nothing. I can at least hope countries like Russia or China would abide by the Geneva Convention, without any teeth, they don’t have to.
The simplest way to put it is:
The war will eventually end and the world will judge harshly
Latest Answers