I mean there are no referees on the battlefield.
In: 3
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
The simplest way to put it is:
The war will eventually end and the world will judge harshly
The simplest way to put it is:
The war will eventually end and the world will judge harshly
Latest Answers