eli5: what happens if the Geneva convention is broken? my friend tried to explain to me but I still can’t understand
In: 320
Unfortunately, not much really. Theoretically if the person responsible can be detained and tried at a legitimate court, they can be convicted as a war criminal, with sentences which are usually life imprisonment or death. However most war criminals are never detained, tried and convicted.
If the party breaking it loses the war, then they get tried for war crimes in a kangaroo court. Otherwise pretty much nothing…
There are two main forms of consequences:
1. In a legal sense, violations of the Geneva Conventions can be prosecuted under international law. You go to the [International Criminal Court](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Criminal_Court) in the Hague, like [Slobodan Milošević](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Slobodan_Milo%C5%A1evi%C4%87). Or you can be prosecuted under the national laws of a country, since most countries who have signed the Geneva Conventions have incorporated it into their own law codes. You might be prosecuted by an enemy country (for example, if you’re captured) or by your own country if they’re willing to prosecute you (like the US did to [Lynndie England](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lynndie_England) and the other Abu Ghraib prison guards).
2. In a practical sense, in the middle of a war, if one side starts systematically violating the Geneva Conventions, the other side often will do the same in retaliation, for example by executing prisoners or intentionally killing non-combatants. The conflict will [devolve into greater levels of barbarism and cruelty](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes_committed_during_World_War_II), which is what the Geneva Conventions are designed to prevent.
Hey!!
Let’s just discuss what 4 Geneva conventions are about.
So, Geneva convention provides protection to prisoners of war and focuses on providing humane treatment to the soldiers in case they are captured by the belligerents of the enemy.
Another basic principle that was established in Geneva convention was the treatment of wounded/sick soldiers and civilians. The states are bound to provide treatment to sick and wounded soldiers and civilians and enemy forces will not attack mobile and established hospitals and care units. The belligerents are not allowed to attack the aircraft carrying sick and wounded.
The protection to civilians is provided that they cannot be attacked in any case.
So, if the Geneva convention is broken we might face another situation of genocide. The brutalities was the major reason to inculcate the protection of civilians and prisoners of war clauses in the convention.
These conventions if broken 1) will stop providing protection to people against torture and forced confessions 2) will lead to inhumane concentration camps (just like world war 2) 3) torture and killing of prisoners of war 4) attacking of medical units
So, overall this could cause the involvement of civilians in the war by cancelling out neutrality that could lead to global or world war.
A tribunal can be formed to prosecute captured war criminals. That’s what happens if you break the Geneva Convention. When we captured the Nazis after WWII we held the Nuremberg Trials, where we tried and hung them for crimes against humanity.
Mostly an angry letter followed by a lot of talking. Rwanda’s government still hasn’t really been prosecuted.
And Russia won’t be, either.
It’s called “Hey don’t cross that line man! Okay fine, don’t cross this new line! Ok, last chance here, bud! Don’t cross this new line!”
The Geneva Conventions are not enforced and they’re mostly a bluff.
[removed]
Ground rule in world politics: Only laws and agreements that can be enforced by consequences matter.
When Russia breaks Geneva conventions, no real consequence will happen. The world can not attack Russia and extract the people responsible and there is not much more to sanction. Internally, the leadership will not face consequences either because they lie through media to the population and say everything is fake.
The only “punishment” for such a country acting like that on the world stage is that other countries won’t trust them to keep to agreements that can not be 100% enforced, as Russia continues to break treaties and agreements left and right as soon as it suits them.
For smaller countries and leaders of such countries, if global powers care enough they may intervene and they may face punishments.
There is no international police force and international law is generally difficult to enforce. The inherent benefit of having these rules put down is that it creates rules for how to fight that can be understood and allows for escalations to be understood by each side. Let’s say two countries are at war. If one breaks international law by using chemical weapons on a civilian target in the other, then the other country can now use chemical weapons against the other. If one nukes the other, the other is allowed to nuke back. That’s kind of how these go
There is not really such a thing as “international law”, and thus no real legal consequences for breaking it in a traditional sense. That said, adhering to rules at your own expense is usually done for several reasons:
1) it encourages reciprocity. If the enemy knows you have a lot of their guys taken prisoner, it generally behooves them to treat your guys decently as well. This is the foundation of most international treaties and agreements.
2) it looks good on the international stage. While belligerents in a conflict (and their allies) generally have an unshakable opinion of who the good and bad guys are, neutral observers might be swayed to support the side fighting a “cleaner” war. If one side tortures and murders POWs, for instance, while the other detains them in strict accordance with Geneva Convention, the latter is more likely to garner support from nations neutral to the conflict.
3) it encourages surrender. If you know the enemy is going to kill you regardless, you have every reason to fight to the last man. This makes taking territory an extremely expensive proposition. On the other hand, if surrendering means simply chilling in a camp for a few months until the war is over and you get to go home, entire brigades can be tempted to surrender objectives without a fight, if surrounded.
To take the current war in Ukraine as an example, nothing Russia does or does not do will have much impact on its pitch-black image in US and Europe. But for neutral countries like China, India or Turkey, the fact that Russia has, by and large, acted in strict accordance with Geneva Convention makes it easier for them to morally justify helping them circumvent sanctions. It is also the reason why the Russians have about ten times the number of POWs in their custody than the other way around.
Latest Answers