What makes things like poisonous gas or some firearms banned? Most importantly, why would nations play by the rules?
Bonus question: what exactly is a war crime and how is it punishable?
In: Other
Mutually agreed by most 1st world countries. Failure to comply results in the U. N. ganging up on the user, but if you look at Syria’s use of banned chemical warfare on its citizens you’ll notice that the U. N. turned a blind eye to it.
Most “banned” weapons have a reason. But they’re only banned if others choose to enforce that ban. Basically the idea is that if you used banned weapons, the rest of the world will turn on you and that won’t be good.
The idea is to keep everyone in check. If you use a banned weapon, you’re taking a risk that others aren’t gonna be happy. Whether or not anyone cares enough to do anything though, is up in the air.
Poison gas / chemical weapons got real nasty in WWI and the big issue is that against an equipped army, they aren’t particularly effective, except as a first use when they’re not expecting it, otherwise you can prepare for it. All it does is make the army prep for chemical warfare and cause additional, unnecessary burden and suffering against soldiers, civilians, and the environment. Chemical weapons are also pretty nasty in their effects, but mostly, its really nasty and its not really “better” than other weapons, so no need for them to be used.
To my knowledge, no specific firearms are banned, I’m not sure were you got that from.
The most prominent things that are banned are chemical weapons (and bio weapons), certain types of bullets which are hard to extract fragments or bullets that expand when hit, and laser weapons specifically made and used to permanently blind enemies.
Some countries have voluntarily put self-bans on various other weapons, but this is far from as universal as the ones above, for example, many nations, but notably not the US, China, or Russia, have agreed not to use anti-personnel land mines.
“war crimes” are mostly an unrelated topic to this question, so you’re better off posting that on your own.
> What makes things like poisonous gas or some firearms banned?
Because they cause undue suffering even beyond what you’d normally expect in war.
> why would nations play by the rules?
Because those that don’t want horrible weapons used on them will abide by the agreement to not use them on others.
> what exactly is a war crime
It’s any crime that is directly attached to individual or group actions related to actions taken in war. Often they are things that are unusually horrible, target innocents intentionally with no clear benefit, or violating whatever laws, treaties or international agreements on conduct during war.
> how is it punishable?
Depends on the crime and the country doing the enforcing, but usually they are enforced by the winning side(s) of that war.
Why would anyone play by any rules or laws? Enforcement.
If one person uses the things, then everyone who agreed gangs up on them.
Putting aside morals, there are two situations where nations would not want to commit war crimes.
The first situation deals with a powerful third party that wants to ban something. The third party will agree through treaties to stay out of the war unless one of the warring countries doesn’t play by the rules. You can think of this situation as “big brother” is making sure you play fair.
However, nations can still play by the rules even without a “big brother” nation. The second situation is when the warring nations themselves agree to ban something. This occurs when weapons are so horrible that both sides would rather no one use it instead of both sides use it. If a nation doesn’t play by the rules, then the other nation can stop playing by the rules as well.
For a more complex explanation, this is related to a mathematical phenomenon known as a Nash equilibrium where there are four options (each nation agrees to either play by the rules or not). Your nation not playing by the rules and the other nation playing by the rules is optimal for you, but it simply won’t happen because once you stop playing by the rules, then your opponent will too. So even though there appears to be four options, there are only two “stable” options, both sides playing by the rules or neither side playing by the rules. If both sides prefer the former option, then logically both sides will play by the rules even if at first glance this doesn’t make sense.
So to answer your bonus question without regarding morality, a war crime is simply a crime that if your country doesn’t punish, it will either get a third party involved against your country in your war, or will cause the enemy countries to start using weapons or tactics that they wouldn’t otherwise use
Fun bonus fact: I was thinking of this very topic earlier due to a thread about war crimes used in fantasy TV such as Star Wars or Avatar the Last Airbender. Again, not regarding morality, but you generally wouldn’t have the concept of war crimes in these fantasy worlds because they usually involve an evil, powerful force against a good but weak force.
In this type of fantasy world there is no stronger big brother nation to make sure the rules are played by. For example, no one is more powerful than the Fire Nation in Avatar, at least not until the end of the show when >!the Avatar is able to step into that role and enforce it himself!<. Also, the evil, powerful force generally would prefer all tactics be available to make their enemies tremble in fear, even if some of their own troops fall victim to some of those tactics. For example, the Fire Nation would rather have the option to enslave Earth Benders even if some rebels end up enslaving some Fire Benders from time to time as a result.
well for the most part counties have ratified the un declaration on human right but that doesn’t stop anyone
Basically over time certain rules about how we make war have been agreed on various peace conferences and treaties that codify limitations to how states should behave for either humanitarian or self interested reasons. Part of this has been an attempt to limit in some way civilian casualties and weapons that somehow seem more cruel or more dangerous for civilians perhaps in response to their previous use.
This body of international law has been given practical power and authority by their actual use in international courts and national courts though obviously they are only practically applicable by those that have enough power to enforce them. More recently perhaps it seems that some of these rules have been used to justify not just criminal prosecutions after the fact but military action to prevent or punish war crimes for example under the authority ofbthe UN.
Any weapon that intentionally causes more suffering than outright to kill is often banned. Blinding someone with a laser; noxious gasses that can leave you with debilitating organ failure over a duration of time, etc.
By banning certain weapons the major military powers ensure that they dominate their local sphere of influence. If small poor nations were allowed to hold a can of nerve gas or something then powers like USA, China, or Israel wouldn’t be able to push them around. Military might is closely connected to economic fortunes, and economic fortunes are required for military might, so it is a system designed keep the already rich and powerful nations rich and powerful.
So why can’t we (the world) make bombing and shooting a war crime?
Latest Answers