War Crimes

[oneworld2]

This was intended, explicitly, to be a discussion about what constitutes a war crime As with every discussion I've been involved in with you, you then twist it to bash the West in general, and the US specifically, and divert from the topic, usually with vague allegations, over-the-top rhetoric, and incomplete assertions with propagandist overtones. That's not the subject of the thread, nor its purpose.

This is intended, again, explicitly, to be a "knowledge" thread. That is why I was willing to address the juridical arguments you raised, specifically, but not go haring off into the advocational space you want to occupy. Indeed, you haven't touched, except tangentially, on the topic at all in your extended rants. It is you, not I, that seeks to be adversarial. I don't feel the need to respond regarding that post any further, as not germane to the topic.

" Twisting it to bash the West" as opposed to focusing on Russian actions ? ( not even Ukraine or anyone else for that matter except for the mention of another enemy of the state Milosovic)

Here's what you have posted referenced so far

There has been a lot of discussion of what constitutes a "war crime" in the context of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, now in its third week. I thought it would be appropriate to start a knowledge thread here so that these discussions can be conducted with information and questions answered forthrightly based upon facts.

Another relevant piece on that site is this: Mechanisms for Criminal Prosecution of Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine.

"Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine is one of the clearest violations of article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter since its entry into force. In addition to legal implications for the responsibility of Russia as a state, the events have generated renewed interest in the possibility of individual accountability for the crime of aggression. (((.................))). The question, of course, is whether and how criminal cases could be prosecuted in this instance." (Bolding mine)

One of the difficulties in international law is the cumbersome process of enforcement. Intervention is never effective, at least not immediately. It took years to bring Milosevich, and others, to trial. I expect that will be true of this conflict. Trials have not occurred regarding Crimea eight years on.

The agenda is crystal clear, to make the case of war crimes against Russia whilst holding that any references to anything other than official enemies of the state ( Milosovic) whilst demanding that case studies, including the only case in history where the ICC actually found a powerful state guilty of war crimes ( People of Nicaragua V USA ) be written out of the discussion on the ridiculous grounds of it constituting a " bashing of the West". Apparently this doesn't fall under you stated provision for "discussions " that " can be conducted with information and questions answered forthrightly based upon facts .

Cont....

 

[oneworld2]

Continued


The case ( People of Nicaragua V USA ) was and remains the only case where a world power was found guilty of crimes, including a violation of the sovereignty of another state, and is a factual reference.

The "propagandist" is the one seeking to omit relevant facts/references based on actual and verifiable events that shows how the ICC came to that decision.

We can bemoan the time ( 3 years) that it took for Milosovic to stand trial but we cannot comment on the 19 years freedom Bush and Blair have enjoyed ( ongoing) after they committed a worse crime against the people of Iraq. This incidentally makes a mockery of the claim you cited from Mechanisms for Criminal Prosecution of Russia’s Aggression Against Ukraine. who state

"" Russia’s aggressive war against Ukraine is one of the clearest violations of article 2(4) of the United Nations Charter since its entry into force. "

Propaganda nonsense. The US attack on the people of Iraq, the invasion of a sovereign nation, with the added crime of a regime change agenda ( not actually Russian stated policy but US policy as of 1998) is a much clearer example that includes even more broader charges but is apparently not up for discussion here because? " bashing the West"

Once again your wish is not to discuss war crimes and a genuine wish to see all criminals indicted for them but rather a specific case be made against Russia only which actually is an abuse of both the rules and the spirit in which they where written and the protections they sought to achieve

 

[NWRatCon]

" Twisting it to bash the West" as opposed to focusing on Russian actions ? ( not even Ukraine or anyone else for that matter except for the mention of another enemy of the state Milosovic)

Here's what you have posted referenced so far







The agenda is crystal clear, to make the case of war crimes against Russia whilst holding that any references to anything other than official enemies of the state ( Milosovic) whilst demanding that case studies, including the only case in history where the ICC actually found a powerful state guilty of war crimes ( People of Nicaragua V USA ) be written out of the discussion on the ridiculous grounds of it constituting a " bashing of the West". Apparently this doesn't fall under you stated provision for "discussions " that " can be conducted with information and questions answered forthrightly based upon facts .

Cont....

Nothing to see here. Move on. YOU ARE WRONG, and you are doubling down on your error. I was responding to your distractions, and I won't do it any more.

 

[oneworld2]

Nothing to see here. Move on. YOU ARE WRONG, and you are doubling down on your error. I was responding to your distractions, and I won't do it any more.

I'm not wrong at all.

I provided the necessary evidence to back the points I made and then some. I am pretty well in touch with both the laws themselves, how and where they have been violated and by whom, along with case studies being offered up and decision making within the ICC itself

By your own admission you have been thinking about this ( war crimes ) " since the invasion"

You cite an article specifically referring to the " Russian aggression" in Ukraine, to paraphrase, " being as clear a violation of article 2 since the UN Charter came into force" The US attack on Iraq being an even clearer example with even more to the case because of the laws pertaining to regime change invasions

Then you cite the time it took to get Milosovic to court without even commenting on the NATO war crimes against Serbia that were a part of that conflict.

I am happy to contribute to this discussion and see no reason why I shouldn't

 

[NWRatCon]

Can't stick to a topic if your life depended on it, can you? The topic, to remind you, is "what constitutes a 'war crime'"? It has arisen in the context of the current conflict. If you want to hare off onto other topics, and dredge up your predilections and pontificating, do it in your own thread. That is not the topic of this thread. I was being polite to respond at all, notwithstanding its off-topic nature. I am no longer so compelled.

 

[NWRatCon]

I hope to see the day that all wars are considered criminal. The USG doesn't want that. And it seems that @NWRatCon is avoiding that line of discussion.

That is not the topic.

 

[oneworld2]

Can't stick to a topic if your life depended on it, can you? The topic, to remind you, is "what constitutes a 'war crime'"? It has arisen in the context of the current conflict. If you want to hare off onto other topics, and dredge up your predilections and pontificating, do it in your own thread. That is not the topic of this thread. I was being polite to respond at all, notwithstanding its off-topic nature. I am no longer so compelled.

Nope, I'm still happy to participate and think nothing of what I have said is " off topic" nor markedly different from your own input so far.

 

[NWRatCon]

Nope, I'm still happy to participate and think nothing of what I have said is " off topic" nor markedly different from your own input so far.

That's the problem.

 

[oneworld2]

That's the problem.

It needn't be, you might just need to accept that you alone are not or should not be the sole arbiter of what is relevant to this subject matter. That's not, or at least shouldn't be, the point of departure for this or any other thread/theme

 

[NWRatCon]

It needn't be, you might just need to accept that you alone are not or should not be the sole arbiter of what is relevant to this subject matter. That's not, or at least shouldn't be, the point of departure for this or any other thread/theme

It's my thread. I defined the parameters. Them's the rules, my friend. You have exceeded them in every direction, and ignored any suggestion to confine yourself to the topic, even from the Mods. Mayhap you're unaware of what forum you're in?

 

[DiAnna]

It needn't be, you might just need to accept that you alone are not or should not be the sole arbiter of what is relevant to this subject matter. That's not, or at least shouldn't be, the point of departure for this or any other thread/theme

Well, this is the Loft. As the OP of this thread, @NWRatCon is indeed the arbiter of what is relevant. If you want to make another thread about what you believe is relevant, that's fine, but you just showing up to shit on someone else's thread is getting a bit old.

 

[NWRatCon]

In my substantive posts on topic, I have cited extensively to the International Committee of the Red Cross "Casebook" on International Humanitarian Law. There are other sources that are very instructive, and detailed, but I think the organization and readability of the ICRC materials is very good.

Doctors without Borders also provides a comprehensive The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law; Cornell University's Legal Information Institute (LII) is a great online resource as is the University of North Carolina's International Humanitarian Law Guide (which also provides access to relevant treaties); and the Society of Professional Journalists provides “Journalist’s Guide to the Geneva Conventions.” (Oops, it is apparently no longer available online)

The Lieber Institute at West Point publishes "Articles of War", which are a series of articles about the Law of Armed Conflict by specialists in the subject matter; The New York Times also consolidates articles about the Geneva Conventions.

PDF versions of the DoD Law of War Manual is available online, as are versions from Canada and other military organizations.

 

[oneworld2]

Well, this is the Loft. As the OP of this thread, @NWRatCon is indeed the arbiter of what is relevant. If you want to make another thread about what you believe is relevant, that's fine, but you just showing up to shit on someone else's thread is getting a bit old.

The discussion is about what constitutes a war crime. That is the stated mission for the dialogue and thus discussions about them and the citing of any usage/procsecutions is the core of that subject matter itself and is firmly within the parameters otherwise the parameters themselves are unworkable.

Anything pertaining to what constitutes a war crime IS relevant to the discussion even if you think its not, as I said in the above if you cannot discuss/cite examples of war crimes then there is no discussion

You might want to actually read the rules yourself and both see if NWRat,com has himself beem guilty of violations in his own comments and whether your snarky introduction and content also violates them and the spirit laid out in the rules here.

I have started another thread about universal application and the reality of criminality with international relationships and will use that to discuss this issue separately. That was the recommendation and it has been folllowed

So to discuss war crimes here ok with me and shouldn't be, in light of the above, a cause for concern for folk wanting to discuss them

 

[oneworld2]

The crimes or potential crimes of shelling /bombing residential areas/civilian infra structure, surely what people are mostly focused on by the media today

From the ICRC site

Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks​

Rule 12. Indiscriminate attacks are those:

(a) which are not directed at a specific military objective;

(b) which employ a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective; or

(c) which employ a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law;and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction.

Customary IHL - Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks

Rule 12. Definition of Indiscriminate Attacks

ihl-databases.icrc.org

It is pointless at the moment speculating on what crimes have or have not been committed in the Ukraine conflict regarding the above because no proper investigation has been or can be conducted as the war is still ongoing .So it is better to reference situations where there have been investigations and the painstacking collection of evidence to be used for any decision of the charge of war crimes/indiscriminate attacks/targeting of civilians.

It is also sometimes extremely difficult to determine what the intended target was for an attack and/or whether civilian buildings are being used for military purposes and thus changing the dynamics of their status to some degree or other.

It is also incumbent on any combatants themselves to take all necessary means to conduct their operations with the protection of noncombatants in mind. The two conspire to create much disagreement which only makes the chances of recognizing violations all the more difficult

The IDF has a stated policy called the Dahiya Doctrine which is the deliberate use of an indiscriminate attack along with the disproportionate use force ( the realm of proportionality mentioned earlier is also at play here ) against civilian areas and infrastructure with the aim, they maintain, of rendering it of no use to the enemy.

It is called the Dahiya Doctrine after the 2006 attack by the IDf in Lebanon on the Dahiya district of Beirut which laid waste large swathes of residential areas/civilian infrastructure

It was laid out as such by IDF colonel.......Gabi Siboni....

"With an outbreak of hostilities [with Hezbollah], the IDF will need to act immediately, decisively, and with force that is disproportionate to the enemy's actions and the threat it poses. Such a response aims at inflicting damage and meting out punishment to an extent that will demand long and expensive reconstruction processes. Israel's test will be the intensity and quality of its response to incidents on the Lebanese border or terrorist attacks involving Hezbollah in the north or Hamas in the south. In such cases, Israel again will not be able to limit its response to actions whose severity is seemingly proportionate to an isolated incident. Rather, it will have to respond disproportionately in order to make it abundantly clear that the State of Israel will accept no attempt to disrupt the calm currently prevailing along its borders. Israel must be prepared for deterioration and escalation, as well as for a full-scale confrontation. Such preparedness is obligatory in order to prevent long term attrition."[8][9]

This doctrine has been used in Gaza since it was used on Lebanon and is a stated tactic and one that Richard Falk considers to be " state terrorism"

, "the civilian infrastructure of adversaries such as Hamas or Hezbollah are treated as permissible military targets, which is not only an overt violation of the most elementary norms of the law of war and of universal morality, but an avowal of a doctrine of violence that needs to be called by its proper name: state terrorism.

Dahiya doctrine - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[NWRatCon]

The crimes or potential crimes of shelling /bombing residential areas/civilian infra structure, surely what people are mostly focused on by the media today.

It is one of many areas, but is germane to the topic. Thank you.

Shelling, in modern warfare, is almost always indiscriminate, although not prohibited per se. Like "vacuum bombs" or hyperbaric bombs, artillery has obvious and legitimate battlefield uses, but must be tightly controlled. As you note, "It is ... incumbent on any combatants themselves to take all necessary means to conduct their operations with the protection of noncombatants in mind."

While distinction is the primary concern, as artillery is an area weapon, proportionality, necessity and unnecessary suffering also are relevant considerations. Using the rubric you supplied, is the attack being "directed at a specific military objective"? If not, it violates the fundamental tenets of IHL. Identification of targets is critical.

Using a red-yellow-green rubric is useful in making such determinations. Green is a legitimate military target (such as an air base); red is for prohibited targets - hospitals, cultural centers, civilian housing areas, etc.; and yellow are those targets which may have military utility (power stations, bridges) but must be attacked with caution and application of the other principles. As an example, the United States, during the Kosovo campaign, developed a weapon that used graphite filaments to disable power stations during attacks. This effect was temporary (it disrupted, but did not destroy the power grid).

Is it "a method or means of combat which cannot be directed at a specific military objective"? This is a closer question, which is why artillery is not, per se prohibited. Artillery can be limited to military area targets - airfields, bases, counter-battery fire - but its use in built up areas is, at best, problematic. This is particularly true of long range and massed artillery barrages.

Which reaches the third question: is it "a method or means of combat the effects of which cannot be limited as required by international humanitarian law; and consequently, in each such case, are of a nature to strike military objectives and civilians or civilian objects without distinction."?

As you've also pointed out, doctrine can be revelatory. (There are a number of doctrines employed by the IDF that are per se violations of international law - such as collective punishment - but that discussion is likely to go beyond the scope of this thread.) Doctrine can be published, or can be discerned by observation of past practices. You stated,

It is pointless at the moment speculating on what crimes have or have not been committed in the Ukraine conflict regarding the above because no proper investigation has been or can be conducted as the war is still ongoing .So it is better to reference situations where there have been investigations and the painstacking collection of evidence to be used for any decision of the charge of war crimes/indiscriminate attacks/targeting of civilians.

I disagree, but, again, that is not the focus of this thread, which is defining what war crimes are, so I won't follow that line of discussion further.

Continued...

 

[NWRatCon]

Relevant to this discussion, though, is this comment:

It is also sometimes extremely difficult to determine what the intended target was for an attack and/or whether civilian buildings are being used for military purposes and thus changing the dynamics of their status to some degree or other.

That touches on a couple of very important points. First, what is a protected target or person can become a legitimate target if used inappropriately. That, itself, may be a war crime - for example, using the proximity of a hospital or school to protect anti-aircraft installations. The presence of armed civilians on the battlefield - as is occurring in Ukraine - is another.

One of the methods of protecting civilians is by using distinctive insignia for those who are engaged in combat, even if civilian, and for identifying non-combatants. That is why there are so many pictures of armed individuals in non-combat gear wearing yellow or blue duct tape on their arms. That identifies those individuals as combatants and as Ukrainian forces. Similarly, press and medical personnel wear distinctive gear to identify themselves when in areas of combat.

Levée en masse (French) is the term used for those irregular forces (civilians) who take up arms to defend themselves and their homeland. To gain protected status as lawful combatants, they need to comply with the Law of War by

• being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates to a party of conflict
• having a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance
• carrying arms openly
• conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war

By extension, combat forces that do not satisfy these criteria can be deemed "unlawful combatants" - which, ironically, is not a recognized term in IHL. The distinction is important, as those who comply with the LoW in combat cannot be prosecuted under the civilian laws for activities they engage in as combatants.

 

[Nomad4Ever]

For 10 years my military career was focused on what we call "the law of military operations".

I read the vast majority of this thread. First off, I genuinely believe you could publish some of the stuff you posted here in most newspapers.

This is a topic I can easily admit complete ignorance on. This is definitely one of those situations where the more I read of your post the more I realized how little I know. So that being said, I have some (possibly embarrassingly) layman questions;

prosecution of such crimes is generally limited to "grave beaches" or "serious violations".

Historically, what are some examples of this?

In other words, the principle of proportionality seeks to limit damage caused by military operations by requiring that the effects of the means and methods of warfare used must not be disproportionate to the military advantage sought.

That seems really vague. What level of military advantage, if any, would justify (legally) the hospitals Russia has bombed so far in the Ukraine conflict?

Levée en masse (French) is the term used for those irregular forces (civilians) who take up arms to defend themselves and their homeland. To gain protected status as lawful combatants, they need to comply with the Law of War

Is it possible to commit war crimes against unlawful combatants? For example, could Russia bomb the civilian Vodka factory that began making Molotov cocktails? What if an entire village took up arms and spontaneously began trying to push Russian troops out. Could Russia level the village?

And finally, do you think there is utility in creating systems to internationally recognize war crimes? Do you think our current system is useful? If not, how do you think it should be changed?

Sorry if any of these questions are dumb. I greatly appreciate any amount of time you take out of your day explaining international law to literally a singular person. I'm really just exploiting your deep knowledge on this topic, as it is not every day you talk to someone with this level of knowledge on international law.

 

[DiAnna]

Moderator's Warning:

@oneworld2 You have now violated M/E rules by discussing the I/P issue in this thread. You are now thread-banned.

 

[Bum]

Moderator's Warning:

@oneworld2 You have now violated M/E rules by discussing the I/P issue in this thread. You are now thread-banned.

 

[d0gbreath]

Murderers are frowned upon, while soldiers are praised. The end result is the same.

But, we have an advanced set of rules pertaining to the theater. If thou shalt breaketh thine rule, you just might be a war criminal.

 

[NWRatCon]

The previous discussion brought up a couple of other important points. First, the term of art "lawful combatant" and its effects. Second, the distinction between weapons that are per se prohibited, versus those weapons which may be prohibited by their use.

Several classes of weapons are specifically prohibited. For example, chemical weapons and frangible ammunition for small arms (dum-dums, hollow-points). Other weapon systems, like mines, cluster munitions and hyperbaric bombs are authorized, but, because they are per se indiscriminate, they may be prohibited except in specific and limited circumstances.

Related, and relevant to current circumstances are the issues of occupation and treatment of non-combatants in occupied territories.

 

[NWRatCon]

I read the vast majority of this thread. First off, I genuinely believe you could publish some of the stuff you posted here in most newspapers.

This is a topic I can easily admit complete ignorance on. This is definitely one of those situations where the more I read of your post the more I realized how little I know. So that being said, I have some (possibly embarrassingly) layman questions;

There are no embarrassing questions! Seriously, this is a tricky topic and even experts disagree on several points - which is part of the reason the Geneva Conventions are published with extensive commentaries. I want questions!

I started this thread to kind of lay the groundwork and discuss points that people have questions on. I did something similar on another forum (before I joined here) in discussing activities in the Middle East, particularly in Israel/Palestine - which is not germane to this thread! - and the conflict in Syria, ISIS and the Taliban.

I opened this thread in the Loft because I think it is a great place to stick to substance, devoid of commentary. I do have opinions - strong ones - but the point here is just to focus on knowledge. I'm not the expert, but I have been at it awhile , so I think I know more about it than the average bear. I thank you for the compliment. Now, to your questions...

Historically, what are some examples of this?

Really the primary examples are the Nuremberg and Tokyo trials after WWII. Those established the templates for the subsequent tribunals that have been used in the former Yugoslavia, Rwanda, and other conflicts, and the establishment of the International Criminal Court. The Nuremberg charter "upended the traditional view of international law by holding of individuals, rather than states, responsible for breaches of international law. The offenses that would be prosecuted were crimes against peace, crimes against humanity, and war crimes. At the conference, it was debated if wars of aggression were prohibited in existing international customary law; regardless, there had been no provision for individual criminal responsibility for going to war. War crimes already existed in international law as criminal violations of the laws and customs of war, and their use at Nuremberg was not innovative. Although a novel construct, "crimes against humanity" covered acts that were already prohibited in the laws of most countries.The final version of the charter only gave the court the ability to punish those crimes against humanity that had been committed "in connection with any crimes within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal"."

According to the charters for Tokyo trials, the Allies established three categories:

Class A: Charges against Japan's top leaders alleging crimes against peace.

Class B and C: Charges at Japanese of any rank covered conventional war crimes and crimes against humanity.

Unlike the Nuremberg trials, the charge of crimes against peace was a prerequisite to prosecution—only those individuals whose crimes included crimes against peace could be prosecuted by the Tribunal. In this event, no Class C charges were heard in Tokyo.

The prosecution had to prove three things: that war crimes were systematic or widespread; the accused knew that troops were committing atrocities; and the accused had power or authority to stop the crimes. " (Tokyo War Crimes Trial, national WWII Museum)

The International Criminal Court was established under the Rome Statute as a treaty. At present there are 123 parties to the treaty, which does not include the United States or Russia. But, that statute essentially codified what is considered "customary international law" and, for the first time, established a permanent court to address those crimes. It specifically states (Article 5),
"1. The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes:

• (a) The crime of genocide;
  (b) Crimes against humanity;
  (c) War crimes;
  (d) The crime of aggression."

 

[NWRatCon]

These are really good questions, my friend.

What level of military advantage, if any, would justify (legally) the hospitals Russia has bombed so far in the Ukraine conflict?

Almost none. Indeed, targeting medical facilities and personnel is explicitly identified as a "serious violation" in the statute, Article 8(ix): "Intentionally directing attacks against buildings dedicated to religion, education, art, science or charitable purposes, historic monuments, hospitals and places where the sick and wounded are collected, provided they are not military objectives". The only exception recognized under international law is if the facility is being unlawfully used for military operations "Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy." (e.g., a sniper shooting from an upper floor, putting an anti-aircraft battery on the roof). Typically combatant nations will explicitly identify protected facilities and are assiduous about marking them and not allowing inappropriate use.

I will note in passing that I just heard a report that Russian forces occupied a hospital in Mariupol (Ukraine war: Hostages as Russian forces occupy hospital, official says - BBC), and "are preventing doctors and patients from leaving the building, the city's deputy mayor says." If true, that would be an explicit LoW "grave breach" of the treaties that Russia is signatory to. Geneva Conventions. Article 3 ("the common article", as it appears in all 4 Conventions) provides for protection of medical personnel in all circumstances. Convention I, Art. 19. protects "Fixed establishments and mobile medical units of the Medical Service may in no circumstances be attacked, but shall at all times be respected and protected by the Parties to the conflict."

As noted in The Practical Guide to Humanitarian Law (Doctors without Borders) that "It is prohibited to seize or to use the presence of persons protected by the Geneva Conventions as human shields to render military sites immune from enemy attacks or to prevent reprisals during an offensive (GCIV Arts. 28, 49; API Art. 51.7; APII Art. 5.2.c). It is hence prohibited to direct the movement of protected persons in order to attempt to shield military objectives or operations."

 

[NWRatCon]

Is it possible to commit war crimes against unlawful combatants?

Yes, although as I noted earlier, there is no definition of "unlawful combatants" in any of the Conventions. Nonetheless, all persons are entitled to humanitarian treatment, even if they have committed war crimes. There has been considerable discussion of the concept of "reprisals". Reprisals against State actors (e.g., economic sanctions) have some validity, but "belligerent reprisals" cannot be taken against non-combatants. Moreover, the question of whether a person is a "lawful combatant" or not (and thus subject to prosecution) can only be determined by an appropriate tribunal after the fact.

As a legal matter, one is either a combatant or a non-combatant. If a lawful combatant they gain immunity for their actions (like a police officer's use of force). If they commit war crimes, however, that immunity is forfeited, and they can be prosecuted.

could Russia bomb the civilian Vodka factory that began making Molotov cocktails?

This is a subtler question. It goes to the question of "military utility" and/or "military necessity". This is a hotly debated issue in academia. Would bombing the factory offer "utility"? Yes. But whether it is militarily necessary brings in questions of discernment and proportionality. Normally a civilian facility would be a protected place. Protected places, however, lose their protection when used for military purposes. So, yes, it could be a legitimate target, provided the military necessity outweighed the impacts on protected places and persons.

What if an entire village took up arms and spontaneously began trying to push Russian troops out. Could Russia level the village?

No. The individuals that are belligerents (combatants) are lawful targets, and specific locations that are being used for military purposes (e.g., sniper's nest, gun emplacement), but it would be difficult to argue that leveling the entire village would be militarily necessary and almost certainly would violate the concept of proportionality. It is, in fact, an explicit war crime to declare "no quarter" in combat, and leveling the entire village would be tantamount do doing the same thing.

And finally, do you think there is utility in creating systems to internationally recognize war crimes? Do you think our current system is useful? If not, how do you think it should be changed?

Oh, I think it is very useful. By identifying, in advance, particular activities that are considered explicitly "war crimes", people are put "on notice" that those activities are prosecutable. "Can't say we didn't warn you!!" Moreover, by codifying it, it makes it clearer what is, and is not, allowable. There will always be exceptions and ambiguities - this is a human endeavor - but in the main what is and is not acceptable are pretty straightforward.

My criticisms are in the nature of whether they are truly deterrent. But, ultimately, that is true of any criminal code, so not really relevant. People who are going to commit crimes are going to commit the crimes even if they know they are crimes. But, by having clear standards, identified in advance, people who do so will know that when they are caught, they are going to be prosecuted. As with any criminal system, it can and will be "gamed", but that does not, of itself, make the system invalid. Just vulnerable to abuse.

 

[NWRatCon]

A personal note. I love teaching. It was my favorite aspect of my duties as an Operational Law Officer. I changed duties near the end of my career, so it has been a decade since I taught this stuff, and 6 years since I retired, but I still love it. I didn't realize how much I missed it until I started this thread. So, I genuinely thank you for the questions. It got the mental juices flowing and gave me some direction for the mass of thoughts and emotions this conflict has brought out in me.