War Crimes

[Nomad4Ever]

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.

That is a solid answer. I strongly agree with the concept of broadly accepted international rules. I really like that your defense of the system includes an answer to the question of abuse. I think this applies broadly in law. Any law or system can be abused by bad actors. It is impossible to create a law or system of government that is immune to misuse. I think it is important to acknowledge the flaws and defend beneficial systems in spite of them.

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.

I asked that question because there was quite a long discussion in the general thread about Ukraine (a dumpster fire you seem to have wisely avoided) regarding to what degree Ukrainians are increasing the number of civilians killed due to the mass civilian mobilization. Specifically, Zelesky gave a speach commending the bravery of Ukrainians and Ukrainian business who are helping with the war effort. There were videos of events like civilians shooting at Russian forces out of apartment buildings, preparing Molotov cocktails, blocking tanks, etc. There was concern that this massive level of civilian support would allow Russia to justify (legally) mass bombing civilian population centers. To what extent would Russia be able to legally muddy the waters based by making claims like, "we told all civilians to leave, anyone left was aiding the war effort" or other similar statements?

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.

Thank you. It is an exceeding rare occasion to discuss something with someone online who actually knows what they are talking about. I greatly appreciate your efforts in this thread as I don't think it would have been possible for me to gain the same kind of understanding on my own (at least in a reasonable period of time). I tried reading some wikipedia about international law and war crimes when this whole thing started and came to the conclusion it was too complicated for me to really form an opinion on it in the amount of time I wanted to dedicate to learning about it.

 

[NWRatCon]

I expect more questions will arise in relation to what is actually going on in Ukraine, as with the removal of civilian leadership, but if we can keep it to specific issues, I think we can address them without diverting into blame and political posturing. I was particularly concerned about the direct attack on the subway station, yesterday. Given that it is a well known shelter location, that seemed a deliberate attack on refugees.

 

[HangLow]

Yep, it seems ridiculous that the prosecution of wars of aggression are outside the remit of the ICC. I mean, whether they have any clout or not they still should be allowed to prosecute on that.

The Nuremberg Trials are instructive insomuch that most of the charges were always running alongside that which the allied side had done themselves and so it was decided to indict them for waging a war of aggression, from which all the other crimes stemmed. They had all committed war crimes and there lay a problem

To see the legal clamour and the response to the illegal Russian war on Ukraine is instructive as well. Did you see the same when the US illegally waged war on Iraq? Where were the multiple states instant appeal to the UN for investigations of war crimes there?

As I said earlier, if you don't support actions against ALL criminals and only those of offical state enemies it brings in question , in a huge way, any real commitment to justice and law imo

​