Why Do So Many Countries Discount Their Own War Crimes But Condemn Other States So Vociferously?

[Evilroddy]

This thread was born out of a discussion which emerged in the Russian/Ukraine/Belarus sub-forum recently. There posters were rightly condemning the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of the Russian Federation in Ukraine (and Chechnya) but refused to accept or even discuss the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of other states to put the Russian crimes in context. Even when posters clearly acknowledged that Russia was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the majority of posters refused to discuss the same kinds of crimes committed by other countries in order to put the discussion into a wider context. Some would not even realistically entertain the idea that their own countries or those countries closely aligned with their own could systematically commit war crimes (WCs) and Crimes Against Humanity (CsAH) with alarming regularity and great intensity.

This thread is therefore devoted to discussing WCs and CsAH in a global context with the intention of trying to lay out a number of points. These are:

1) What are WCs and CsAH and do their definitions vary depending on who allegedly commits them?
1A) Who should define what a WC or a CAH is? The West? The East? The Global South? Individual states? The UN? the ICC? All the countries of the world in congress?
2) Do states have a right to commit WCs and CsAH during conflicts or must there be an overriding state responsibility to stop and prosecute them?
3) Which states are dominant offenders in the areas of committing WCs and CsAH in the modern world? Examples should be offered with supporting citations, please.
4) Why do states, their militaries and their paramilitaries commit WCs and CsAH? Why do individuals do the same?
5) What is the line between a legitimate military action and either a WC or a CAH?
5A) Can WCs occur outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine?
6) Is international law effective in limiting and prosecuting WCs and CsAH. If not, then how can this be remedied?
7) How can WCs and CsAH be successfully prosecuted against very powerful non-cooperating states and/or nuclear-weapon-armed states and their decision-makers?
8) What are the best strategies and the best practices which states and their militaries can use to reduce the incidence frequency and severity of WCs and CsAH?
9) Can war itself and eventually all military conflicts be made illegal by enforceable laws?
10) What legal, political or economic consequences should states which are habitual offenders of WC and CAH laws face?

Now a Very important caveat. DP forum rules do not allow discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to be conducted in this sub-forum. Therefore I will link below to a parallel thread in the I/P sub-forum for separate discussion of the WCs and CsAH Situation in that part of the world. No discussion here in this thread of the I/P situation is allowed.

The parallel I/P Sub-forum version of this thread can be found at the link below:

Why Do So Many Countries Discount Their Own War Crimes But Condemn Other States So Vociferously? I/P Version.

This thread is the I/P parallel thread for discussing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the global sense which occur between the State of Israel and its foes/rivals in the Levant. Please post here rather than in the Lost when discussing I/P related topics. Remember this thread is in a...

debatepolitics.com

Finally as this is the Loft, please try to keep this discussion civil, respectful, analytical and as unemotional as possible. Thank you in advance for following Loft expectations.

Very respectfully.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

To prime the debate pump:

War crime | History, Examples, & International Rules

War crime, in international law, a serious violation of the laws and customs of war. The term war crime has been difficult to define with precision, and its usage has evolved constantly, particularly since the end of World War I. Learn more about war crimes in this article.

www.britannica.com

Crime against humanity | International Law, Genocide & War Crimes

Crime against humanity, an offense in international criminal law, adopted in the Charter of the International Military Tribunal (Nürnberg Charter), which tried surviving Nazi leaders in 1945, and was, in 1998, incorporated into the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC). Crimes

www.britannica.com

Very respectfully.
Evilroddy.

 

[Grand Mal]

This thread was born out of a discussion which emerged in the Russian/Ukraine/Belarus sub-forum recently. There posters were rightly condemning the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of the Russian Federation in Ukraine (and Chechnya) but refused to accept or even discuss the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of other states to put the Russian crimes in context. Even when posters clearly acknowledged that Russia was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the majority of posters refused to discuss the same kinds of crimes committed by other countries in order to put the discussion into a wider context. Some would not even realistically entertain the idea that their own countries or those countries closely aligned with their own could systematically commit war crimes (WCs) and Crimes Against Humanity (CsAH) with alarming regularity and great intensity.

This thread is therefore devoted to discussing WCs and CsAH in a global context with the intention of trying to lay out a number of points. These are:

1) What are WCs and CsAH and do their definitions vary depending on who allegedly commits them?
1A) Who should define what a WC or a CAH is? The West? The East? The Global South? Individual states? The UN? the ICC? All the countries of the world in congress?
2) Do states have a right to commit WCs and CsAH during conflicts or must there be an overriding state responsibility to stop and prosecute them?
3) Which states are dominant offenders in the areas of committing WCs and CsAH in the modern world? Examples should be offered with supporting citations, please.
4) Why do states, their militaries and their paramilitaries commit WCs and CsAH? Why do individuals do the same?
5) What is the line between a legitimate military action and either a WC or a CAH?
5A) Can WCs occur outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine?
6) Is international law effective in limiting and prosecuting WCs and CsAH. If not, then how can this be remedied?
7) How can WCs and CsAH be successfully prosecuted against very powerful non-cooperating states and/or nuclear-weapon-armed states and their decision-makers?
8) What are the best strategies and the best practices which states and their militaries can use to reduce the incidence frequency and severity of WCs and CsAH?
9) Can war itself and eventually all military conflicts be made illegal by enforceable laws?
10) What legal, political or economic consequences should states which are habitual offenders of WC and CAH laws face?

Now a Very important caveat. DP forum rules do not allow discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to be conducted in this sub-forum. Therefore I will link below to a parallel thread in the I/P sub-forum for separate discussion of the WCs and CsAH Situation in that part of the world. No discussion here in this thread of the I/P situation is allowed.

The parallel I/P Sub-forum version of this thread can be found at the link below:

Why Do So Many Countries Discount Their Own War Crimes But Condemn Other States So Vociferously? I/P Version.

This thread is the I/P parallel thread for discussing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the global sense which occur between the State of Israel and its foes/rivals in the Levant. Please post here rather than in the Lost when discussing I/P related topics. Remember this thread is in a...

debatepolitics.com

Finally as this is the Loft, please try to keep this discussion civil, respectful, analytical and as unemotional as possible. Thank you in advance for following Loft expectations.

Very respectfully.
Evilroddy.

I think the whole concept of what is and what isn't criminal in war must necessarily vary country to country. It would be futile to expect, say, Saudi Arabia, to conform to our standards, as futile as expecting us to conform to theirs.
If I'm right, there's no possibility of international co-operation on the issue.
I'm reminded of an incident in Somalia years ago, a very easily ignored, very non-public incident involving the torture of a single individual and it led to the Canadian government disbanding an elite regiment. Over-reaction? Maybe. But there was a reaction and there's no possibility of imposing that sort of measure on another country. You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of countries that would agree to that kind of scrutiny and none of even those could be relied on for compliance. Even getting case by case agreement would be a tough job, especially if representatives of the offending and victimized nations were sitting on the same room.
My guess- the day we have evolved to the point where such a thing as international agreement around war crimes has been reached will be the same day we have moved beyond warfare as a means of settling differences.

 

[Rexedgar]

I think the whole concept of what is and what isn't criminal in war must necessarily vary country to country. It would be futile to expect, say, Saudi Arabia, to conform to our standards, as futile as expecting us to conform to theirs.
If I'm right, there's no possibility of international co-operation on the issue.
I'm reminded of an incident in Somalia years ago, a very easily ignored, very non-public incident involving the torture of a single individual and it led to the Canadian government disbanding an elite regiment. Over-reaction? Maybe. But there was a reaction and there's no possibility of imposing that sort of measure on another country. You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of countries that would agree to that kind of scrutiny and none of even those could be relied on for compliance. Even getting case by case agreement would be a tough job, especially if representatives of the offending and victimized nations were sitting on the same room.
My guess- the day we have evolved to the point where such a thing as international agreement around war crimes has been reached will be the same day we have moved beyond warfare as a means of settling differences.

Seems comliance is optional, (Geneva Convention)

 

[Chagos]

This thread was born out of a discussion which emerged in the Russian/Ukraine/Belarus sub-forum recently. There posters were rightly condemning the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of the Russian Federation in Ukraine (and Chechnya) but refused to accept or even discuss the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of other states to put the Russian crimes in context. Even when posters clearly acknowledged that Russia was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the majority of posters refused to discuss the same kinds of crimes committed by other countries in order to put the discussion into a wider context. Some would not even realistically entertain the idea that their own countries or those countries closely aligned with their own could systematically commit war crimes (WCs) and Crimes Against Humanity (CsAH) with alarming regularity and great intensity.

This thread is therefore devoted to discussing WCs and CsAH in a global context with the intention of trying to lay out a number of points. These are:

I certainly acknowledge the lengthy effort you put into formulating the issue here and will hopefully be forgiven for keeping today's response as short as possible. In the extent that this thread may show more development, I'll certainly try to go into more specifics later, sufficient time provided.

To stay within word count, I'll split my response into two posts here.

1) What are WCs and CsAH and do their definitions vary depending on who allegedly commits them?

To just address the latter question here: No!!!

1A) Who should define what a WC or a CAH is? The West? The East? The Global South? Individual states? The UN? the ICC? All the countries of the world in congress?

A common consensus among all people, with the apparent impossibility of ever achieving that not to be a parameter for abandoning that goal.

2) Do states have a right to commit WCs and CsAH during conflicts or must there be an overriding state responsibility to stop and prosecute them?

No and yes.

3) Which states are dominant offenders in the areas of committing WCs and CsAH in the modern world? Examples should be offered with supporting citations, please.

I'll leave this for later, not as a cop-out but because it requires more address than I currently have time for.

4) Why do states, their militaries and their paramilitaries commit WCs and CsAH? Why do individuals do the same?

human frailty on both the individual level and all the way to tribalistic thinking

5) What is the line between a legitimate military action and either a WC or a CAH?

a very thin one, but also requiring more differentation than I can currently address

5A) Can WCs occur outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine?

Yes

continued----------------------------->

 

[Chagos]

6) Is international law effective in limiting and prosecuting WCs and CsAH. If not, then how can this be remedied?

To the extent that it can be formulated, applied and then be enforced, yes. And when applying those parameters, that also means no, The remedy would lie in extending same parameters.

7) How can WCs and CsAH be successfully prosecuted against very powerful non-cooperating states and/or nuclear-weapon-armed states and their decision-makers?

Short of obliterating them, never. A flippant response for sure but that's what I have.

8) What are the best strategies and the best practices which states and their militaries can use to reduce the incidence frequency and severity of WCs and CsAH?

implementation of a code of military conduct that leaves no room for convenient interpretation and would be vigorously enforced upon one's own by one's own

9) Can war itself and eventually all military conflicts be made illegal by enforceable laws?

I feel that the question here would be better if it addressed prevention and not just illegality, As to my skepticism on the matter (call it cynicism if you like), that's best expressed with a no.

10) What legal, political or economic consequences should states which are habitual offenders of WC and CAH laws face?

see flippancy of answer to above 7)

Now a Very important caveat. DP forum rules do not allow discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to be conducted in this sub-forum. Therefore I will link below to a parallel thread in the I/P sub-forum for separate discussion of the WCs and CsAH Situation in that part of the world. No discussion here in this thread of the I/P situation is allowed.

The parallel I/P Sub-forum version of this thread can be found at the link below:

Why Do So Many Countries Discount Their Own War Crimes But Condemn Other States So Vociferously? I/P Version.

This thread is the I/P parallel thread for discussing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the global sense which occur between the State of Israel and its foes/rivals in the Levant. Please post here rather than in the Lost when discussing I/P related topics. Remember this thread is in a...

debatepolitics.com

Finally as this is the Loft, please try to keep this discussion civil, respectful, analytical and as unemotional as possible. Thank you in advance for following Loft expectations.

Very respectfully.
Evilroddy.

If such parameters could be adhered to by all, there wouldn't be a need for special moderation in the I/P forum. Since there is little likelihood of such adherence happening over there, I predict the same bitch-fest happening there as always.

 

[OrphanSlug]

This thread is therefore devoted to discussing WCs and CsAH in a global context with the intention of trying to lay out a number of points. These are:

1) What are WCs and CsAH and do their definitions vary depending on who allegedly commits them?
1A) Who should define what a WC or a CAH is? The West? The East? The Global South? Individual states? The UN? the ICC? All the countries of the world in congress?
2) Do states have a right to commit WCs and CsAH during conflicts or must there be an overriding state responsibility to stop and prosecute them?
3) Which states are dominant offenders in the areas of committing WCs and CsAH in the modern world? Examples should be offered with supporting citations, please.
4) Why do states, their militaries and their paramilitaries commit WCs and CsAH? Why do individuals do the same?
5) What is the line between a legitimate military action and either a WC or a CAH?
5A) Can WCs occur outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine?
6) Is international law effective in limiting and prosecuting WCs and CsAH. If not, then how can this be remedied?
7) How can WCs and CsAH be successfully prosecuted against very powerful non-cooperating states and/or nuclear-weapon-armed states and their decision-makers?
8) What are the best strategies and the best practices which states and their militaries can use to reduce the incidence frequency and severity of WCs and CsAH?
9) Can war itself and eventually all military conflicts be made illegal by enforceable laws?
10) What legal, political or economic consequences should states which are habitual offenders of WC and CAH laws face?

If you will allow me, I would put this in a slight different context asking different and fewer questions.

1) Is there universal accepted definition, at the government level needed to align to other nations, of War Crimes and/or Crimes Against Humanity?
2) Assuming 1 is really a thing, and I would ask you to really consider the question, is there universal intention to respect for those definitions?
3) Is there truly an unbiased authority to rule objectively on a nation not abiding by 1?

In that context, framed by those 3 questions, the rest of your list does not yield all that much in discussion.

This cannot just be about modern times and Russia's activity in Ukraine, or the US's sordid history in various nations, or Israel vs. the Palestinians, or various Middle East and Far East waring nations going against one another (or themselves,) or various waring African Nations going against one another (or themselves.)

The US, nor any other nation, really has an objective moral truth on defining then abiding by these definitions of War Crimes and/or Crimes Against Humanity. And I would further argue depending on condition and reason (for lack of a better way to put it) there is no real universal interest in defining then abiding by War Crimes and/or Crimes Against Humanity. No nation is really all that clean *without* simply sitting out of conflict and even then I would argue that inaction in this world of competing ideologies and goals is just as bad.

We would like to think it is otherwise, and even if on paper we get past question 1 above I would emphasize that question 2 harms the result and question 3 is never realized anyway.

It sure is not the UN that can take on questions 2 and 3. Not really as the observed and undisputed results of what that organization has become suggest just about anyone can sidestep even the fundamentals of things like The Geneva Convention, or a Human Rights council made up of some shady representation, or some other suborganization from the UN designed to hold some accountable for these crimes but not really others. It is both a slide rule on applying these things and I would further argue the more powerful the nation the less likely something comes from these sort of charges. Sure, an example can be made every now and then but has that stopped this sort of thing? Before you answer are you willing to be honest or answer with a 'it should be' kind of response?

The only way something like your list or my list of questions becomes a consideration is nations submitting to an authority who will act regardless of which nation does what. but I would argue that sort of absolute has never existed in the history of humankind. As in ever, not even close. Pick any point in history up to current, I kinda dare you to try.

Our own perceptions of a given nation's role in the world suggest hypocrisy is the standard for these things, which is sad but a real truth here.

 

[Evilroddy]

1) What are WCs and CsAH and do their definitions vary depending on who allegedly commits them?

I do not believe anti-war-crimes laws really exist. Do not misunderstand me. There are crimes committed in war which should be war crimes but their prosecution has really been a function of victor's justice over the vanquished for the most part rather than the application of an international Rule of Law applied universally. Likewise for crimes against humanity. WCs and CsAH laws require not only drafting and agreement among states, which we have done, but also the determined will to apply them. That will is lacking among states' decision makers in most circumstances and thus the WCs and CsAH laws really don't exist as effective laws in any real sense. They are aspirational, not functional for the most part.

The application of the inchoate laws really does depend on who commits the atrocities. We prosecuted CsAH in Rwanda and to a lesser extent in Sudan but did nothing in Turkey, Brazil or Colombia where countries were aligned with the West. We prosecuted Serbian criminals for WCs and CsAH because they lost their struggle but the prosecutions of Western allied Croats and Slovenes were tokens at best. Therefore I conclude that definitions and applications of WCs and CsAH vary depending on who commits them.

1A) Who should define what a WC or a CAH is? The West? The East? The Global South? Individual states? The UN? the ICC? All the countries of the world in congress?

Ideally laws against WCs and CsAH should be drafted by a consensus of states and interested groups from all across the world. Likewise the mechanisms to enforce them should be designed and funded globally too. However countries like China, Russia, America, the U.K., France and many others have blocked the mechanisms of WCs and CsAH development and enforcement of such laws through international mechanisms like the U.N. Or the ICC.

Therefore one can reasonably conclude that present-day WCs and CsAH laws and customs are effectively Western constructs which the West is trying to selectively impose upon the rest of the world. Things like the Geneva Conventions, the Charter of the UN, the Laws of Armed Conflict, etc. are really just Westetn concepts being unilaterally imposed globally on states and peoples who had no say in how these conventions were drafted. In essence this is just legal colonialism rather than the more familiar military, political or economic colonialism at work here.

2) Do states have a right to commit WCs and CsAH during conflicts or must there be an overriding state responsibility to stop and prosecute them?

I would argue that war is the suspension of civilisation, law and humanity in the service of organised force to achieve the ambitions among leaders of states. Using this definition then there is no real and effective version of law in place during war and thus states seize the right to commit what we call WCs and CsAH for themselves. To date there has been no effective mechanism to prosecute leaders and agents of states which have elected to commit WCs or CsAH except as a function of victor's or victors' justice over defeated states. Therefore there is no overriding authority or state responsibility to prevent WCs and CsAH committed during war so long as the criminal state or alliance wins the war.

To be continued.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

4) Why do states, their militaries and their paramilitaries commit WCs and CsAH? Why do individuals do the same?
5) What is the line between a legitimate military action and either a WC or a CAH?

Due to the ineffectiveness of enforcement of international WCs and CsAH laws there is a sense of impunity among leaders and agents of states considering committing these crimes. Not even the ethics of a society can constrain the leaderships and agents of a state which feels it has impunity from consequences for such crimes.

5A) Can WCs occur outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine?

Certainly atrocities can. But the case that WCs and CsAH can is not strong. Secrecy, classification and intentional opacity by states towards investigation by third parties makes it unclear whether WCs and CsAH can be prosecuted in undeclared and secret, sub-rosa conflicts. I suspect strongly that these laws cannot be enforced in the shadow-wars we face today and thus the laws are not really an effective constraint on the conflicting states/groups.

6) Is international law effective in limiting and prosecuting WCs and CsAH.

No, in my opinion; due to the perceived impunity of leaders and agents of states which commit such crimes. As there is insufficient will to prosecute these crimes, except as a tool of powerful countries' foreign policies, this perceived impunity is effectively real.

If not, then how can this be remedied?

A separate and well resourced international enforcement and prosecutorial authority which is well funded and resourced to investigate, charge, apprehend and prosecute alleged war criminals and those charged with CsAH. Such an institution should have extrodinary powers to apprehend such criminals in non-cooperating states and to strip diplomatic immunity from agents of non-cooperating states. The authority should also include extraordinary rendition of suspects from non-cooperating states and the ability to freeze and seize the assets of non-cooperative states shielding suspected war criminals and CsAH suspects.

7) How can WCs and CsAH be successfully prosecuted against very powerful non-cooperating states and/or nuclear-weapon-armed states and their decision-makers?

Through crippling sanctions, arrests, forced clandestine rendition and military protection by other cooperating states which will shield the enforcing WCs and CsAH authority from reprisals.

8) What are the best strategies and the best practices which states and their militaries can use to reduce the incidence frequency and severity of WCs and CsAH?

a) Accept the jurisdiction of the ICC and any future WCs and CsAH enforcement authority.
b) Create effective and comprehensive military regulations to limit and criminalise WCs and CsAH in each state's military and if it exists, the civilian state leadership. Then have cooperating states enforce such regulations vigorously.
c) Develop a suite of crippling consequences for punishing any non-cooperating state from petty, tin-pot dictators to the leaders of Super Powers. Then use them ruthlessly. These powers should include the power to use sophisticated cyber-warfare techniques to seize and remove assets of non-cooperating states, state leaders and their militaries.
d) Creating an international covert intelligence and investigation authority to do all of the above, funded not just by states but by non-state groups and individuals too.

To be continued.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

9) Can war itself and eventually all military conflicts be made illegal by enforceable laws?

I am not confident that this is possible but as an ideal and as an aspirational goal, it might be useful to work towards.

10) What legal, political or economic consequences should states which are habitual offenders of WC and CAH laws face?

The consequence of committing WCs and CsAH should be crippling for states, decision-makers in those states and agents of those states (both military and civilian). As mentioned above a very aggressive and robust investigation and apprehension mechanism is needed. Snatching alleged war criminals and those who have likely committed CsAH from non-cooperating states should be an option. Both general and targetted sanctions and seizures of the assets of alleged criminals and their protecting states are needed if they don't cooperate with investigations is also needed. Trials in absentia should be allowed for those who remain beyond the reach of investigators and prosecutors. Habitually offending states must be removed from any and all international organisation as piraiah states.

I missed this question accidently:

5) What is the line between a legitimate military action and either a WC or a CAH?

My answer would be possessing the knowledge of the action and the reasonable expectation that an action would harm people and especially civilians wantonly if the action was carried out. Bombing a city with unguided iron-bombs or carrying out a precision air or drone strike against a target where a reasonable person would realise that many surrounding civilian lives would be lost are two examples of what I think could be termed WCs. CsAH are widespread and profound harms done to a civilian population by military or civilian personnel. These can vary from local massacres of civilians to forced deportations designed to harm a civilian population (not evacuations) to genocide. I am not clear yet on what aspects of cultural genocide should be considered, so I look forward to what others have to say about this.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

I think the whole concept of what is and what isn't criminal in war must necessarily vary country to country. It would be futile to expect, say, Saudi Arabia, to conform to our standards, as futile as expecting us to conform to theirs.
If I'm right, there's no possibility of international co-operation on the issue.

Grand Mal:

You make a good set of points above.

I'm reminded of an incident in Somalia years ago, a very easily ignored, very non-public incident involving the torture of a single individual and it led to the Canadian government disbanding an elite regiment. Over-reaction? Maybe. But there was a reaction and there's no possibility of imposing that sort of measure on another country. You could probably count on the fingers of one hand the number of countries that would agree to that kind of scrutiny and none of even those could be relied on for compliance. Even getting case by case agreement would be a tough job, especially if representatives of the offending and victimized nations were sitting on the same room.

Good points. Winning the compliance or better said the cooperation of states and their decision-makers will be very difficult indeed. What carrots and sticks might be able to move consensus building forward.

My guess- the day we have evolved to the point where such a thing as international agreement around war crimes has been reached will be the same day we have moved beyond warfare as a means of settling differences.

Yes, I think you are right or at least very close to the correct conclusion there.

Thank you for your input.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

Seems comliance is optional, (Geneva Convention)

Rexedgar:

Good observation about the de facto problem wil WCs and CsAH laws and conventions. How do the people and states of the world make WCs and CsAH laws compliance far less optional? That is the question.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

I certainly acknowledge the lengthy effort you put into formulating the issue here and will hopefully be forgiven for keeping today's response as short as possible. In the extent that this thread may show more development, I'll certainly try to go into more specifics later, sufficient time provided.

To stay within word count, I'll split my response into two posts here.

To just address the latter question here: No!!!

No!!!? Is shelling and bombing a city in Syria a war crime? If the attacker is America and the city is Raqqa, then apparently no, it is not a war crime. But if the attackers are the Syrian Regime and/or Russia and the city is Allepo, then apparently yes they are WCs.

A common consensus among all people, with the apparent impossibility of ever achieving that not to be a parameter for abandoning that goal.

Good points both positive and the forlorn hope aspect.

No and yes.

In an ideal sense I agree with you. However in reality, I think some states have carved out a self-granted right to commit WCs and CsAH. Russia in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Ukraine. China in Tibet and with respect to Taiwan. America in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria overtly and in South and Central America, Africa and Asia covertly. France in Libya and Mali/Tchad. The U.K. In Iraq. Saudi Arabia during the Arab Spring and in Yemen. And of course another state which I will describe in a linked forum to this thread. All of these states have carved out a "right-space" shielding them form WCs and CsAH culpability and prosecution except on their own terms.

I'll leave this for later, not as a cop-out but because it requires more address than I currently have time for.

human frailty on both the individual level and all the way to tribalistic thinking

Agreed, although I would not classify man's inhumanity to man as frailty but rather a pathology.

a very thin one, but also requiring more differentation than I can currently address

Fair point.

Yes

Okay. I should have worded my question better. A better wording for Q5a might be "Can WCs occur, be detected and be punished outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine? Does the veil of secrecy make war crimes moot like single trees falling in forests, unheard?

continued----------------------------->

Tally Ho!

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

If you will allow me, I would put this in a slight different context asking different and fewer questions.

OrphanSlug:

Very good questions.

1) Is there universal accepted definition, at the government level needed to align to other nations, of War Crimes and/or Crimes Against Humanity?

No, I do not think there is.

2) Assuming 1 is really a thing, and I would ask you to really consider the question, is there universal intention to respect for those definitions?

No, I don't think there is.

3) Is there truly an unbiased authority to rule objectively on a nation not abiding by 1?

No, not yet. The UN is really powerless to prosectute permanent member-states of the Security Council and by extension their close allies. So what could such a new authority look like to you and to whom or what institutions would it be answerable?

In that context, framed by those 3 questions, the rest of your list does not yield all that much in discussion.

So I've planned the second voyage of the Titannic then. Silly me. Fair point though.

This cannot just be about modern times and Russia's activity in Ukraine, or the US's sordid history in various nations, or Israel vs. the Palestinians, or various Middle East and Far East waring nations going against one another (or themselves,) or various waring African Nations going against one another (or themselves.)

Agreed. These efforts must strive to be both universal and blindly impartial, no matter what states are involved in potential WCs and CsAH.

The US, nor any other nation, really has an objective moral truth on defining then abiding by these definitions of War Crimes and/or Crimes Against Humanity. ... I would argue that inaction in this world of competing ideologies and goals is just as bad.

So, if the vested interests of some states and their leaderships prevent top-down, universal pursuit of WC and CAH consensus, can they be swayed or given an end-run by grass-roots and bottom-up drives for more universal consensus?

We would like to think it is otherwise, and even if on paper we get past question 1 above I would emphasize that question 2 harms the result and question 3 is never realized anyway.

Do we just throw up our hands and give up or do we find a way to better align international perceptions of WCs and CsAH built by wide international and interorganisational consensus? Do we need the cooperation of all states and their leaderships or can this be done by others until a fait accomplis is reached?

It sure is not the UN that can take on questions 2 and 3. ... Before you answer are you willing to be honest or answer with a 'it should be' kind of response?

Not "it should be". Better to think, "It will be!". Will changes the world, should is just prevarication.

The only way something like your list or my list of questions becomes a consideration is nations submitting to an authority who will act regardless of which nation does what. but I would argue that sort of absolute has never existed in the history of humankind. As in ever, not even close. Pick any point in history up to current, I kinda dare you to try.

Alright then, can we do it for the first time in human and humane history?

Our own perceptions of a given nation's role in the world suggest hypocrisy is the standard for these things, which is sad but a real truth here.

Raise the mirrors before hypocrisy and perhaps the hypocrites will recoil, giving space for others to build the mechanisms to first govern and then to reduce the frequency and intenisty of WCs and CsAH in times of conflict and in times of "peace".

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[Evilroddy]

To the extent that it can be formulated, applied and then be enforced, yes. And when applying those parameters, that also means no,

I think I get what you're saying but the "yes means no too" structure is befuddling.

The remedy would lie in extending same parameters.

Agreed.

Short of obliterating them, never. A flippant response for sure but that's what I have.

That seems rather extreme. Why not just sanction them, harass them, take their assets, arrest or render their alleged criminals, etc. Why must they be obliterated to get cooperation/compliance?

implementation of a code of military conduct that leaves no room for convenient interpretation and would be vigorously enforced upon one's own by one's own.

Agreed.

I feel that the question here would be better if it addressed prevention and not just illegality, As to my skepticism on the matter (call it cynicism if you like), that's best expressed with a no.

Okay. Good point about prevention.

see flippancy of answer to above 7)

If such parameters could be adhered to by all, there wouldn't be a need for special moderation in the I/P forum. Since there is little likelihood of such adherence happening over there, I predict the same bitch-fest happening there as always.

I say nothing!

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[OrphanSlug]

No, not yet. The UN is really powerless to prosectute permanent member-states of the Security Council and by extension their close allies. So what could such a new authority look like to you and to whom or what institutions would it be answerable?

Alright then, can we do it for the first time in human and humane history?

Narrowing this down to these answers and questions we can conclude the seriousness, yet sadness, of your OP topic. Looking at this from history to current very few nations and/or cultures, if any, have their hands entirely clean in this regard.

Reasonable people can come together and conclude what is a war crime, what would be a reasonable agreement among nations to not commit those acts, and perhaps even submit to some other authority when a nation's leaders run afoul of those agreements.

It would be nice to see the actions of Russia, China, and North Korea (as examples) have to answer for a few things but at the same time it means looking to a few things the US or the UK (as examples) has done as well.

Motivations, be it political and/or ambition to some argument of security and/or superiority, tend to cloud things on this subject. Even if later we agree they should not.

 

[Chagos]

No!!!? Is shelling and bombing a city in Syria a war crime? If the attacker is America and the city is Raqqa, then apparently no, it is not a war crime. But if the attackers are the Syrian Regime and/or Russia and the city is Allepo, then apparently yes they are WCs.

I should have used more precision in my answer of "no". As in "it doesn't matter who defines what, according to whether it's dem or us doing it".

IOW intentionally targeting civilian populations to achieve the goals of defeating the opposition's combatants is a highly questionable move, even when one is bereft of the ability to either distinguish between the two or use force that can.

The deciding element is intention and even where one includes collateral damage in one's calculation of defeating the enemy (IOW takes it into account as a regrettable effect), the moral conundrum prevails.

I'd still distinguish between a terrorist blowing himself up in a crowded market for the sake of solely killing civilians and Bomber Harris, but the distinction is minute.

Good points both positive and the forlorn hope aspect.

In an ideal sense I agree with you. However in reality, I think some states have carved out a self-granted right to commit WCs and CsAH. Russia in Afghanistan, Chechnya and Ukraine. China in Tibet and with respect to Taiwan. America in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Syria overtly and in South and Central America, Africa and Asia covertly. France in Libya and Mali/Tchad. The U.K. In Iraq. Saudi Arabia during the Arab Spring and in Yemen. And of course another state which I will describe in a linked forum to this thread. All of these states have carved out a "right-space" shielding them form WCs and CsAH culpability and prosecution except on their own terms.

I can't argue against any of those points listed, outside of my leaving reality and attempting to enter the utopian fantasy of an ideal world.

But the instances you list are incomplete without also listing the behavior of the respected "other sides".

Agreed, although I would not classify man's inhumanity to man as frailty but rather a pathology.

I see little cause for distinction

Fair point.


Okay. I should have worded my question better. A better wording for Q5a might be "Can WCs occur, be detected and be punished outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine? Does the veil of secrecy make war crimes moot like single trees falling in forests, unheard?

There's no such thing as a tree falling unheard in the forest. Even clapping with just one hand is more likely.

 

[Chagos]

I think I get what you're saying but the "yes means no too" structure is befuddling.

the conundrum lies in the inability of enforcement

Agreed.

That seems rather extreme. Why not just sanction them, harass them, take their assets, arrest or render their alleged criminals, etc. Why must they be obliterated to get cooperation/compliance?

I exaggerated for sake of demonstration.

You'll find me the last person wanting to obliterate whole people but like with Nazi Germany or the Japan of imperialistic militarism, egs need be broken to get at the yolk. The times where armies met in distant (to civilian populations) fields and had it out with each are long since over, if indeed that kind of exclusive combat ever happened at all.

 

[oneworld2]

The simple answer is that when " we" are caught committing crimes they are whitewashed, dismissed, cast as " mistakes" or a few " bad apples" etc etc it's a cover all blanket that is pretty watertight.

When "they" do it there is no question. They are evil, lawless thugs to be demonized.

Everyone engages in the above and tribalism underpins it all imo

Any voices of dissent are rounded on in the home country and the people vilified as none patriots who get off on besmirching the brave boys that defend our state values etc etc Any voices of dissent in official enemy states are to be lauded and praised for their bravery and honesty.

All the while any chance of holding people to account is based solely on power and not justice or universality which, as a result, undermines the whole notion of international law itself.

The powerful prosecute the weak and the winners prosecute the losers, that's what the evidence clearly indicates imo

We need only look at the Nuremburg Trials to see how awkward it gets with the basic principle being " well you started it all" so, down you go.

 

[Evilroddy]

The simple answer is that when " we" are caught committing crimes they are whitewashed, dismissed, cast as " mistakes" or a few " bad apples" etc etc it's a cover all blanket that is pretty watertight.

When "they" do it there is no question. They are evil, lawless thugs to be demonized.

Everyone engages in the above and tribalism underpins it all

oneworld2:

I agree that the above is how this self-serving rationalisation is done but what I wonder at is why anyone with a modicum of reason and awareness buys into these dem-not-Uz rationalisations. It only works because people let it work and then they just put it out of their minds and go about their business. It's a mystery to me how reasonable people can be so wilfully blind and indifferent to atrocity.

Any voices of dissent are rounded on in the home country and the people vilified as none patriots who get off on besmirching the brave boys that defend our state values etc etc Any voices of dissent in official enemy states are to be lauded and praised for their bravery and honesty.

Short-term pain for long-term gain. Stand up to the critics, deliver you message without slant, tell the whole truth (good and bad), defend the good names of the military other ranks who behave honourably, condemn those that don't, hold their officers, top brass and civilian masters accountable for the actions of those under their command and do it all from a jail cell if needs be. That's how change is wrought. That's how people change the world incrementally.

All the while any chance of holding people to account is based solely on power and not justice or universality which, as a result, undermines the whole notion of international law itself.

That may be true in a dictatorship but not in a democracy. We the people have the power in a democracy. Grass-roots, bottom-up activism and a free press can topple the highest and most powerful. People power is still a thing. Why do you and the collective we buy into the lie that we are powerless? We are not.

The powerful prosecute the weak and the winners prosecute the losers, that's what the evidence clearly indicates imo

Can that old way be changed by engaged and focused people using determined activism to ignite popular rebellion against the idea of accepting regular atrocity as inevitable?

We need only look at the Nuremburg Trials to see how awkward it gets with the basic principle being " well you started it all" so, down you go.

Why look backwards when we can lock forwards? The history off the past should inform us on how to make needed change by making better informed decisions but should not and cannot bind or paralyse us from making needed change carefully.

So why do we accept this crap? Why are we so cynically resigned to allowing uz and dem committing atrocity after atrocity? Why do we accept transparently fraudulent rationalisations from above, rather than rejecting them en masse and instead working horizontally to muster the popular support we need to reduce atrocity among uz and dem alike? States have a duty to protect, some claim and we accept. So do responsible individuals who live in free societies where they can vote. Ballots can bring down militarists and war criminals long before bullets are needed in free societies. Let's start by cleaning our own houses, while at the same time declaiming others who cross the line in war and peace.

Why do nothing when your son, daughter, sister, brother or friend could be the next victim of atrocity? I just don't get it. I never have since childhood and I likely never will.

Be well and survive.
Evilroddy.

 

[Rogue Valley]

Kudos to you Roddy for creating a seperate and dedicated thread about this topic, as it should be.

 

[oneworld2]

I agree that the above is how this self-serving rationalisation is done but what I wonder at is why anyone with a modicum of reason and awareness buys into these dem-not-Uz rationalisations. It only works because people let it work and then they just put it out of their minds and go about their business. It's a mystery to me how reasonable people can be so wilfully blind and indifferent to atrocity.

I think we live in a highly indoctrinated society and that is a big part of the problem. The educational system is another part of the same problem. An elite owned MSM also trumpets the preferred narratives of state propaganda and crucially manufactures consent amongst the general population, that to me is the biggest part of the problem.

And being honest, who wants to entertain the notion that, if the same standards are applied, we look as ugly as those we are indoctrinated to believe are vile? The fear of that is why there is such a reaction to the very few people that have the independence of thought to even try to apply standards evenly wrt such outrages

We also have to be aware of the general make up of people too. There are those that care greatly about many things and those that care about nothing much but themselves. Coupled with a large swathe of people who are pretty much indifferent to such things and would rather be focusing their attentions on distractions like sport, reality TV/soaps , etc etc

There is also the mammoth size of the task itself. When you think of the powers arrayed against ordinary folk it's pretty easy to understand why they might not think the effort required is a waste of their finite time on earth.

You cannot understand it, imo, for much the same reason I don't understand it either. We are all looking at these things from our own personal perspective which is in no small part down to our own personal make up and life experiences. IMo you have always come across as a caring soul and thus can only view things from that perspective. We maybe don't see the world as it is but rather we see it as we are.

Standing against such a powerful foe is not easy and understanding that we cannot be completely objective in our own messages are relevant truisms in all of this. We can try but we should acknowledge the things mentioned and then decide how much to invest against the cost. I have grown tired after a lifetime of fighting the " we are the good guys trying to do good in a bad world " nonsense for the reasons already cited. I wish others that follow well but would be the first to tell them how depleting it is on your own humanity.

I think the burden of the atrocities committed by the state are more shared with the people when they have a vote in govt and the means to change things. For this we are maybe advised to access what sort of " democracy" we are actually living in. Is it a meaningful one? How well does it hold power to account? etc etc

We are not allowed a free press in the best propaganda system ever created imo.

Here in the UK the " free press" was killed off by as easy a means of the allowing advertising.

I think it was more possible pre 9/11 but since then the laws on activism/actions etc have been getting undermined with pretty much the same level of indifference as there is to the crimes of our own, worse so imo.

Why do we do these things mentioned above? For the reasons outlined in this post imo

We are allowed freedoms to a point. They will disappear if we dare to implement your suggestions, or we will disappear for trying,

We only have to look at the demonization's of the likes of Assange, Snowden, or even Corbyn to understand how much of a well oiled machine we are dealing with and what it is capable of.

I'm really sorry I can't be more positive for this your Evilness but I think that we will run out of time as a species before we attain the levels of independence required to push through a global justice system that actually brings criminals to justice for their crimes, aside from the powerful prosecuting the weak.

At least now you know why the kicked me off the UK Samaritan help lines

Really sorry too for the enforced word count snipping of your commentary/observations/incites/questions which are, as ever, high quality stuff thx

 

[Evilroddy]

Kudos to you Roddy for creating a seperate and dedicated thread about this topic, as it should be.

Rogue Valley:

So why not jump in? I would like to learn what you think outside of the pressure cooker of the Ukranian-Russian-Western conflict.

Cheers and be well.
Evilroddy.

 

[bomberfox]

This thread was born out of a discussion which emerged in the Russian/Ukraine/Belarus sub-forum recently. There posters were rightly condemning the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of the Russian Federation in Ukraine (and Chechnya) but refused to accept or even discuss the alleged and real war crimes and crimes against humanity of other states to put the Russian crimes in context. Even when posters clearly acknowledged that Russia was guilty of war crimes and crimes against humanity, the majority of posters refused to discuss the same kinds of crimes committed by other countries in order to put the discussion into a wider context. Some would not even realistically entertain the idea that their own countries or those countries closely aligned with their own could systematically commit war crimes (WCs) and Crimes Against Humanity (CsAH) with alarming regularity and great intensity.

This thread is therefore devoted to discussing WCs and CsAH in a global context with the intention of trying to lay out a number of points. These are:

1) What are WCs and CsAH and do their definitions vary depending on who allegedly commits them?
1A) Who should define what a WC or a CAH is? The West? The East? The Global South? Individual states? The UN? the ICC? All the countries of the world in congress?
2) Do states have a right to commit WCs and CsAH during conflicts or must there be an overriding state responsibility to stop and prosecute them?
3) Which states are dominant offenders in the areas of committing WCs and CsAH in the modern world? Examples should be offered with supporting citations, please.
4) Why do states, their militaries and their paramilitaries commit WCs and CsAH? Why do individuals do the same?
5) What is the line between a legitimate military action and either a WC or a CAH?
5A) Can WCs occur outside of a state of declared war, that is to say in military conflicts which are undeclared and also likely clandestine?
6) Is international law effective in limiting and prosecuting WCs and CsAH. If not, then how can this be remedied?
7) How can WCs and CsAH be successfully prosecuted against very powerful non-cooperating states and/or nuclear-weapon-armed states and their decision-makers?
8) What are the best strategies and the best practices which states and their militaries can use to reduce the incidence frequency and severity of WCs and CsAH?
9) Can war itself and eventually all military conflicts be made illegal by enforceable laws?
10) What legal, political or economic consequences should states which are habitual offenders of WC and CAH laws face?

Now a Very important caveat. DP forum rules do not allow discussion of the Israeli-Palestinian Conflict to be conducted in this sub-forum. Therefore I will link below to a parallel thread in the I/P sub-forum for separate discussion of the WCs and CsAH Situation in that part of the world. No discussion here in this thread of the I/P situation is allowed.

The parallel I/P Sub-forum version of this thread can be found at the link below:

Why Do So Many Countries Discount Their Own War Crimes But Condemn Other States So Vociferously? I/P Version.

This thread is the I/P parallel thread for discussing war crimes and crimes against humanity in the global sense which occur between the State of Israel and its foes/rivals in the Levant. Please post here rather than in the Lost when discussing I/P related topics. Remember this thread is in a...

debatepolitics.com

Finally as this is the Loft, please try to keep this discussion civil, respectful, analytical and as unemotional as possible. Thank you in advance for following Loft expectations.

Very respectfully.
Evilroddy.

In war its very rare for there to be a black and white situation. Sometimes its as crazy as a bunch of inbred monarchs taking their countrymen to the meat grinder to one up eachother. (Ah my hatred of monarchy, one of the things that remained constant through my life )

One of the reasons i dont harp on the bombing of Dresden anymore is well if you dont want your cities bombed to hell, dont wage a totally pointless and delusional total war.

 

[bomberfox]

When i learned more about the conflict in Bosnia, ive kind of come around to thinking that maybe intervening wasnt all that bad but i still remain largely ignorant of the conflict (i was just a kid back during the Clinton years.)

In terms of prosecuting war crimes, well we have the UN, which is ironically the spitting example of small and weak government. As far as the UN goes, its got no teeth to prosecute on its own and heavily favors letting its member states off the hook.