Talk:Law of war/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

False Colours

Impersonating soldiers of the other side has been a violation of the laws of war since before the Napoleonic era; the SS troops were lucky to be shot out of hand, as they had lost all protections of the laws of war. Remember that they used their American uniforms to man a roadblock to surprise and murder American soldiers behind their own lines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarka (talk • contribs) 09:59, 13 November 2002 (UTC)

This is not true for two reasons:
  • War ships had for many centuries often flown "False Colours" including the enemy's and, providing that they did not fight under the False Colours, had not commited a war crime.
  • In the second world war both sides used this tactic on Land. Those SS soldiers who fired a gun in American uniforms had broken international law, but those who misdirected traffic had not. They might perhaps have been guilty of spying if captured, but if they returned to their own lines they were not.
At the Nuremberg trial (United Nations War Crimes Commission) of the planner and commander of Operation Greif, Otto Skorzeny, went into this in detail and found him not guilty [1]. Otto Skorzeny's defence of pulling of a (white) rabbit out of the hat in the form of Wing Commander Yeo-Thomas GC of the SOE helped his case. Philip Baird Shearer 13:20, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)
"Impersonating soldiers..." does not apply to the use of false flags by warships, which is well documented. Maritime and admiralty law covers this in great detail.
The key point in impersonation is that soldiers who are wearing enemy uniform are in significant danger of losing the protections of a POW, regardless of their actions. Any aggressive act (i.e., misdirecting traffic or gathering intelligence) further imperils them, giving the appearance of being a spy, and any use of force dooms them if captured. Both American and German commandoes and escaping prisoners made use of impersonation, often successfully . . . but others were mistreated and/or executed after capture.
As you point out, any soldier or spy who makes it back to friendly lines is not in danger if captured in the future, for the mere act of wearing enemy uniform, unless they committed atrocities.
Thank you for your accurate contribution to the Wikipedia historical record. clarka 4 March 2005
  • Shooting POWs after recapture even if not dressed in uniform is a war crime http://www.stephen-stratford.co.uk/great_escape.htm.
  • Anyone who carried out Hitler's Commando Order and was involved in shooting commandos who were captured in uniform committed a War Crime. Afer the war the SAS hunted down some of the Germans who had executed captured SAS men, they were put on trial and found guilty.

In the Otto Skorzeny War crimes trial (http://www.ess.uwe.ac.uk/WCC/skorzeny.htm) There are a number of legal arguments on the wearing of enemy uniforms during World War II. But the German and US military seem to be in agreement on it:

Paragraph 43 of the Field Manual published by the War Department, United States Army, on 1st October, 1940, under the title " Rules of Land Warfare ", says: " National flags, insignias and uniforms as a ruse-in practice it has been authorised to make use of these as a ruse. The foregoing rule (Article 23 of the Annex of the IVth Hague Convention), does not prohibit such use, but does prohibit their improper use. It is certainly forbidden to make use of them during a combat. Before opening fire upon the enemy, they must be discarded ". The American Soldiers' Handbook, which was quoted by Defence Counsel, says: " The use of the enemy flag, insignia and uniform is permitted under some circumstances. They are not to be used during actual fighting, and if used in order to approach the enemy without drawing fire, should be thrown away or removed as soon as fighting begins ".
The procedure applicable in this case did not require that the Court make findings other than those of guilty or not guilty. Consequently no safe conclusion can be drawn from the acquittal of all accused, but if the two above-mentioned American publications contain correct statements of international law, as it stands today, they dispose of the whole case for the Prosecution, apart from the two instances of use of American uniforms during actual fighting.

If they re-direct traffic they are not spying which is to "obtain information concerning one belligerent in the zone of belligerent operations with the intention of communicating it to the other belligerent " (Article 29 of the Annex to the Hague Convention, 18th October, 190.7). In one case at the Skorzeny trial there was a man Kocherscheid who said that yes he was spying in an American uniform! But as he was a spy and he returned successfully to his own lines he could not be tried as a spy (Article 31). He said this because he had shot at Americans while in a US uniform. But the commentary says:

The accused in this case, however, were not tried as spies but were tried for a violation of the laws and usages of war alleged to have been committed by entering combat in enemy uniforms. Articles 29-31 of the Hague Convention have therefore no application in this case and it would appear that the accused Kocherscheid's acquittal was base on lack of sufficient evidence ...

The court did not find Skorzeny guilty of a crime by ordering his men into action in American uniforms. He had passed on a German legal expert's warning to his men, that if his men were to fight in American unforms they would be breaking the laws of war, but they probably were not doing so just by wearing the uniform. Philip Baird Shearer 13:43, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Subheadings

I think that the article needs modification so that subheadings deal with different aspects of the laws of war and the duty they impose on the different actors involved in war. Not only would the article be easier to read it would allow people to contribute to specific areas. Each subheading ought to have a paragraph on the laws (and where they come from which treaty etc.) and then a paragraph with an example. Here is a first (rough) draft for a list of subheadings:

== International relations ==

UN Charter etc.

eg Falklands war (never declared or called as such by HMG during the war) because of UN charter obligations.

== Belligerent State's maratime obligations ==

Hague: Flying False colours, neutral shipping, boarding and inspecting etc.

How all out submarine warfare of WW I & II has modified the customs of maratime warfare since Hague.

=== Belligerent States' obligations ===

Hague, GC, custom (and other treaties)

eg none use of weapons of mass destruction, how to negotiate a surrender, POWs (GCIII), to dress their soldiers in a recognisable uniforms, not to use dum-dum bullets, land mines. etc.

== Belligerent State's obligations to private property and none belligerents ==

Hague, GC, customs etc. eg Civilians (GCIV)

==The individual's responsibilities for war crimes under international law ==

"only obeying orders", Nuremberg, Yugoslavian war crime tribunal in the Netherlands, the International Court, etc.


Enought for now Philip Baird Shearer 10:18, 8 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I apologize for not getting back to this so far. Your approach seems reasonable but there is a lot that needs clarification in general. Will try to make some useful comments soon. -- Cecropia | Talk 04:34, 11 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Are POWS are protected persons?

On capture POWs have ceased to be individuals engaged in warfare under GCIII 3.1 they become "Persons taking no active part in the hostilities" .

GC III: Article 11 (bold in text here for illustration)

In cases where they deem it advisable in the interest of protected persons, particularly in cases of disagreement between the Parties to the conflict as to the application or interpretation of the provisions of the present Convention, the Protecting Powers shall lend their good offices with a view to settling the disagreement.

For this purpose, each of the Protecting Powers may, either at the invitation of one Party or on its own initiative, propose to the Parties to the conflict a meeting of their representatives, and in particular of the authorities responsible for prisoners of war, possibly on neutral territory suitably chosen.

For example the WWII POWs in chains argument between Germany and Britain mediated by the Swiss. So I think that POWs are protected persons in regards to GCIII and civilians are protected persons in GCIV. Therefore I intend to restore to the previous version before the

Cecropia (Talk) (POWs are belligerants. They are protected by the laws of war, but they are not "protected persons," which is a special definition.)

Edit Philip Baird Shearer 19:06, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Philip, this is a semantic issue. A person protected by the various laws of war is not the same as a "Protected Person," though the common sense meaning would suggest they are. A "Protected Person" means specifically a nonbelligerent who, so long as he maintains his nonbelligerency, is "protected" from capture by a belligerent force, except for criminal actions.
All persons in a war zone are, at the outset, either belligerents or protected persons. You don't get to switch between categories, except in very specific circumstances. For example, a protected person who formally enlists in an armed force while not in the heat of battle can then become a belligerent. A soldier after discharge could become a protected person.
I suppose the distinction should be better defined. I will make some changes to the main text to clarify the point. -- Cecropia | Talk 19:41, 7 Sep 2004 (UTC)
It is NOT true that all persons in a war zone are belligerents or protected persons. Protected persons are a very specific class--that is: Civilians who “at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals” find themselves in the hands of a Party or Occupying of which they are not a national and with which their country does not share." GC IV. In other words, they are citizens of a neutral country but is under control of a belligerent country. The exception to this rule (again narrowing the scope of the "Protected Person" class, is that if the civilian's country of origin has normal diplomatic relations with the belligerent country, that civilian is not a protected person.
In response to Philip's question, POWs cannot be protected persons, because POWs are, by definition, belligerents. TheRoyalMe (talk) 22:13, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with what you are saying, because as you say the words of the article are ambiguous. All (most?) the GCs refer to "protected persons" which means that the people in a treaty (GCIII GCIV etc.) which that treaty protects from arbitrary treatment, are "protected persons". So protected persons vary from treaty to treaty. You need to define what you mean by protected person (which seems to be the definition in GCIV).

But I do not think that that is a good idea. There are several different categories of states and people involved in a war, but as "protected persons" depends on the treaty, it is not a category. The Belligerent "Parties" (States etc), belligerent personnel (Soldiers etc) and civilians of the parties are categories (or actors). There are also neutrals,[States and International Organisations and their personnel, which include: neutral civilians ,diplomats, UN and ICRC workers;] and our old favourite "unlawful combatants" including mercenaries to name a few more. I think that most of the information is already in the article, but the article needs reformatting to make this clear. I think subheadings would help with this. Philip Baird Shearer

Here's a missing citation to the article: the article says (in oct 2014) "Combatants also must be commanded by a responsible officer. That is, a commander can be held liable in a court of law for the improper actions of his or her subordinates. There is an exception to this if the war came on so suddenly that there was no time to organize a resistance, e.g. as a result of a foreign occupation."citation needed"

I am not an experienced wikipedia editor so someone how dares may replace that "citation needed" - with link e.g. original Geneva convention text, 

"Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/375

and maybe even more specifically article 4 at https://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Article.xsp?action=openDocument&documentId=2F681B08868538C2C12563CD0051AA8D

which has the direct answer phrase to "citation needed":

(6) Inhabitants of a non-occupied territory, who on the approach of the enemy spontaneously take up arms to resist the invading forces, without having had time to form themselves into regular armed units, provided they carry arms openly and respect the laws and customs of war.

Thank you

Improve this article: What are the laws of war?

This article is fairly well-written and informative regarding the background and history of the Laws of War, but I seem to notice one very glaring omission: nowhere in the article is there an actual list of the Laws of War. Now, I am not an expert on the subject, and it may be that the Laws of War are too complex and numerous to detail in an encyclopedia article. However, if this is the case, it should be stated in the article, perhaps with a reference to more complete information. Alternatively, the article could explain in some general fashion what the Laws of War state. As it stands now, the article refers frequently to provisions of the Laws of War while assuming the reader already knows what those Laws are. User:67.173.42.115

Unfortunately, there is no single authoritative list. It depends on who you ask. So it's really more "customs" or "suggestions" than laws, although various parties a conflict will follow their own version (depending on which treaties they're party to, their own laws, etc.) The texts of the Hague and Geneva conventions are good starting points though. Also see this collection of texts. Most people agree on (1) combatants wearing uniforms (2) only attacking legitimate military targets (which also includes acceptance of surrenders and humane treatment of captured enemies) (3) not engaging in perfidy (various things such as e.g. attacking under a flag of truce) (4) avoiding certain particularly nasty weapons. Since the laws of war are based on reciprocity, in practice what is actually followed is often the lowest common denominator of what each side is willing to follow. Disturbing but true. ObsidianOrder 06:23, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

That is only part of it. For example the method of delevery of a bomb or shell has an effect, Land Sea and Air all have different treaty provisions. There is also a custom now in international law to include generaly accepted treaty provisions in general law even if a state has not signed the specific treaty. This is a consequence of a [Nuremberg Trials] ruling. Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity

In the opinion of the Tribunal it is not necessary to decide this question. The rules of land warfare expressed in the [Hague] Convention undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt " to revise the general laws and customs of war," which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war which are referred to in Article 6 (b) of the Charter.

Although the U.S. has not ratified the Geneva Conventions Protocol I, the say that those provisions which are not contriversial are already covered by the customs of war (see the Nuremberg ruling above) so they abide by them.

Total absence of treaty law [in Air warfare]
The absence of positive law, in this case treaty law, certainly does not mean complete freedom in the use of means and methods, tactics and technology. Natural law on the one hand, customary law on the other, and the rules concerning air-to-ground attacks contained in 1977 Protocol I additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions impose restrictions in this regard.
It is worth recalling that during the [First] Gulf war, although such key nations as the United States, Iraq, Iran, Israel, the United Kingdom and France had not ratified the 1977 Protocols, the degree of compliance with the law of war throughout the operations could be described as acceptable.[2]

BTW the UK has since signed Protocol I but they did so with provisions [3] of which one stands out:

That the new rules introduced by the Protocol are not intended to have any effect on and do not regulate or prohibit the use of nuclear weapons;

But it is an interesting document because many states put in similar codicils when signing treaties so the treaty may not show a what a party's obligations are unless they are read with the codicil.

There is also the principle of what is illigal in one area of warfare may be considered illigal in another. See International Review of the Red Cross no 323, p.347-363 The Law of Air Warfare (1998) and the sections on which rules apply or do not apply to air warfare:

Subordination of the law of air warfare to the law of ground warfare
Equivalence of the law governing air warfare to the law of war at sea
Equivalence of the law governing air warfare to the law of war on land and at sea
Conditional application of the law of war on land and the law of war at sea to air warfare

Unlike codified law, used in much of the world, the laws of armed conflict are much like the mix of common law and legislative law used in The USA, Ireland and the Commonwealth of Nations. Unlike the English Speaking world were there are hundreds of trials which keeps common law detailed and up to date, (and it takes a large law library to list all the cases which make up common law); a list of Laws of War would need a similar library; and as there are relatively few War crime trials which are particularly controversial and where the law is not clear, it would be difficult to create an NPOV list. Philip Baird Shearer 10:07, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Flawed Explanation???

Excerpted from discussion of protection of torture protections

<<Citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention are also not protected by it (Article 4: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it".), whether they are spies or terrorists. Also, citizens and soldiers of nations which have not signed and do not abide by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions are not protected by them. (Article 2, of both Conventions: "[The High Contracting Parties] shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to [a Power which is not a contracting party], if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof". note: emphasis added)>>

Perhaps further explanation is needed, but I find the current explanation illogical and misleading. It seems that article 2 actually says that a non-signing party can choose to bind itself through compliance, and that is sufficient to guarantee protection under the article. What article 2 logically states, then, is that if a nation complies, it is definitely protected, and that the only way that a nation can fail to be protected is to fail to bind itself. Article 2 does not give any sufficient grounds for failing to extend torture protections to any person.

Article 4 grants that those unbound are unprotected. The nature of the discussion of torture protections seems to be that it seeks to eliminate protections. A more insightful explanation would, I think, explain that those unbound are not protected, but that even non-signing parties may, through compliance, bind themselves and therefore gain protection.

For example:

Nations that have not signed the Conventions may nevertheless be protected by the Conventions, when those nations comply with the provisions of the Conventions. (Article 2...) However, article 4 (...) makes it clear that a nation that fails to bind itself to the Conventions cannot expect its citizens and soldiers to be protected by the Conventions.

Obviously, even that needs further discussion, as these are but 2 articles.

I agree with your comments. There is a much better presentation about who is and who is not protected by GCIII and GCIV on the unlawful combatant page. Basically every combatant is protected by GCIII unless the Belligerent Power (state) they are fighting for ignores the provisions. Even then a contracting power often abides by the convention for their own prisoners (eg the Allies and the Japanese prisoners they held in World War II). Even when 2 countries have signed the conventions there is a danger that they may retaliate against the perceived actions of the enemy's treatment of their POWs as happened in World War II and the British/German manacle incident[4]. However if they are unlawful combatants, then they may or may not have the protection of GCIV. In a traditional war they mostly do, because most of them will be citizens of a Belligerent Party to the war. In the case of the USA "War on Terror", most are not because they are citizens of neutral countries which have diplomatic relations with the US, or they are citizens of co-belligerent in the US's War on Terror. --Philip Baird Shearer 21:06, 20 March 2006 (UTC)


Philosophical Topic Vs. Legal Topic

Why does jus in bello lead here? This seems, to me, to have little to nothing to do with a discussion or explanation of what the principles of "justified conduct in war" are from a philosophical perspective. It lacks even a discussion of the conditions that conduct in war must meet to be "justifable", which is the basis of jus in bello.

- Not a Wikipedia Member and sorry if I broke a convention of talk page.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.221.27.29 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

You have not broken any convention other than not signing you posting, which is done by putting ~~~~ at the end of a posting on a talk page. Wikipedia will automagically convert into an IP address or user name and time stamp (like mine at the end of this paragraph). You are free to add the information to this article page or edit the "jus in bello" link and convert it into a proper page with the information you think is appropriate. --Philip Baird Shearer 12:32, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Geopolitics or international political and sociological

I am not sure that the change from the term "geopolitics" helps understands the idea. I am not aware of use of the concept of "international sociological conditions". If you follow the link "sociological" there is no clarification. However if the link from "geopolitics" is followed the reader learns immediately the contingent nature of the laws of war on. Joel Mc 15:17, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Joining a war

Well Ideally, your preference on a side of a war would be based on principle not anything else, especially in the US since you have freedom of opinion. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FranzSS (talk • contribs) 21:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC).

dead enemy's weapon

The following was added to the text:

It is also illegal to take a dead enemies weapon and or ammunition after they have been killed. But if they have been captured permission is granted to use their weapons.

What is the source for this? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Law of land warfare

Merge from Law of land warfare into this article because since it was create in February 2004 it has not grown from much more than a stub. A section can be created in this article called "Law of land warfare" which that article redirects to. If this is done and the duplicate information is removed the information remaining in such a section would not be much more than a short paragraph, to which we can add a mention of those treaties which have a positive legal effect on the conduct of land warfare. If at a future date the new section "Law of land warfare" becomes large enough we can always move the information back out of this article section to that one and only leave a summary here. But At the moment I do not think there is enough text to justify two articles. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggested Addition: Laws of war applying to non-state actors

IANAL but my understanding is that the laws of war applying to non-state actors (eg a force resisting a foreign occupation, or rebel force fighting their own government), not being signatories of any international treaty (as well as the treaties themselves being designed with state actors in mind) are subject to much more limited rules than the GC. There is also a carve-out in the UN Charter exempting those resisting foreign/colonial occupation. Perhaps somebody could expand this entry in that direction a little? Dan (talk) 02:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

(practice vs theory)

Who is the naive, optimistic idiot that wrote this article? I'm sure when the author looks at the sky it appears pink. How about a couple words on practice vs theory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.7.54.224 (talk) 06:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Joining a war

In theory, is it legal to join either side of a war? ie If one would join either Israel or Hezbollah in the current fight, and then kill someone on the other "team", would that be legal? I know that if you're an American you can't join Hezbollah in this war, because the US would see you as a terrorist afterwards (IF you survive), but curious about the theory.
Thanks
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lunarmys (talk • contribs) 19:56, 3 August 2006

  • In a word "No" it is not legal to "join" either side. Article 4 of the Geneva convention defines lawful combatants as uniformed combatants ie. members of a bona fide military organization of either side or in some cases, bona fide government defense contractors working on legitimate government sponsored contracts of either side. Anyone taking up arms against either side, who is not either a legitimate uniformed combatant or government contractor is an "unlawful combatant" or "Illegal Belligerent" - neither of which are protected under the Geneva convention.
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.40.213.196 (talk) 03:20, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Removed Self referencing Links from the Intro

I removed links Jus In Bello and Jus ad bellum. They linked back to this article.

On a side note, I'm not sure whether to bold the two terms. Somebody could bold them if appropriate. 222.101.9.206 (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Traditions vs laws

I guess its a reflection of the lawyeristic concerns of our modern society, but throughout the history of war there have been unwritten moral codes of conduct between those fighting, the customs of war, and which all sides understood, the code of chivalry for example, these traditions are the basis on which these laws are based and are not really covered here. Its when these unwritten understandings have been broken that there was outrage in the classical and medieval worlds, e.g. the Spartan enslavement of the Messenians, the continued attack by the Romans against men who had grounded their spears, the slaughter of the POWS at Agincourt etc.KTo288 (talk) 08:34, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Not really the Hague Conventions (1899 and 1907) by and large put into a convention the laws of war as they were at the end of the 19th century. The Nuremberg War Trial judgment on The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity held that "The rules of land warfare expressed in the [Hague Convention of 1907] undoubtedly represented an advance over existing international law at the time of their adoption. But the Convention expressly stated that it was an attempt 'to revise the general laws and customs of war,' which it thus recognised to be then existing, but by 1939 these rules laid down in the Convention were recognised by all civilised nations, and were regarded as being declaratory of the laws and customs of war...",(Judgement : The Law Relating to War Crimes and Crimes Against Humanity).
The major area of disagreement of the land warfare was the Martens Clause. One can wander off into areas such as Just War, (which originally came about because Emperor Constantine needed to be able to justify his wars).
As to earlier laws to a large degree the laws/customs of the early modern period had more to do with expediency (e.g. the customs around the surrendering of fortified places, with no quarter if the forlorn hope went in) or expedient reciprocity, see for example Declaration of Lex Talionis and Ordinance of no quarter to the Irish, (Think of mutual assured destruction for a modern equivalent) rather than moral codes. --PBS (talk) 19:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Remedies for Violations

This section needs some clarification and cleanup. It seems to be tied very closely with the GCs. Perhaps less content and more links to the appropriate articles for the GCs? An alternative is subheadings, perhaps by each type of individual or by status as a signatory? Kurtm1 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)



Common law

The box i've added delineates the material that Roadrunner (the following commenter) removed to this talk page, from their stated reason for doing so.--Jerzy•t 03:59, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Lawmaking treaties may be compared with legislative enactments in the national law of the United States and the customary law of war with the unwritten Anglo-American common law

There actually are enough differences that this comparison may not be apt. In particular common law uses a system of stare decesis and binding precedent that does not work by consensus.
Roadrunner (talk) 19:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Remove

The box i've added delineates the material that Roadrunner (the following commenter) removed to this talk page, from their stated reason for doing so.--Jerzy•t 04:06, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

These laws are theoretically applicable only to nations which approve and consent to bind to them, usually in the form of international organizations or diplomacy, but in practice all nations are expected to follow the laws of war. Geopolitical conditions of a particular era often dictate which laws are enforced, and by whom.

Some basic laws of war are binding on all nations.
Roadrunner (talk) 19:47, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Only wars sanctioned by the United Nations

I removed:

Some States and commentators have recently argued that only wars sanctioned by the United Nations comply with international law.

a) This is just not true all states reserve and have the right to self-defence (Article 51 of the UN Charter). Philip Baird Shearer 15:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

b) There are two sides to a war. One side may comply with international law whist the other does not. So wars do not comply with international law belligerent in a war may or may not comply with international law.

c) Not all wars are of an international nature in which case under Article 2.7.: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter" Philip Baird Shearer 15:35, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hey, I think the argument I entered is totally bogus, morally, legally, and practically. But there is no disputing that some states (e.g., Norway) and some commentators (e.g., Jimmy Carter) claimed that the invasion of Iraq violated international law because it wasn't sanctioned by the UN. --Leifern 16:15, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

This is a specific war and a specific case, which comentators are saying that it is a general rule that "only wars sanctioned by the United Nations comply with international law"? Philip Baird Shearer 16:21, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If someone says "the war against X is illegal because and only because it wasn't sanctioned by the United Nations," I think it's safe to infer that "only wars sanctioned by the United Nations are legal." As I said, I totally disagree with the argument, but it is a fact that the argument was made, even if the argument was wrong. To give another example: If I said "it never rains in Southern California," then one can trutfully write that "Leifern said that it never rains in Southern California" and also write that "Leifern is wrong in this assertion - it does indeed rain in Southern California sometimes." --Leifern 16:32, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

I think your logic is faulty. All murders are killings, but not all killings are murder. If someone says "Mr X murderd Mr Y because the a jury in the state of southern California found him guilty of murder". It can not be inferred from that that all killings in California are murder. In this case I have given several examples which clearly refute the statement that "only wars sanctioned by the United Nations comply with international law". I await with interest for you to give a source of an authoritative commentator or national spokesperson who has made a statement from which this can be inferred. Philip Baird Shearer 17:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Do a google search on "illegal war united nations" and you will find that Kofi Annan and several others have claimed that the war was illegal because it didn't have SC sanction. At the time, Jimmy Carter made the same point in a New York Times op-ed. That should do it. Other than that, you're invoking the wrong logical fallacy. If any war is declared illegal because and only because it lacked UN approval, then it must follow that any war that lacks such approval is illegal. It's actually very basic logic. Whether people want to live with it is another matter. --Leifern 18:24, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

There has been a debate in Britain over the last month if HMG had clear legal advice over the British involvement in the Iraq invasion. But no one in Britain says that because the British invasion of Iraq may have needed another UN resolution to be legal, that it follows that Britian's participation in the Falklands War was also illegal, because it was conducted under Article 51 of the UN Charter and did not need a UN resolution to be legal. Neither is anyone is saying that because the liberation of Q8 could be justified under Article 51, that the invasion of Iraq 10 years later is justified. The invasion of Iraq can not be expanded into a general rule "that a belligerent has to have a UN resolution to legalise a belligerent's participation in a war". It depends on the circumstances of the war as to what makes a belligerent's participation legal under its international treaty obligations. Philip Baird Shearer 01:01, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There are many who think Britian's participation in the Falklands War was illegal! Of course, so was the Argentine occupation of the disputed islands. Let's be clear about "self-defense" in Article 51. The UN charter spells out that retaliation to a DIRECT attack can only be done as a last resort; if there no other options available and the security council can't be summoned. Even in those few cases where retaliation is done in self-defense the retaliation can only go so far. For example, if there are Israeli jets bombing Chicago then the U.S. can shoot down those jets but not attack Israel. This self-defense is only to buy time until a security council meeting can be arranged. Also the right to resort to unilateral military action on humanitarian ground has also been challenged. Remember how Hitler tried to save the poor East Prussians from the Polish scum?
I In the Falklands all the options hadn't been exhausted. Additionally, in the "first" Gulf War there was no SC resolution specifically calling for war. In fact Saddam had offered to pull out and go to peace talks. His invasion, and G.H.W. Bush's invasion, were both illegal. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.252.217.101 (talk) 00:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
I think you are mistaken when you write "The UN charter spells out that retaliation to a DIRECT attack can only be done as a last resort; if there no other options available and the security council can't be summoned." rather Article 51 specifies that self defence is a first response no a last resort: "Nothing in the present Charter shall impair the inherent right of individual or collective self-defence if an armed attack occurs against a Member of the United Nations, until the Security Council has taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security". Notice also that collective defence can be invoked which means that the territory of a state does not have to be attacked for that state to come to the defence of another state (which means that they are fighting in a legal war in which they were not directly attacked). "taken measures necessary to maintain international peace and security" is diplomatic speak for the aggressor agrees to stop its aggression. ("Terrorism, war and international law: the legality of the use of force ..." by Myra Williamson pp. 111-113). -- I don't agree with all of Williamson's point of view but on this we agree. -- PBS (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2010 (UTC)

Role of the United States

"While many point correctly to the Lieber Code, which was promulgated by the Union during the American Civil War, as critical in the development of the laws of land warfare,[15] one researcher who analyzed the evolution of these laws[16] concludes that "following the publication of Lieber’s code as General Orders 100 in 1863, the United States did not effectively contribute anything to The Hague Laws relating to land warfare as they evolved during this period."[17] This was probably because the United States considered itself a sea power (with corresponding significant participation and contributions to the law of the sea) and did not plan on getting entangled in continental (European) land wars."

How the hell does this make any sense?

Let me make my full analysis: "While many point correctly to the Lieber Code, which was promulgated by the Union during the American Civil War, as critical in the development of the laws of land warfare"


What is Lieber code? "The Lieber Code of April 24, 1863, also known as Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, General Order № 100,[1] or Lieber Instructions, was an instruction signed by President Abraham Lincoln to the Union Forces of the United States during the American Civil War that dictated how soldiers should conduct themselves in war time."

"The document insisted upon the humane, ethical treatment of populations in occupied areas. It was the first expressly codified law that expressly forbade giving "no quarter" to the enemy (i.e., killing prisoners of war), except in such cases when the survival of the unit that held these prisoners was threatened. It forbade the use of poisons, stating that use of such puts any force who uses them entirely outside the pale of the civilized nations and peoples; it forbade the use of torture to extract confessions; it described the rights and duties of prisoners of war and of capturing forces. It described the state of war, the state of occupied territories, the ends of war, and discusses permissible and impermissible means to attain those ends; it discussed the nature of states and sovereignties, and insurrections, rebellions, and wars. As such, it is widely considered to be the first written recital of the customary law of war, in force between the civilized nations and peoples since time immemorial, and the precursor to the Hague Regulations of 1907, the treaty-based restatement of the customary law of war."

"Both the Lieber Code and the Hague Regulations of 1907, which took much of the Lieber Code and wrote it into the international treaty law, did comprehend practices that would be considered illegal or extremely questionable in this day and age. In the event of the violation of the laws of war by an enemy, the Code permitted reprisal (by musketry) against the enemy's recently captured POWs; it permitted the summary battlefield punishment (by musketry) of spies, saboteurs, francs-tireurs, and guerrilla forces, if caught in the act of carrying out their missions.

However, the code envisioned a reciprocal relationship between the population and the Army. As long as the population did not resist military authority, it was to be treated well. Should the inhabitants violate this compact by taking up arms and supporting guerrilla movements, then they were open to sterner measures. Among these were the imposition of fines, the confiscation and/or destruction of property, the imprisonment and/or expulsion of civilians who aided guerrillas, the relocation of populations, the taking of hostages, and the possible execution of guerrillas who failed to abide by the laws of war.[2] It authorized the shooting on sight of all persons not in uniform acting as soldiers and those committing, or seeking to commit, sabotage.[3]

(These allowable practices were later abolished by the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions of 1949, following the Second World War, which saw these practices in the hands of totalitarian states used as the rule rather than the exception to such.)"

In other words, the code has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SEA. AT ALL. I don't know why this random ass comment should even be on wikipedia. Here's my researched opinion. That guys researched opinion makes no sense, and the word "probably" usually means speculation. Whoever finished that up was bias. I'm removing speculation and that pisspoor quote. The logical foundation for why that quote makes sense, doesn't make sense itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.90.27.224 (talk) 12:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Article cleanup

In response to the cleanup tag, I've made a number of edits to this article, mainly regarding organization. I've done some minor sentence-level editing, but each section can really use a readability run-through. I've also deleted a few of the most tangential discussions. If you think I've deleted some of your work, please do a quick run-though or word search to make sure I didn't just move it somewhere else. Kurtm1 (talk) 21:15, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Maybe some one can fix the margin breaking link in the foot notes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.71.183.88 (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Remedies for Violations

Quote: "This opens the door not only to hold private security contractors liable, but also other kinds of corporations which employ violent mercenary or terrorist groups as private security forces."

This seems to create an equivalence between legitimate contractors and unlawful combatants, and is written to suggest that the latter are a sympathetic cause. I'll try to think of a rewording, but I welcome any other efforts and comments.Mzmadmike (talk) 08:38, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Title of article

The article title is "laws of war" but the first sentence and much of the article refer to the "law of war." This is the more common term (Google search shows the singular is six times as common as the plural; it is the form used by the International Committee of the Red Cross - see here), by the U.S. judges advocates (see here (PDF)) and by Kenneth Roth writing in Foreign Affairs (see here. Where the plural is used it seems to refer not to the general area of law, but to specific texts or sources. Does anyone have thoughts on a title change? Neutralitytalk 23:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Use/mention error

As in many, many, many, many, many articles in Wikipedia, this one has a mistake in its first sentence.

Wikipedia is not a dictionary, but an encyclopedia. This article is about law of war, not about the term 'Law of war'. The first sentence should be rewritten.

P.S.

Wikipedia should get some sort of bot that goes through the entire encyclopedia and marks for review every article introduction that contains the often stupidly used expression 'refers to'.

--62.16.186.44 (talk) 16:32, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Purpose of laws of war has no citations

This article is pretty important, its talking about a huge subject in international affairs. Why is this section so unsupported? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1313:6046:7C12:EFAC:FE4:EA33 (talk) 23:55, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Law of war. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:15, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

OR

At the moment the article contains this:

The Treaty of Armistice and Regularization of War signed in the Venezuelan city of Trujillo in November 25 and 26 1820 between the president of the Republic of Colombia, Simon Bolivar and the Chief of the Military Forces of the Spanish Kingdom, Pablo Morillo, is the precursor of the International Humanitarian Law.[1] The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, signed and ratified by the United States and Mexico in 1848, articulates rules for any future wars, including protection of civilians and treatment of prisoners of war.[2]

References

  1. ^ http://publicaciones.defensa.gob.es/pprevistas/025f896b-fb63-65ab-9bdd-ff0000451707/index.html#/112/
  2. ^ http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/guadhida.asp, retrieved 11/22/2016

This looks to me like typical Wikipedia OR.

  1. The first sentence says "is the precursor of the International Humanitarian Law", yet is is very easy to prove that this is a nonsense eg:
  2. The last sentence says "articulates rules for any future wars" yet the source given does not support that because it is just a link to the source of the treaty.

-- PBS (talk) 16:02, 14 September 2017 (UTC)

Agree on OR reasoning -- Delete. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:25, 14 September 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Law_of_war/Archive_1&oldid=1068462807"