Drone warfare, low-level warfare and terrorism would be the exceptions. Right now for drone warfare the software is too difficult to write (hard to believe. Hooking up opencv face recognizer to a robot that can aim a rifle is not hard).
That will change. Not soon, it'll take maybe a decade. But it will change.
Oh and ... dumb question ... who enforces any rules that are decided upon during war ? Without that component we might as well legislate the ethics of solar flares ... Right now there are tons of countries that are either in blatant violation of things like human rights and guilty of war crimes, and no-one's getting persecuted. Not just in problem countries like Iran or North Korea, there's plenty in Africa, Saudi Arabia would be another obvious example, even South America. Only in very specific cases does anything seem to happen ... it seems to me more of a pr-campaign than an actual attempt at enforcement.
Not that having zero practical use or effectiveness has ever stopped anyone from legislating, but why not legislate something equally fictional, but more fun ? Let's legislate traffic lights for faster-than-light travel ! Or let's demand something be done about fictional abuse of Indonesian babies ! Won't somebody think of the children ? Let's legislate that no-one can award the "worst dressed sentient being in the universe" prize to the same character more than 6 times in either prose or poetry. Also it seems prudent to preventively outlaw Vogon poetry. These seem like more productive endeavours.
I agree that "making laws" isn't necessarily a solution, but it lays the foundation of future debates. This topic would no doubt involve a ton of debate and it would be VERY useful if it materializes into international law. "Why" you ask?
Well because when someone violates it, there would be no question of whether this is right or wrong. We wouldn't have to go through the whole above debate all over again, just to come to a consensus that this was evil. You could just cite the law and (hopefully/in an ideal world) prosecute.
Ps: They still might be able to cirumvent drone strikes by saying that by defintion of war agreed upon in the first geneva convention, it isn't war. so this rule doesn't apply. I hope they think of this when making the law
in line with the mention of the Geneva Convention in my other post, i just remembered something. I am not sure how legally correct this is it, but someone brought it up in a Model UN that govt officials who sanction drone strikes can NOT be tried for war crimes because they aren't technically Soldiers. If this is true, wtf? The rules seriously need major revision in sight of modern tech
UN govt officials who sanction drone strikes can not be tried for war crimes because they're diplomats of a sovereign organisation. You have to understand what kinds of people these are (in general). They're part of powerful political families, spoiled rich kids with entitlement issues that would make all US congresscritters volunteer for public apologies. They don't agree on anything, least of all human rights (note that the UN human rights council is dominated by governments that don't respect human rights. Which is why the only government to get dinged on human rights is the one government that actually attempts to respect human rights in the region). They will go to war if they saw any of their members threatened with so much as a citation. So no they can not be tried for war crimes.
They will, however, attack others every now and then.
So international law, and human rights, effectively don't exist. So of course since this is just used as a political tool, it can be cheated with when convenient. That's why they went so ridiculously hard after Serbia and let (for example) North Sudan/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/... continue their crimes without a peep.
Even when they do have money, it only works when enforcement works. So in order to get a conviction you need :
1) the political interests need to be aligned
2) some military needs to kidnap the sacrimonial lamb* and this can't lead to an incident
3) the lamb can't have any good political structure left to support him
That's all international law is. Look at the money behind it and you will understand how it works. Attempt to analyse it legally and it will remain a mystery. Look at the conflict between Russia and Saudi Arabia and you will see why they intervened 10 years after the Yuguslav wars, and why they only convicted Serbians, and take note that in this "genocide" of civilians, first only young males, armed, were killed. The whole thing was precipated by an attack by said "victims", which was obviously part by an attempt at territorial conquest by said victims, and more than a few of the perpetrators died. Another army tried to intervene and couldn't because it suddenly found itself under attack by the "victims" and the commander decided to withdraw (it's not that they couldn't intervene, they didn't after finding themselves under attack by the victims). Both America and Europe took the side of the "victims". Understand why that last part happened, who was on whose side, and you'll see where the convictions come from, and just who and what the ICJ is working for.
Note that I'm not making the case that all governments are corrupt (beyond a certain degree). Just that a toothless, powerless, jurisdiction-less, "court" 100% dependant upon foreign interests cannot have a shred of integrity in practice.
But of course, don't let reality stop you from feeling entitled, and in the US, and some parts of Europe, you can actually more-or-less enjoy these rights (keep in mind that in the EU, due to WWII, you don't have full freedom of political opinion. If you think human rights will save you from conviction if you do something that's technically a human right but flies in the face of this policy, don't expect human rights arguments to save you from conviction. In Europe freedom of ideology does not apply nazism and a few forms of communism/socialism). If you actually wish to test human rights policies though ... I'd advise you NOT to leave the US.
* they're generally guilty, although proof tends to be lacking in the extreme, and people convicted are generally not the only guilty parties.
Comments
Drone warfare, low-level warfare and terrorism would be the exceptions. Right now for drone warfare the software is too difficult to write (hard to believe. Hooking up opencv face recognizer to a robot that can aim a rifle is not hard).
That will change. Not soon, it'll take maybe a decade. But it will change.
Oh and ... dumb question ... who enforces any rules that are decided upon during war ? Without that component we might as well legislate the ethics of solar flares ... Right now there are tons of countries that are either in blatant violation of things like human rights and guilty of war crimes, and no-one's getting persecuted. Not just in problem countries like Iran or North Korea, there's plenty in Africa, Saudi Arabia would be another obvious example, even South America. Only in very specific cases does anything seem to happen ... it seems to me more of a pr-campaign than an actual attempt at enforcement.
Not that having zero practical use or effectiveness has ever stopped anyone from legislating, but why not legislate something equally fictional, but more fun ? Let's legislate traffic lights for faster-than-light travel ! Or let's demand something be done about fictional abuse of Indonesian babies ! Won't somebody think of the children ? Let's legislate that no-one can award the "worst dressed sentient being in the universe" prize to the same character more than 6 times in either prose or poetry. Also it seems prudent to preventively outlaw Vogon poetry. These seem like more productive endeavours.
I agree that "making laws" isn't necessarily a solution, but it lays the foundation of future debates. This topic would no doubt involve a ton of debate and it would be VERY useful if it materializes into international law. "Why" you ask?
Well because when someone violates it, there would be no question of whether this is right or wrong. We wouldn't have to go through the whole above debate all over again, just to come to a consensus that this was evil. You could just cite the law and (hopefully/in an ideal world) prosecute.
Ps: They still might be able to cirumvent drone strikes by saying that by defintion of war agreed upon in the first geneva convention, it isn't war. so this rule doesn't apply. I hope they think of this when making the law
in line with the mention of the Geneva Convention in my other post, i just remembered something. I am not sure how legally correct this is it, but someone brought it up in a Model UN that govt officials who sanction drone strikes can NOT be tried for war crimes because they aren't technically Soldiers. If this is true, wtf? The rules seriously need major revision in sight of modern tech
UN govt officials who sanction drone strikes can not be tried for war crimes because they're diplomats of a sovereign organisation. You have to understand what kinds of people these are (in general). They're part of powerful political families, spoiled rich kids with entitlement issues that would make all US congresscritters volunteer for public apologies. They don't agree on anything, least of all human rights (note that the UN human rights council is dominated by governments that don't respect human rights. Which is why the only government to get dinged on human rights is the one government that actually attempts to respect human rights in the region). They will go to war if they saw any of their members threatened with so much as a citation. So no they can not be tried for war crimes.
They will, however, attack others every now and then.
So international law, and human rights, effectively don't exist. So of course since this is just used as a political tool, it can be cheated with when convenient. That's why they went so ridiculously hard after Serbia and let (for example) North Sudan/Egypt/Saudi Arabia/... continue their crimes without a peep.
Even when they do have money, it only works when enforcement works. So in order to get a conviction you need : 1) the political interests need to be aligned 2) some military needs to kidnap the sacrimonial lamb* and this can't lead to an incident 3) the lamb can't have any good political structure left to support him
That's all international law is. Look at the money behind it and you will understand how it works. Attempt to analyse it legally and it will remain a mystery. Look at the conflict between Russia and Saudi Arabia and you will see why they intervened 10 years after the Yuguslav wars, and why they only convicted Serbians, and take note that in this "genocide" of civilians, first only young males, armed, were killed. The whole thing was precipated by an attack by said "victims", which was obviously part by an attempt at territorial conquest by said victims, and more than a few of the perpetrators died. Another army tried to intervene and couldn't because it suddenly found itself under attack by the "victims" and the commander decided to withdraw (it's not that they couldn't intervene, they didn't after finding themselves under attack by the victims). Both America and Europe took the side of the "victims". Understand why that last part happened, who was on whose side, and you'll see where the convictions come from, and just who and what the ICJ is working for.
Note that I'm not making the case that all governments are corrupt (beyond a certain degree). Just that a toothless, powerless, jurisdiction-less, "court" 100% dependant upon foreign interests cannot have a shred of integrity in practice.
But of course, don't let reality stop you from feeling entitled, and in the US, and some parts of Europe, you can actually more-or-less enjoy these rights (keep in mind that in the EU, due to WWII, you don't have full freedom of political opinion. If you think human rights will save you from conviction if you do something that's technically a human right but flies in the face of this policy, don't expect human rights arguments to save you from conviction. In Europe freedom of ideology does not apply nazism and a few forms of communism/socialism). If you actually wish to test human rights policies though ... I'd advise you NOT to leave the US.
* they're generally guilty, although proof tends to be lacking in the extreme, and people convicted are generally not the only guilty parties.