Crimes of War: What the Public Should Know
The term war crime brings to mind a combination of horrific images, concentration camps, ethnic cleansing, execution of prisoners, rape, and bombardment of cities. These images correspond in many ways to the legal definitions of the term, but international law draws lines that do not in all ways match our sense of the most awful behavior.
War crimes are those violations of the laws of war, or international humanitarian law (IHL) that deserve individual criminal responsibility. While limitations on the conduct of armed conflict date back at least to the Chinese warrior Sun Tzu (sixth century B.C.), the ancient Greeks were among the first to regard such prohibitions as law. The notion of “war crimes” appeared more fully in the Hindu code of Manu (around 200 B.C.), and eventually made its way into Roman and European law. The first true trial for war crimes is generally considered to be that of Peter von Hagenbach, who was tried in 1474 in Austria and sentenced to death for wartime atrocities. (Gutman and Rieff pg. 374)
By World War I, States had accepted that certain violations of the laws of war, much of which had been defined in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, were crimes. The 1945 Charter of the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg defined war crimes as “violations of the laws or customs of war,” including murder, ill-treatment, or deportation of civilians in occupied territory; murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war; killing of hostages; raiding of public or private property; meaningless destruction of towns; and devastation not militarily necessary. (Gutman and Rieff pg. 374)
The 1949 Geneva Conventions marked the first inclusion in a humanitarian law treaty of a set of war crimes and the grave breaches of the conventions. Each of the four Geneva Conventions (on wounded and sick on land, wounded and sick at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians) contains its own list of grave breaches. The list in its entirety is: willful killing; torture or inhuman treatment (including medical experiments); willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health; extensive destruction and misuse of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully; forcing a prisoner of war or civilian to serve in the forces o...
... middle of paper ...
...e has been defined over and over by various war conventions over time. Sometimes the laws of war are confusing, because of loopholes that can be used to avoid actually committing these crime. International humanitarian law does not address the causes or beginnings of a particular war, or which side was right and which side was wrong, it can only address the way it was fought. So it is possible for an aggressive country to wage war and be in complete accordance with the Geneva Conventions, and for a defender to commit war crimes even in self defense. The fact that these laws cannot answer every question and determine every moral dilemma does not mean it has no answers and no protection against barbarism and pure evil. The types of war crimes that were touched on, as sad and heartbreaking as they might be are unavoidable.
Works Cited
Gutman, Roy and Rieff, David. Crimes of War: What The Public Should Know. New
York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1999
Jones Adams. “Care study: Genocide in Rwanda, 1994.” http://www.fatherryan.org./holocaust/rwanda. “Apartheid South Africa.” www.rebirth.co.za/apartheid.htm
www.cs.students.stanford.edu/~cale/cs201/apartheid.hist.html
In 1943, under Soviet leadership the first war crime trials were conducted, however the first trial to involve the Allied powers was the Nuremburg International Military Tribunal in 1945 . The International Military Tribunal (IMT), set out to prosecute 22 defendants comprising largely of the administration arm of the Third Reich . The American's initially wished to indict whole Nazi organisations for their crimes. This focus was soon altered to determine the accountability of particular individuals. The accused were tried under at least two of the following four headings devised for indictment. The first count was the "formulation of a common plan or conspiracy"; two, "crimes against peace (planning and waging a war of aggression
In a war with no rules, it had been entirely ethical for extreme measures to have been taken. However, it was later shown in the Geneva Convention that it was unethical to attack enemy civilians. Even in earlier conventions, it had been shown to be illegal and immoral. In the instance of Hague IV, it had been shown and ratified by congress that attacking defenseless citizens or persons was wrong (2). This was not the only treaty or convention, as there had been multiple others previously. Therefore, it was unscrupulous and hypocritical for the United States to drop atomic bombs on the
"War Crimes in Bosnia-Herzegovina." A Helsinki Watch Report: A Division of Human Rights Watch (1992): 1-357. Print.
Bloxham, Donald. Genocide on Trial: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory: War Crimes Trials and the Formation of Holocaust History and Memory. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Greenfield, Daniel M. "Crime of Complicity in Genocide: How the International Criminal Tribunals for Rwanda and Yugoslavia Got It Wrong, and Why It Matters." The Journal of Criminal Law and Criminology 98.3 (2008): 921-24. HeinOnline. Web. 18 Apr. 2011.
Back some couple centuries ago, genocide committed by states was seen as heroic, as they were allowed to commit such an atrocity in pursuit of building a larger empire (Lecture 9/18). Keep in mind, that the term “genocide” had not been officially defined by that time, thus not containing the same meaning as it does today. Instead of being seen as evil, states that committed genocide were seen as heroic. In-fact, William Blackstone once said “the king can do no wrong is a necessary and fundamental principal of the English constitution (Lecture 9/18). It wasn’t until 1948, that the term “genocide” had been officially labeled as an official term and international crime. This was declared by the United Nations. One of the first trials to occur due to this was the Nuremberg Trials. In the Nuremberg Trials, twenty-four Nazi leaders and six Nazi organizations were convicted on four counts (Lecture 9/18). Of those twenty-four convicted, twelve of those people were sentenced to the death penalty for the crimes they had committed. Fast-forwarding to the 90’s, 120 countries had signed an international treaty that established the International Court. The International Court was established in 1998 as a result of the treaty and it gave the ICC the jurisdiction to prosecute any related Genocide crimes (History.com). Before I move on
Since its adoption by world leaders at the World Summit in 2005, the Responsibility to Protect (herein R2P) has been hailed as a major achievement in protecting populations from genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, or ethnic cleansing that would be committed by rulers. However, some see the R2P not as an effective human right instrument for civilians’ protection as it appears to be another tool for imperialism. My position in this essay is that I believe the R2P doctrine is a considerable achievement in world politics as it signals to potential perpetrators of mass atrocities that the world would no longer stand by, but will use force when necessary to protect innocent civilians. My position is articulated as follows. First, I will present the content/principles of the R2P doctrine . Second, I will point out the legal and moral argument underpinning the R2P, particularly its military aspect. Finally I will evoke some cases where the R2P has been critical in protecting populations from mass killing and show the shortcoming of those who argue against the R2P.
Morality is hard to define, and nearly impossible to agree upon; however, when it comes to war, there is a single “widely accepted moral theory” that reaches beyond borders . Just war theory, a doctrine originally attributed to the Christian theologian Saint Augustine , postulates that certain circumstances can lead to the justification of war, particularly if war is used to prevent even greater atrocities from occurring in the future. In its fundamental charter, the United Nations even articulates that every state has the right to go to war in its charter. In its broadest definition, just war theory declares that war may be justifiable if the states involved have both jus ad bellum, or just cause, and jus in bello, or just conduct in war;
The Nuremberg Trials was unethically run and violated the rights of the Nazi leaders who were convicted of committing crimes against humanity. Primarily because the Allies sought to use the trials as a way to remind the Germans, who won the war ‘again’. Thus making it similar to the Treaty of Versailles in (19- ), through implying this notion of “Victors’ Justice”. Nevertheless, the Allies did to an extent ‘try’ to make the tribunal as ethical as possible,
Prior to WWII any concept of international human rights would not have been able to be Kept. State sovereignty was still the norm leaders around the globe followed when it came to international relations. Of course that all changed after the atrocities committed by the Nazi regime in the Holocaust were exposed to the global community. After what had happen to the Jewish population in Europe at the hands of Hitler's army was reviled to the world, the international community realized that there was something to the whole idea of human rights that could quite possibly go beyond the recognizable sovereignty of independent states(Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007 p.4). December 17, 1942 was the date that leaders of the allied forces of WWII that included the US, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union came together and issued the first declaration that officially noted and acknowledged the mass murder of European Jews and settled to find a solution to prosecute those responsible for violence against civilians. Because of the type of acts that were committed some political leaders advocated for summary executions instead of trials (Collaway, Harrelson-Stephens, 2007). If you really think about it by doing this the allied forces would have been defeating the purpose of what they were trying to accomplish which was to make those responsible for the acts to pay but by giving them a f...
...th 2001). Roth argues that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new idea but was exercised by the US government in the 1970 after an aircraft hijacking. Also the war crime courts established after the end of World War II exercised international jurisdiction. In fact the Geneva Convention states that is a person regardless of their nationality should be brought before the court of any state in which that person has committed grave breaches of law and convention. Roth states that the concept of international jurisdiction is not a new one but that only in recent years have states been willing to act on universal jurisdiction and go after criminals of the international community regardless of their stating or power within the international community. Roth believes in the ability and authority of international organizations and institutions (Roth 2001).
Present legal principles are only credible if supported by strong rational and moral reasoning. The most influential moral justification for humanitarian intervention, is founded in natural law and just war theory, dating back to St Augustine. It is argued that there exist inherent and objective moral principles within humanity, irrespective of societal development. Therefore, according to just war theory, certain wars, in which such principles have been infringed upon are considered to be absolutely just (Jus ad Belum). This concept of legitimized wars in the name of justice, for example in self defense, can also be extended to humanitarian intervention. The breaking of fundamental human rights by states creates a situation whereby intervention in the defense of humanity is morally permissible. This view was expounded by philosopher Hugo Grotius, often described as a ‘father’ of modern international law, who supported the legality of humanitarian intervention in a situation “where a tyrant should inflict upon his subjects such treatment as no one is warranted in inflicting” (as cited in Chesterman
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]
A war crime is an unjust act of violence in which a military personnel violates the laws and acceptable behaviors of a war. Despite all the violence in a war, a soldier shooting another is not considered a war crime because it is not a violation to the laws and practices of a war, and it is considered just. A war crime is defined as a “violations [violation] of the laws and customs of war” (“War Crimes”), and are attacks “against civilian populations, prisoners of war, or in some cases enemy soldiers in the field” (Friedman). War crimes are typically committed with weapons or by uncommon, cruel, devastating military methods and are “…Committed primarily by military personnel” (Friedman). There are many different types of war crimes one can commit, including “murder, ill treatment…murder or ill treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns, or villages or devastation not justified by military necessity” (Friedman). Originally constructed as international law by the London Charter on August 8th, 1945 and further developed by the Hague Conventions of 1899, 1907 and the Nuremberg trials, war crimes are aggressive, unacceptable and unjust actions performed by military workforce that occur during a war.
10. Nabulsi, K. (n.d.). Crimesof War. Crimes of War – Jus ad Bellum / Jus in Bello. Retrieved December 10, 2013, from http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/