UN The Geneva Conventions — the world’s rules of war — are 75 years old and ignored nearly everywhere - The Geneva Conventions, which have been adopted by nearly all the world’s countries since they were finalized on Aug. 12, 1949, are back on their heels as armed militia groups and national forces regularly disregard the rules of war.

At its 75th anniversary, the world’s best-known rulebook on the protection of civilians, detainees and wounded soldiers in war has been widely ignored — from Gaza to Syria to Ukraine to Myanmar and beyond — and its defenders are calling for a new commitment to international humanitarian law.

The Geneva Conventions, which have been adopted by nearly all the world’s countries since they were finalized on Aug. 12, 1949, are back on their heels as armed militia groups and national forces regularly disregard the rules of war.

“International humanitarian law is under strain, disregarded, undermined to justify violence,” President Mirjana Spoljaric of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which oversees the conventions, said Monday.

“The world must recommit to this robust protective framework for armed conflict, one that follows the premise of protecting life instead of justifying death,” she said.

The conventions, with roots dating to the 19th century, aims to set rules around the conduct of war: They ban torture and sexual violence, require humane treatment of detainees and mandate searches for missing persons.

The conventions “reflect a global consensus that all wars have limits,” Spoljaric told reporters at ICRC headquarters in Geneva. “The dehumanization of both enemy fighters and civilian populations is a path to ruin and disaster.”

The Red Cross says the conventions are needed now more than ever: It has counted more than 120 active conflicts around the world, a six-fold increase from the half-century anniversary in 1999.

These days, many countries and combatants exploit loopholes in international humanitarian law or interpret it as they see fit. Hospitals, schools and ambulances have come under fire, aid workers and civilians are killed, and countries refuse access to detainees.

Article Link

Archive

 

[MadStan]

Nuclear saturation bombardment and manufactured biological agents are the only two currently available strategic weapon capabilities that should be proscribed by treaty. Tactical nukes are not as scary as people think and chemical weapons are not worth the effort.

Tactical nukes are not as scary as people think? Could I ask you to clarify that?

 

[The Dude]

A big part of the reason the US never had a definitive victory in Vietnam or GWoT was because on top of the rules laid out by the Hague and Geneva Conventions, the fucking bureaucrats in the government heaped on even more bullshit rules that the troops had to follow, many of them horribly contradictory, to the point that it made victory essentially impossible. I've known vets from both Vietnam and GWoT who would bitch at length about how the rules they were forced to follow seemed to be designed specifically to ensure that the US would lose.

Another major factor was the media being allowed to publish news stories that were tailored to make the US Military look like villains and poison the minds of the people back in the US against the military and the war. If we had the politicians and media that we have today back in the 40s the Allies would have lost WWII.

 

[Attempt Turd]

I wonder which country ignores the genova convention the most. Is it the one that used agent orange, depleted uranium in two conflicts, napalm, nuclear weapons, torture, extraordinary rendition, destroyed civilian infrastructure, used cluster mines, performed experiments on civilians, prisoners and POW, to name just a few things...

Which of those are against the Geneva and Hauge covention?

As long as they only shot paratroopers and not pilots bailing out they should be fine.

What experiments were performed?

 

[Smaug's Smokey Hole 2]

What experiments were performed?

The Tuskegee experiment where they put black people in airplanes and let them fly around a war zone.

 

[The Lawgiver]

The Tuskegee experiment where they put black people in airplanes and let them fly around a war zone.

Wasn't the actual experiment them giving the airmen fucked up diseases on the down low to see if it made them better or am I getting weird glowie experiments wrong/mixing them up?

 

[Attempt Turd]

Wasn't the actual experiment them giving the airmen fucked up diseases on the down low to see if it made them better or am I getting weird glowie experiments wrong/mixing them up?

Don't ruin the joke. But too late now. The Tuskagee experiment was doctors purposely not treating people with STDs and just observing the progression of the disease chooding not to cure it.


Has fuck all to do with the Hague or Geneva conventions.

 

[Ishtar]

Beyond the law being meaningless without the sword, there is also the fact most modern conflicts don’t involve soldiers in formal uniforms under internationally recognized states obeying a conventional chain of command.

Rebels, insurgents, paramilitaries, sometimes just bandits. Guerillas and all.

International law on war was really put into place in the late 19th century-when most conflicts were between recognized states.

This is a very different matter when you have hundreds of insurgent and rebel groups or paramilitary bodies without a shred of international recognition. States agree to these laws and agree to enforce them and to maintain standards of conduct for their soldiers.

Rebels and insurgents historically as noted could just be executed on sight as they were not legitimate combatants. (That is the state they were fighting didn’t recognize them, not what they themselves felt or believed).

What are you going to do? Demand the SPLF or the LRA or whatever African acronym militia be treated as actual soldiers?

Of course, if you do that-if the child raping guerilla in the Congo by virtue of fighting is seen as a lawful combatant, that means that whatever organization he is apart of is either a state with international recognition or is seen as becoming one. Which of course no government fighting said insurgent would accept.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Which of those are against the Geneva and Hauge covention?

As long as they only shot paratroopers and not pilots bailing out they should be fine.

What experiments were performed?

Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are. No cluster munitions allowed. No DU allowed. You can't shoot a combatant in civilian clothes in civilian marked vehicles. You're not allowed to target civilian infrastructure.

Experiments performed were, and still are, numerous. From giving people LSD against their will, to trialling untested medication on inmates and unwitting participants (Tuskegee is just one. They gave the people STD's). Giving pregnant women and young children irradiated milk without their knowledge or consent.

Any of and all of Mengeles experiments never ended in 1944. His whole crew were rescued during Paperclip and allowed to continue their experiments. The most famous of all was MK Ultra.

 

[MadStan]

World War 1 was the reason we had the Convention, from a view of war as hell, WW1 set the standard. I'd argue the suffering expelled by chemical weapons exceeds that of any conventional weapon, and possibly nuclear if taken to it's full result.

It appears to be an irony to conduct war under conditions, but it really is true, if we allow "anything goes" for victory the suffering we can inflict on each other is mind boggling. I still have a gripe that depleted uranium was scattered all across Iraq and there is a generation of disfigured children as a result.

If we abandon the convention we unleash suffering in volumes. I think it should remain and be followed by all. I certainly don't want to see a 9/11 style attack ever again, but more so, seeing a biological agent used would be far worse (depending on what agent was selected). And if Russia was to be permitted to use chemical agents over Ukraine, they could do so with horrific results.

Some have spoken and downplayed the use of tactical nukes as "not being so bad" and I'm quite certain that is folly.

 

[DoomsdayElite]

Tactical nukes are not as scary as people think and chemical weapons are not worth the effort.

I'm sure anyone caught in the fireball or close enough to it to suffer radiation burns would probably disagree, strongly.

 

[Shark Senpai]

Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are. No cluster munitions allowed. No DU allowed. You can't shoot a combatant in civilian clothes in civilian marked vehicles. You're not allowed to target civilian infrastructure.

Some correct but mostly incorrect.

Chemical, biological, and nuclear

The Geneva protocol bans Chemical and bacteriological (biological) weapons with the intent to kill in war, iirc the argument for Agent Orange was it was a defoliant not a weapon used against people. nuclear isn't covered by Geneva but a separate treaty was made very recently to try to ban it, and DU isn't covered either way.

No cluster munitions allowed.

They are 100% allowed under Hague and Geneva, it is a separate international treaty, the Convention on Cluster Munitions, that restricts signatories from using them when the bomblets are below a certain size. The US and Israel are not signatories to this treaty though the US has policy against acquiring any new cluster munitions with a dud rate above something like 1%.

Cant shoot a combatant in civilian clothes in civilian marked vehicle.

There's nothing about this in the Geneva convention and a combatant wearing civilian clothes in occupied territory (without a symbol visible from a distance differentiating them from civilians) is expressly not provided the protections of the convention either especially as it pertains to POWs. The marking of the vehicle doesn't make any difference in this regard either I believe.

You're not allowed to target civilian infrastructure.

This is only if there is no military benefit to targetting said infrastructure, which is why you will see militaries arguing for the military relevance of targets such as power stations and railways when bombing a city.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

Agent Orange was it was a defoliant not a weapon used against people

And napalm?

This is only if there is no military benefit to targetting

A civilian structure is by definition, one of no military benefit. IIRC blowing up farms to starve soldiers doesn't fly, though I am happy to be corrected.

There's nothing about this in the Geneva convention

I thought it was? The idea that shooting at civilians is bad. Unless it's part of the hague?

Either way, the yanks break, or don't join up to, treaties, then try and play the moral high-ground of being good at war. Anyone can be good if they cheat.

 

[Shark Senpai]

And napalm?

A civilian structure is by definition, one of no military benefit. IIRC blowing up farms to starve soldiers doesn't fly, though I am happy to be corrected.

I thought it was? The idea that shooting at civilians is bad. Unless it's part of the hague?

Either way, the yanks break, or don't join up to, treaties, then try and play the moral high-ground of being good at war. Anyone can be good if they cheat.

Napalm, along with other incendiary weapons, was only banned in its use against civilians by the UN in 1980. Incendiary weapons are perfectly legal against military targets entirely I believe (as long as there are no civilians in the area that could be impacted as well), though the issues with handling incendiary weapons and their optics in the news have made them distasteful in the West and Russia moved on to thermobarics to achieve similar effects. The only incendiary I can think of that is somewhat banned against military targets is deliberately using white phosphorus against personnel, though it's permitted to use in war to generate smoke.

Shooting civilians is bad and not allowed, but a combatant by definition is not a civilian, they are an armed opponent and only provided protections when wearing civilian clothes if wearing distinctive symbols or operating in unoccupied territory. IE, a bunch of guys with guns shooting at advancing enemy soldiers are protected under the convention, them waiting until the soldiers have turned their backs on them is not.

What is civilian and what is not is something governments play around with to get their desired outcome when it comes to war. You can argue a farm has no military use and I would agree, but you see the British make the argument in WW1 that because soldiers consume food and food would go to the German military the blockading of all foodstuffs going to Germany was justified and not against the convention. With regards to the US firebombing and nuclear bombing Japan the argument was that their artisanal aspect of their manufacturing made their military production too close to the city for the targetting of military targets distinct from civilian ones, or the city itself playing a large role in supporting the Japanese navy.

Not necessarily disagreeing with you, just find people often make out the laws of war to be much more expansive than they are or to cover things they dont as far as I can tell.

Edit: Looked it up and apparently white phosphorus isn't even banned by treaty from usage against personnel, it's just a US choice for optics reasons.

 

[neverendingmidi]

And napalm?

A civilian structure is by definition, one of no military benefit. IIRC blowing up farms to starve soldiers doesn't fly, though I am happy to be corrected.

I thought it was? The idea that shooting at civilians is bad. Unless it's part of the hague?

Either way, the yanks break, or don't join up to, treaties, then try and play the moral high-ground of being good at war. Anyone can be good if they cheat.

Civilians can’t be combatants. If a combatant is wearing civilian clothes while engaging in warfare they are not classified as legal combatants and can be killed on sight.

 

[Whoopsie Daisy]

@Shark Senpai and @neverendingmidi

I appreciate the responses, corrections and information. Thank you.

 

[Blacklight]

I'd honestly care more if the Red Cross wasn't a massive sperg of a organization getting tilted at video games for daring to use the red cross to designate health kits, or suing Hasbro because a pony with a nurse hat from My Little Pony had, you guessed it, a red cross on her hat.

Don't you fuckers have better things to do then harass people just living their own lives? I'm pretty sure everyone who witnesses a red cross in media isn't going to suddenly assume the worst about the organization.

 

[Snekposter]

I'd honestly care more if the Red Cross wasn't a massive sperg of a organization getting tilted at video games for daring to use the red cross to designate health kits, or suing Hasbro because a pony with a nurse hat from My Little Pony had, you guessed it, a red cross on her hat.

Don't you fuckers have better things to do then harass people just living their own lives? I'm pretty sure everyone who witnesses a red cross in media isn't going to suddenly assume the worst about the organization.

Technically its a trademark of theirs, but under US law it lapsed due to non-defense of it. That's a reason the rest of the world uses green crosses on medical supplies instead of red.

 

[Attempt Turd]

Chemical, biological and nuclear weapons are. No cluster munitions allowed. No DU allowed. You can't shoot a combatant in civilian clothes in civilian marked vehicles. You're not allowed to target civilian infrastructure.

Experiments performed were, and still are, numerous. From giving people LSD against their will, to trialling untested medication on inmates and unwitting participants (Tuskegee is just one. They gave the people STD's). Giving pregnant women and young children irradiated milk without their knowledge or consent.

Any of and all of Mengeles experiments never ended in 1944. His whole crew were rescued during Paperclip and allowed to continue their experiments. The most famous of all was MK Ultra.

You are a dumbass who have never so much as glanced at the conventions. Go and read them.

The cluster bomb treaty was signed in 2008 and it was neither signed by Russia or the United States.

https://www.clusterconvention.org/states-parties/

 

[TowinKarz]

You are a dumbass who have never so much as glanced at the conventions. Go and read them.

The cluster bomb treaty was signed in 2008 and it was neither signed by Russia or the United States.

https://www.clusterconvention.org/states-parties/

Also, since we're going this way, the much-vaunted land mine ban/treaty is also not signed by the US, who would otherwise have had to de-mine the Korean DMZ.

Something they either don't want to do, can't do safely, or can't do without violating terms of the ongoing ceasefire, or all of the above.

 

[⠠⠠⠅⠑⠋⠋⠁⠇⠎ ⠠⠠⠊⠎ ⠠⠠⠁ ⠠⠠⠋⠁⠛]

When fighting for your home and family, having some gay laws written by bureaucrats is not a top priority.

Unless it happened in Ukraine, it seems to be entirely anti Israel reference with only the bottom stapled in for a "both sides", which shows how bullshit it is since the UN and other globohomo organisations never call out Palestinians for this shit and behave as if Israel's actions have no context.

lol cry more kike. You filthy jews have done nothing but attack schools and hospitals. The only valid criticism of Hamas is that they don't rocket you filthy yids when your rescue helicopters land, like you babyrapers do little Palestinian girls in ambulances.