[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
War, War, War See other War, War, War Articles Title: Geneva Conventions at 60: Still Valid? GENEVA -- Around the end of the 16th century, the phrase "All's fair in love and war" began to be used in various forms. While love still does not have a universally accepted rule book, war has been given laws, particularly the Geneva Conventions, which are turning 60-years-old. "The Geneva conventions are the bedrock of international humanitarian law," said Knut Dormann, the head of the legal division at the International Committee of the Red Cross. While rules of war had come into existence before August 12, 1949, the events of World War II, leaving around 70 million people dead in its wake, most of them civilians, caused a fundamental change in world leaders' outlook. While no treaty could enforce peace, the way in which war was waged would be limited. The conventions that existed in the lead-up to the war, focused almost entirely on wounded soldiers and prisoners of war. For the first time, it became clear how thoroughly civilians needed protection and rules that would outlaw harming them. "Look at the human suffering of war," said Dormann, listing atrocities like rape, murder, torture and forced disappearances. "The law says these are prohibited. If only the rules were respected, it would make a tremendous difference for the people." Nicolas Vercken, with Oxfam France, an advocacy group, says the real work in conflict is in applying the principles set out in the Geneva Conventions. "From our perspective the main issue is making international law effective on the ground," he said. "The most basic rule is you cannot hurt civilians," Vercken said. "This is essential, the lowest minimum standard everyone has to apply everywhere." The nature of war has shifted so that soldiers no longer bear the brunt of battle. That role, now falls on civilians, as observers in Sri Lanka, the Democratic Republic of the Congo and the Middle East are quick to draw attention to. At the same time, fighters have also entered into a new phase, as armed conflict less and less features two armies fighting each other and is more about guerrilla movements. The watershed moment, observers say, was the September 11th attacks in the United States, which throw international law into a tailspin. "The 'war on terror' has really undermined the conventions and their applicability," said Vercken. A lead global power, and a major democracy, was questioning the relevance of international law, and in the eyes of most experts, violating it, using torture and renditions, along with military tactics that brought into question the foundation of international law. Moreover, groups like Al-Qaeda, which proudly attacked civilians, were hard to define within the narrow confines of international law. They were not an army and not the liberation groups of the mid and late 20th century. Nonetheless, Barack Obama's announcement as his first act as U.S. president, that he would close the prison Guantanamo Bay, and a sense that military leaders want to further reduce civilian casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan have encouraged activists at Oxfam and other groups. Dormann, an optimist, points out that even at the worst of times, international law was never totally thrown out the window, in spite of some rhetoric politicians threw around. "No state will ever say that it is OK to kill civilians," he pointed out. "Rather, they will try to justify it." This could include alleging civilians were not innocent, or alleging that the military advantages gained excused the deaths of the non combatants. The implementation, not the letter of the law, Dormann says, is problematic. In the past decade, in fact, two new major instruments have been added to the canon of the law: the bans on landmines and cluster bombs which have gathered the signature of many states. With the International Criminal Court in The Hague now functioning, and giving alleged criminals and victims their day at trial, Dormann says there is a chance for institutional justice, and not simply a code book with no system to follow it. However, fair administration of that justice will determine the longstanding legitimacy of the court. Already, grumblings from certain parts of the globe speak about "selective justice" that sees weak and defeated leaders being tried, while others walk free.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: X-15 (#0)
imo, this has always been so.
It is the duty of the patriot to protect his country from its government~Thomas Paine
Ya think? Dear God.
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||