Laws of Armed conflict

Laws of Armed Conflict (LAOC)

4.2.6 Law of Armed Conflict - Google Slides

From just war - asymmetrical war is never just. Can be seen as occupation / invasion / imperialistic dominance

must ask if these are aligned with international laws

 

THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT IS: The body of international law that regulates behaviour during armed conflict (jus in bello)

THE LAW OF ARMED CONFLICT IS NOT: The body of international law that regulates when it is lawful to be involved in an armed conflict (jus ad bellum) 

 

 

Conduct in war: - May 5#

Geneva convention that look at rules of engagement - laws of armed conflict

  • Balance of military necessity and humanity
  • Distinction of civilian objects and military objectives
    • Cannot target livestock / infrastructure
    • Real life must be careful of propagandized or is objectively true / from a place of international law
      • Be careful of false equivalency, where news may normalize horrific acts of war
         
    • those that are injured are no longer considered combatants
    • Military objectives:
      • fighters and persons participating directly in hostiles
      • sometimes may justify because ‘an armed combatant is hidden’ but why harm everyone to target a few. (school shooter bombing example)
         
  • Reciprocity is prohibited
    • tit for tat is not legal
  • All parties to conflict - state or nonstate - are treated equally in their rights and obligations
    • no country has more rights, is more sovereign, doesn't have right to respond militarily, to only protect own sovereignty while weaking others' sovereignty

 

Why learn:

  • Every fighter has a duty to know LOAC and ensure that LOAC is respected and obeyed
  • Decisions made in heat of moment must respect LOAC

Reasons to comply:

  • Principled
    • Value for human life to protect innocent
    • Morals
  • Pragmatic
    • Military Effectiveness
      • ruining civilian infrastrcture often does not result in positive win, not actual diplomacy or reconciliation - more likely to engage in conflict again
      • targeting schools / hospitals, unlikely to cease, likely for violence to continue
      • Worse in short and long term (using lots of resources short term) 
    • Reciprocity
      • putting own civilians at risk
    • Reputation (Foreign and domestic)
      • legitimacy is everything - would lose everything 
        • (build alliances, trade, security umbrella)
        • may be seen as an unreasonable state actor
    • Criminal Liability
      • War crimes can catch up, they can later be tried for the crimes.
      • Soldiers or civilians could be tried 
      • Nuremburg trials

Task: Use previous case study to analyze how either or both sides of conflict have broken LOAC 

list out principled and pragmatic reasons on why they were wrong