From: Blunderov (squooker@mweb.co.za)
Date: Tue May 18 2004 - 11:29:25 MDT
Jonathan Davis
Sent: 18 May 2004 06:07 PM
I am not sure if they are or are not signatories, but regardless the US is
compelled to obey the rules as long as the other side does too - signatory
or not.
I think the quaintness and obsolescence is brought about by the fact that
interstate warfare is now less common whilst a whole new type of asymmetric
fighting is emergent.
The Geneva conventions by their very nature are agreements between countries
(which seldom fight anymore) whereas modern wars are increasingly civil or
guerrilla type wars. Here you often have a non-state actor against a
state-actor with the state-actor showing restraint in the face of
non-restraint where such restraint not always rational.
It is for this reason that I think they may need to be updated to reflect
modern reality and modern warfare. I fully support the Geneva Conventions
and similar efforts to attenuate the horror of war. But if they are struck
irrelevant and abandoned because off change circumstances it would be a
greater pity than if they were to be realistically reappraised and their
place in modern war assured. One immediate reform could be to make explicit
its moral authority vis-à-vis Islamic rules of war that accord with the
conventions.
[Blunderov] There is a very nice historical overview of the rules of war at
http://gi.grolier.com/wwii/wwii_warcrimes.html
<excerpt>
There are at least four compelling reasons for the existence of rules of
war. First, every belligerent has a selfish interest not to provoke
reprisals from the enemy, and not to provoke neutrals to join the enemy.
Second, wars, however bitter, are to usher in a new era of peace. Hence,
reconciliation should not be made too difficult: yesterday's enemy may be
needed as a friend tomorrow. Third, nations do not wish their armed forces
to "get out of hand; for, as history has also shown, they may otherwise
easily turn against their own government and conationals. Last, but not
least, war has always been decried, for humanitarian and many other reasons;
if wars cannot be prevented their cruelty and destructiveness must at least
be limited, for the purpose of sheer self-preservation. For all of these
reasons, the law of war is the oldest and one of the most important parts of
international law. Especially since the Middle Ages, the rules of war--as
well as the conditions under which it is lawful to start a war--have greatly
occupied the attention of governments, jurists, and, indeed, military men...
Since the rules of war are part of international law, no nation can
one-sidedly change them. No legislature or government or general can decree
that something which is a war crime is permitted to their own forces...
</excerpt>
Best Regards
PS. Completely unrelated but my vote for quote of the day goes to Rhinoceros
for the phrase 'cremation is still under fire'. ROFL.
--- To unsubscribe from the Virus list go to <http://www.lucifer.com/cgi-bin/virus-l>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 18 2004 - 11:30:10 MDT