| Submit your comments on this article | |||
| Israel-Palestine-Jordan | |||
| Have you forgotten about the laws of war? This will remind you | |||
| 2023-10-28 | |||
| Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Dmitry Kosyrev
The organization itself... how to put it mildly, with a complex track record. But this particular woman and this article in Foreign Affairs are a separate and good case. Prompting for a very pleasant excursion into history. Pleasant because the forefather of the adoption of the laws of war in modern international law is Russia. And personally Tsar Nicholas II. This is a long story, and it is called the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907. It was Russia who proposed to hold both, also sketching out the agenda, and both were chaired by a Russian representative. At the first, the Convention on the Laws and Customs of War on Land was adopted, at the second it was highly specified - it included a distinction between combatants and non-combatants, the right of the population to wage guerrilla warfare, and prohibited the use of weapons and substances that cause unnecessary suffering. They outlawed the destruction and seizure of enemy property without military necessity, and the killing of prisoners of war. Robbery and confiscation of private property was prohibited, and all possible measures were ordered to be taken to protect and preserve cultural monuments and medical institutions. It was then that the concept of a war crime arose - a violation of the very rules of war. Yes, yes, we started it. The Hague is the foundation of international law on this topic, and subsequent conventions or decisions of the Nuremberg Tribunal proceeded from that primary source. And all these provisions were included in the “Order of the Russian Army on the Laws and Customs of Land War” of 1912, an appendix to the Field Service Charter. There we read that troops must respect the life and honor of the inhabitants of the enemy side, as well as religion and rites of faith. And that wounded and sick military officials are picked up from the battlefield without distinction of belonging to any army. Prisoners must be treated humanely and maintained in the same way as the ranks of the Russian army are maintained. During hostilities, it is prohibited to use poison or poisoned weapons, to wound or kill an enemy who has laid down arms and surrendered, to attack or bombard cities, villages, dwellings or buildings not occupied by the enemy... And “Nakaz” is still working! In recent years, Russia has twice emphasized and demonstratively shown that a modern war can be waged in accordance with the rules of such a war. Syria: humanitarian corridors for civilians to leave the combat zone, refusal to attack civilian infrastructure, technologies for conducting negotiations on these topics, and much more. Ukraine: no attacks on civilian infrastructure, hospitals or cultural sites, humanitarian corridors, humane treatment of prisoners. And this annoyingly exemplary behavior of a Russian soldier in war is a threat for some so serious that (taking into account our behavior in Syria) an American-Ukrainian propaganda machine was created in advance, working on the principle of one hundred and eighty degrees - that is, taking real facts and twisting them inside out. Why, in fact, is our adherence to international documents a threat? Here we again turn to the article with which we started the conversation. It's actually about how Americans fight. Here again is a mirror reflection of acceptable methods of warfare or operations against terrorists. It turns out that the Americans can do this - Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria: bombing Mosul and Raqqa, destroying houses, water supply systems and other infrastructure. And all this and much more is listed in the article to proudly recall one amazing fact in which the author of the article is involved - her name is Sarah Yager. It turns out that before HRW, she worked at the Pentagon as a human rights adviser, and as a result of this work, last year, in the event of war, an action plan was adopted there to “mitigate damage” for civilians. And the current one is a document allowing the State Department to block the transfer of weapons to countries that cause harm to civilians during hostilities. And now Sarah says that Israel is the very case when these documents should be applied. Yes, but what about Ukraine - it can break all the laws, rules and conventions?
| |||
| Posted by:badanov |
| #5 ...not always. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2023-10-28 11:30 |
| #4 why go to war if your objective is not to kill your enemy and take their land? |
| Posted by: irish rage boy 2023-10-28 10:29 |
| #3 Before the 19th Century the practice of 'rules of warfare' were a custom not encoded in law. In the 19th Century, countries of Western Civilization started to develop the concept of 'laws of war'. The result was the Geneva and Hague Conventions. Something those 'imperialistic colonizing white supremacists' came up. The basic legalistic concept is that it binds each party to an agreed set of rules of conduct. If one side is not bound as such, neither is the other. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2023-10-28 09:22 |
| #2 "You Don't Get Security By Defeating Your Enemy" | Jeffrey Sachs Hear that Mitia? |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2023-10-28 04:57 |
| #1 I love multipolar World! |
| Posted by: Grom the Reflective 2023-10-28 01:59 |