Today brings us a guest post by Romulus Wolf, looking at the confusion between the Geneva and Hague Conventions, and the confusion over which treaties to which we (United States) are signatories. It does make a difference, especially with so many, ah, enthusiastic voices this, that, and the other to be a war crime. So, enjoy the food for thought brought to you by our much appreciated guest author.
The Hague and Geneva Conventions, universally agreed upon treaties that govern much of the laws of war… Well, not so much, at least where “Universally agreed upon” is concerned.
Ratification of individual provisions is often spottier than one might expect.
And not always in the ways one might expect either. After all, it’s one thing for the landlocked nation of Chad to simply not bother to enter into 1907 Hague Convention VII. Chances are that they’re not going to be converting many merchant ships into warships. It’s another thing entirely when a major naval power not only doesn’t ratify, but actively objects to that particular convention, on the grounds that t banning such conversions would put something of a crimp in their ability to flood the seas with (legally authorized) commerce raiders1. For the moment, the US is the only serious naval power that ISN’T party. All because we took the possibility of using private warships seriously as late as 1907(2). While the US is the only major naval power of the 20th and 21st centuries to not be party, not all of our company among those not party to the treaty consists of landlocked nations such as Chad, Nepal, or Mongolia. We also share company with Australia, Canada, New Zealand, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, the Philippines, and South Korea, all of whom have at least some potential for benefit from merchant ship conversions. Not that party to this treaty ever stopped anyone, as both Britain and Germany used merchant ship conversions as Q-ships in WWI and WWII.
Ah, but surely, as I have been informed by countless internet denizens, the ban on “Dum-dum” or expanding bullets in the Geneva convention has universal, or near universal adoptions? Well, to start with, that one is part of the 1899 Hague Conventions, Declaration IV,3, and it turns out that the adoption of this one is even more spotty. The map isn’t too dissimilar here, albeit with the very notable disappearance of all of Latin America – with the exception of Mexico – from the list of parties. For the most part, concerns about expanding bullets would seem to be a Eurasian phenomenon. The Americas, Africa, and Oceania are mostly not party to this particular treaty. So, unless you’re getting involved in a land war in Eurasia, don’t expect the bullets to be non-expanding – or, more accurately, don’t expect the laws of war to be the reasoning for non-expanding bullets, as most nations use standard ball ammo, regardless of whether they’re party to the treaty or not3.
Now, the Geneva Conventions do have rather better adoption – everyone worth noting is party to Geneva Conventions I-IV, but the additional protocols do get interesting. Additional protocol I, which does a lot, supposedly relating to the protection of victims of international conflict, has very broad adoption, but the list of non-parties is certainly quite interesting. The US, Iran, and Pakistan have signed, but not ratified it (and signature without ratification has no force), and notable non members include Turkey, Israel, India, and Indonesia. It’s sometimes easy to speculate why a nation may or may not have entered into a treaty when the treaty only limits a single or small number of actions, but with the Additional Protocols I and II of the Geneva convention, there is so much going on that figuring out anyone’s reasoning about why is probably fruitless – although it does bear noting that much of Additional Protocols I and II is duplicates of something already a part of the laws and customs of war, such as the prohibition on Perfidy (redundantly even within the protocol). The highlights of what Additional Protocol I does include bans on “works and installations containing dangerous forces”, a ban on “methods or means of warfare” that will cause “widespread, long-term and severe damage to the natural environment”, a ban on conscription of those under the age of 15, and ensuring that mercenaries are not given protection as legal combatants (note, the definition used is quite narrow – for example, citizens of belligerents, and residents of territories under the control of belligerents are not covered by the definition of mercenary, nor is anyone not taking direct part in hostilities).
Of course, if we leave the realm of the Hague and Geneva Conventions for other treaties, things tend to be even spottier. Earlier this year, there were people getting the vapors over the fact that both Ukraine and Russia were using cluster munitions – not in the specifics of how they were used, which absolutely could have been war crimes (and probably were in at least some instances), but the fact that they were used at all – when neither nation is party to the treaty. In fact, given how spotty adoption of that particular treaty is, chances are that if a war starts up somewhere, at least one of the belligerents will not be party to the treaty.
So, why are international treaties on the subject of war lacking in universal adoption? How can nations such as the US, opt out of major chunks of both the Hague and Geneva Conventions? Well, to oversimplify how international law works, think of nations as individuals with Dissociative identity disorder (and frequently a good chunk of the rest of the DSM for flavor), who can only be bound by rules that they agree to, and each individual personality gets a vote. You can persuade, guilt trip, bribe, and use economic coercion, but in the end, some treaties simply won’t get signed without violence, or a credible threat of it 4. They can also sign with reservations, . And even when everyone involved is party to the treaty consider that in 1914 Germany, Britain, France, Russia, Austria-Hungary, and Turkey were party to 1899 Hague Declaration IV,II, which banned projectiles “the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases”, and we all know how THAT turned out. So, for anything beyond the basics, and especially for more technical items, take claims of it being illegal under international law with a grain of salt, especially if they can’t tell you which treaty5 it came from, and definitely have low expectations where actually following the treaty is concerned.
Sources:
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/Treaty.xsp?documentId=D9E6B6264D7723C3C12563CD002D6CE4&action=openDocument