Combat Restraints

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Combat Restraints 201 COMBAT RESTRAINTS Howard S. Levie Combat restraints fall into two sepa­ must have recourse to custom. At the rate and distinct categories: (1) Re­ first successful codification in 1899, in straints on the use of particular weap­ order to leave no doubt in this respect, ons, such as the prohibitions on the use it was agreed that the preamble of the of dumdum bullets and poison gas; and convention being drafted should include (2) restraints on the actions that may be a provision (which has become known taken during the course of combat, such as the deMartens Clause, after its au­ as the prohibitions on the denial of thor) to the effect that apart from the quarter and on the shooting of civilian rules codified in the Regulations then noncombatants. The discussion which being adopted, "populations and follows will be concerned solely with belligerents remain under the protection this latter type of restraints on permis­ and empire of the principles of ihterna­ sible combat actions. tional law, as they result from the Most of these restraints, of both usages established between civilized categories, have their origin in custom nations, from the laws of humanity, and which has evolved over long periods of the requirements of the public con­ time. Many of these customs have been science. ,,5 codified, primarily at The Hague in There are, of course, a very large 18991 and 19072 and at Geneva in number of restraints on the actions that 19293 and 1949.4 However, they have may be taken during the course of not all been codified and, accordingly, combat. The four specific areas of com­ there are still some rules for which we bat restraints which will be discussed 202 are: (1) Military necessity; (2) reprisals; a century since Lieber formulated it in (3) protection of civilian noncombat­ 1863. The present U.S. Army Manual ants; and (4) protection of prisoners of states that military necessity "justifies war. those measures not forbidden by inter­ national law which are indispensable for Military Necessity. Inasmuch as this securing the complete submission of the doctrine is really an excuse for non­ enemy as soon as possible.,,9 (Emphasis compliance with combat restraints, its added.) It goes on to call attention to importance as an introduction to any the fact that "military necessity has discussion of such restraints is obvious. been generally rejected as a defense for Over 100 years ago, in 1863, Francis acts forbidden by the customary and Lieber defined this term as follows: conventional laws of war inasmuch as "Military necessity, as understood by the latter have been developed and modern civilized nations, consists in the framed with consideration for the con­ necessity of those measures which are cept of military necessity." The British indispensable for securing the ends of Army Manual is substantially to the 1 the war, and which are lawful according same effect. 0 to the modern law and usages of iwar.,,6 The subject of military necessity as a (Emphasis added.) Note that the last defense for illegal combat actions was clause requires that all actions taken considered in a number of war crimes because of military necessity must be cases after World War II. Attention has lawful actions. Contrary to the fore­ already been invited to the statement of going, The German War Book, published the International Military Tribunal. In early in this century, adopted the doc­ the case of United States v. Krupp, the trine of "Kriegsraeson," which is, in U.S. Military Tribunal said: effect, the doctrine that the end justifies In short, these rules and cus­ the means: "Humanitarian claims such toms. of warfare are designed as the protection of men and their specifically for all phases of war. goods can only be taken into considera­ They comprise the law for such tion insofar as the nature of the war permits.,,7 That this was the Nazi policy emergency. To claim that they can be wantonly-and at the sole during World War II is indicated by the discretion of anyone belligerent­ following statement found in the disregarded when he. considers his opinion of the International Military own situation to be critical means Tribunal: nothing more or less than to There can be no doubt that the majority of [the war crimes com­ abrogate the laws and customs of war entirely. 11 mitted during World War II by the Germans] arose from the Nazi Similarly, in United States v. List, an­ conception of "total war," with other U.S. Military Tribunal held: which the aggressive wars were Military necessity permits a bel­ waged. For in this conception of ligerent, subject to the laws of "total war," the moral ideas war, to apply any amount and underlying the conventions which kind of force to compel the com; seek to make war more humane plete submission of the enemy are no longer regarded as having with the least possible expendi­ force or validity. Everything is ture of time, life and money .... made subordinate to the over­ The rules of international law mastering dictates of war. 8 must be followed even if it results U.S. military doctrine has not in the loss of a battle or even a changed during the period of more than war. ,,12 (Emphasis added.) 203 As a practical matter, there are still having committed a war crime. (A num­ many who would agree with the impli­ ber of the individuals responsible for an cations of Bismarck's query: "What incident of this nature at Malme'dy, 15 head of government would allow his including SS Colonel Joachim Peiper, state and its citizenry to be conquered were convicted of war crimes and sen­ by another state just because of interna­ tenced to death. 1 6 While they were not tionallaw?,,13 While this may appear to executed, they spent 13 years in jail­ put the problem at the civilian political and in July 1976, Peiper while living in level and to remove responsibility from the South of France was assassinated by 1 the military commander, that is not revenge seekers. 7 The massacre of 1 always true. In any event, it must be Poles in the Katyn Woods 8 may have borne in mind that when a chief of state been of the same nature. So also was decides that military necessity requires Napoleon's massacre of more than the violation of affirmative rules of the 3,500 Arabs in Jaffa in 1799.19 ) law of armed conflict he will not there­ The law of armed conflict now spe­ after be held accountable alone: Those cifically prohibits the taking of civilians who pass down or execute his illegal as hostages. In another example, resis­ orders in this respect may likewise be tance groups in the rear are destroying adjudged war criminals. 14 It might also railroad tracks, blowing up trains, and be noted that, prior to the advent of the ambushing truck routes, thus critically nuclear age (and, perhaps, even since interfering with essential supply of that event), it was rare, indeed, that the troops in combat. The local commander illegal application of the rule of military orders the random taking of civilian necessity would make the difference hostages, some to be carried· in the between victory and defeat. trains and trucks being attacked, and Now let us attempt to apply the others to be executed at the ratio of 10 restrictions on the doctrine of military civilian hostages for each soldier of his necessity to specific factual situations. command who is killed by the irregu­ The law of armed conflict specifi­ lars. Is this order legal? No.- The rule cally protects prisoners of war from prohibiting the taking of civilian maltreatment. For example, an armored hostages was drafted and adopted with unit has just captured a large number of full knowledge of the existence of the prisoners of war. It receives urgent doctrine of military necessity and over­ orders to move forward to participate in rides it insofar as the use of hostages is ~ attack which is taking place some concerned. To take hostages in the miles away. What does it do with its manner and for the purposes indicated prisoners of war? It cannot take them would violate an affirmative rule of the along. It has no personnel available to law of armed conflict and the partici­ guard them and no facilities for sending pants in such an episode would be guilty 2 them to the rear. Does military neces­ of having committed a war crime. 0 sity permit the shooting of these POWs? No. The rule protecting them from Reprisals. Reprisals are acts of re­ maltreatment, including death, was taliation, in the form of conduct which drafted and adopted with full knowl­ would otherwise be illegal, committed edge of the existence of the doctrine of by one side in an armed conflict in military necessity and overrides it in­ order to put pressure on the other side sofar as the treatment of prisoners of to compel it to abandon a course of war is concerned. To shoot them would illegal action which it has been follow­ violate an affirmative rule of the law of ing and to return to compliance with armed conflict and the participants in the law of armed conflict. such an episode would be guilty of It has sometimes been argued that 204 reprisals lead, not to redress of the that reprisals may only be directed wrong previously committed, but to against enemy combatants and against new breaches. Nations have, in theory, enemy property not protected by a admitted this to be a fact by agreeing to specific rule of the law of armed con­ prohibit reprisals against various cate­ flict.
Recommended publications
  • The Effectiveness of Influence Activities in Information Warfare
    The Effectiveness of Influence Activities in Information Warfare Cassandra Lee Brooker A thesis submitted in fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Research School of Business May 2020 Thesis/Dissertation Sheet Surname : BROOKER Given Name/s : CASSANDRA LEE Abbreviation for degree : MRes Faculty : UNSW Canberra School : School of Business Thesis Title : The Effectiveness of Influence Activities in Information Warfare Abstract Rapid, globalised power shifts, technological advances, and increasingly interconnected, ungoverned communications networks have resulted in the rise of asymmetric grey zone threats. The lines are now blurred between political, civil, and military information environments. The rise of influence activities is the new ‘sharp power’ in information warfare (the iWar). Western democracies are already at war in the information domain and are being out-communicated by their adversaries. Building on the commentary surrounding this contemporary threat, and based on a review of the literature across three academic disciplines of: Systems Thinking, Influence, and Cognitive Theory; this study aimed to investigate solutions for improving Australia’s influence effectiveness in the iWar. This study asked how systems thinking can offer an effective approach to holistically understanding complex social systems in the iWar; as well as asking why understanding both successful influencing strategies and psychological cognitive theories is central to analysing those system behaviours. To answer the aim, a systems thinking methodology was employed to compare two contrasting case studies to determine their respective influencing effectiveness. The successful case system comprising the terrorist group ISIS was compared and contrasted with the unsuccessful case system of Hillary Clinton’s 2016 election campaign – using a single stock of influence to determine relevant reinforcing and balancing feedback.
    [Show full text]
  • Revisiting Belligerent Reprisals in the Age of Cyber?
    Marquette Law Review Volume 102 Article 5 Issue 1 Fall 2018 Revisiting Belligerent Reprisals in the Age of Cyber? Follow this and additional works at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Computer Law Commons, Human Rights Law Commons, International Humanitarian Law Commons, International Law Commons, and the Science and Technology Law Commons Repository Citation Revisiting Belligerent Reprisals in the Age of Cyber?, 102 Marq. L. Rev. 81 (2018). Available at: https://scholarship.law.marquette.edu/mulr/vol102/iss1/5 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Journals at Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. It has been accepted for inclusion in Marquette Law Review by an authorized editor of Marquette Law Scholarly Commons. For more information, please contact [email protected]. REVISITING BELLIGERENT REPRISALS IN THE AGE OF CYBER? DAVID WALLACE,SHANE REEVES &TRENT POWELL* I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................ 81 II. THE HISTORY OF BELLIGERENT REPRISALS IN IHL ................................... 85 III. BELLIGERENT REPRISALS TODAY IN IHL ................................................. 91 IV. CYBER OPERATIONS AND BELLIGERENT REPRISALS: THE LEX LATA ....... 94 V. COUNTERMEASURES UNDER INTERNATIONAL LAW .................................. 96 VI. BELLIGERENT REPRISALS AND CYBER:ATHEORETICAL FRAMEWORK 104 VII. CONCLUSION.........................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Treatment of Prisoners of War by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy Focusing on the Pacific War
    The Treatment of Prisoners of War by the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy Focusing on the Pacific War TACHIKAWA Kyoichi Abstract Why does the inhumane treatment of prisoners of war occur? What are the fundamental causes of this problem? In this article, the author looks at the principal examples of abuse inflicted on European and American prisoners by military and civilian personnel of the Imperial Japanese Army and Navy during the Pacific War to analyze the causes of abusive treatment of prisoners of war. In doing so, the author does not stop at simply attributing the causes to the perpetrators or to the prevailing condi- tions at the time, such as Japan’s deteriorating position in the war, but delves deeper into the issue of the abuse of prisoners of war as what he sees as a pathology that can occur at any time in military organizations. With this understanding, he attempts to examine the phenomenon from organizational and systemic viewpoints as well as from psychological and leadership perspectives. Introduction With the establishment of the Law Concerning the Treatment of Prisoners in the Event of Military Attacks or Imminent Ones (Law No. 117, 2004) on June 14, 2004, somewhat stringent procedures were finally established in Japan for the humane treatment of prisoners of war in the context of a system infrastructure. Yet a look at the world today shows that abusive treatment of prisoners of war persists. Indeed, the heinous abuse which took place at the former Abu Ghraib prison during the Iraq War is still fresh in our memories.
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes in the Philippines During WWII Cecilia Gaerlan
    War Crimes in the Philippines during WWII Cecilia Gaerlan When one talks about war crimes in the Pacific, the Rape of Nanking instantly comes to mind.Although Japan signed the 1929 Geneva Convention on the Treatment of Prisoners of War, it did not ratify it, partly due to the political turmoil going on in Japan during that time period.1 The massacre of prisoners-of-war and civilians took place all over countries occupied by the Imperial Japanese Army long before the outbreak of WWII using the same methodology of terror and bestiality. The war crimes during WWII in the Philippines described in this paper include those that occurred during the administration of General Masaharu Homma (December 22, 1941, to August 1942) and General Tomoyuki Yamashita (October 8, 1944, to September 3, 1945). Both commanders were executed in the Philippines in 1946. Origins of Methodology After the inauguration of the state of Manchukuo (Manchuria) on March 9, 1932, steps were made to counter the resistance by the Chinese Volunteer Armies that were active in areas around Mukden, Haisheng, and Yingkow.2 After fighting broke in Mukden on August 8, 1932, Imperial Japanese Army Vice Minister of War General Kumiaki Koiso (later convicted as a war criminal) was appointed Chief of Staff of the Kwantung Army (previously Chief of Military Affairs Bureau from January 8, 1930, to February 29, 1932).3 Shortly thereafter, General Koiso issued a directive on the treatment of Chinese troops as well as inhabitants of cities and towns in retaliation for actual or supposed aid rendered to Chinese troops.4 This directive came under the plan for the economic “Co-existence and co-prosperity” of Japan and Manchukuo.5 The two countries would form one economic bloc.
    [Show full text]
  • Psychological Operations (PSYOPS)
    Archived Content Information identified as archived on the Web is for reference, research or record-keeping purposes. It has not been altered or updated after the date of archiving. Web pages that are archived on the Web are not subject to the Government of Canada Web Standards. As per the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada, you can request alternate formats on the "Contact Us" page. Information archivée dans le Web Information archivée dans le Web à des fins de consultation, de recherche ou de tenue de documents. Cette dernière n’a aucunement été modifiée ni mise à jour depuis sa date de mise en archive. Les pages archivées dans le Web ne sont pas assujetties aux normes qui s’appliquent aux sites Web du gouvernement du Canada. Conformément à la Politique de communication du gouvernement du Canada, vous pouvez demander de recevoir cette information dans tout autre format de rechange à la page « Contactez-nous ». CANADIAN FORCES COLLEGE / COLLÈGE DES FORCES CANADIENNES JCSP 33 / PCEMJ 33 EXERCISE/EXERCICE New Horizons Core Requirements for the Successful Development of a Psychological Operations Capability for the Canadian Forces By /par LCol M. K. Purcell This paper was written by a student attending the Canadian Forces College in fulfilment of one of the requirements of the Course of Studies. The paper is a scholastic document, and thus contains facts and opinions, which the author alone considered appropriate and correct for the subject. It does not necessarily reflect the policy or the opinion of any agency, including the Government of Canada and the Canadian Department of National Defence.
    [Show full text]
  • Combatant Status and Computer Network Attack
    Combatant Status and Computer Network Attack * SEAN WATTS Introduction .......................................................................................... 392 I. State Capacity for Computer Network Attacks ......................... 397 A. Anatomy of a Computer Network Attack ....................... 399 1. CNA Intelligence Operations ............................... 399 2. CNA Acquisition and Weapon Design ................. 401 3. CNA Execution .................................................... 403 B. State Computer Network Attack Capabilites and Staffing ............................................................................ 405 C. United States’ Government Organization for Computer Network Attack .............................................. 407 II. The Geneva Tradition and Combatant Immunity ...................... 411 A. The “Current” Legal Framework..................................... 412 1. Civilian Status ...................................................... 414 2. Combatant Status .................................................. 415 3. Legal Implications of Status ................................. 420 B. Existing Legal Assessments and Scholarship.................. 424 C. Implications for Existing Computer Network Attack Organization .................................................................... 427 III. Departing from the Geneva Combatant Status Regime ............ 430 A. Interpretive Considerations ............................................. 431 * Assistant Professor, Creighton University Law School; Professor,
    [Show full text]
  • New Challenges to the Traditional Principles of the Law of War Presented by Information Operations in Outer Space
    Journal of Politics and Law March, 2009 New Challenges to the Traditional Principles of the Law of War Presented by Information Operations in Outer Space Jia Huang Graduates’ Team School of Humanities and Social Sciences National University of Defense Technology 47 Yan Wa Chi Street, Changsha 410073, China E-mail: [email protected] Abstract With the rapid development of space information technology and constant advancement of militarization of outer space, the legal aspects of information operations in outer space have aroused the attention of international community. Information operations in outer space have brand-new features and means, which are apparently different from those of traditional operations, thus challenging almost all major aspects of the traditional principles of the warfare law. This paper makes a pilot study on challenges to the traditional principles of the law of war against the background of information operations in outer space from the following three aspects of the regulations in the law of war: Jus ad Bellum, Jus in Bello and neutrality. Keywords: Information operations in outer space, The law of war 1. Introduction The law of war is a branch of international law. It is a combination of promissory principles, regulations and systems that adjust the relationship between each side of belligerents and between belligerents and nonbelligerents, regulate the conduct of operations during the process of war and armed conflict. The current principles and regulations of the law of war are mainly embodied in the system of “Hague Law”, “Geneva Law” and the U.N. Charter. The Hague Conventions and Geneva Conventions established the basic principles of the law of war such as military necessity, discrimination, proportionality, avoiding superfluous injury and unnecessary suffering, prohibition against indiscriminate weapons, prohibition against perfidy, and protecting the rights and interests of neutral powers and persons.
    [Show full text]
  • Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
    THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 AUGUST 12 OF CONVENTIONS THE GENEVA THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 0173/002 05.2010 10,000 ICRC Mission The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance. The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles. Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the Geneva Conventions and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It directs and coordinates the international activities conducted by the Movement in armed conflicts and other situations of violence. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949 1 Contents Preliminary remarks .......................................................................................................... 19 GENEVA CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK IN ARMED FORCES IN THE FIELD OF 12 AUGUST 1949 CHAPTER I General Provisions ....................................................................................................... 35 Article 1 Respect for the Convention ..................................................................... 35 Article 2 Application of the Convention ................................................................ 35 Article 3 Conflicts not of an international
    [Show full text]
  • Three Theories of Just War: Understanding Warfare As a Social Tool Through Comparative Analysis of Western, Chinese, and Islamic Classical Theories of War
    THREE THEORIES OF JUST WAR: UNDERSTANDING WARFARE AS A SOCIAL TOOL THROUGH COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF WESTERN, CHINESE, AND ISLAMIC CLASSICAL THEORIES OF WAR A THESIS SUBMITTED TO THE GRADUATE DIVISION OF THE UNIVERSITY OF HAWAI‘I AT MĀNOA IN PARTIAL FULFILMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE DEGREE OF MASTER OF ARTS IN PHILOSOPHY MAY 2012 By Faruk Rahmanović Thesis Committee: Tamara Albertini, Chairperson Roger T. Ames James D. Frankel Brien Hallett Keywords: War, Just War, Augustine, Sunzi, Sun Bin, Jihad, Qur’an DEDICATION To my parents, Ahmet and Nidžara Rahmanović. To my wife, Majda, who continues to put up with me. To Professor Keith W. Krasemann, for teaching me to ask the right questions. And to Professor Martin J. Tracey, for his tireless commitment to my success. 1 ABSTRACT The purpose of this analysis was to discover the extent to which dictates of war theory ideals can be considered universal, by comparing the Western (European), Classical Chinese, and Islamic models. It also examined the contextual elements that drove war theory development within each civilization, and the impact of such elements on the differences arising in war theory comparison. These theories were chosen for their differences in major contextual elements, in order to limit the impact of contextual similarities on the war theories. The results revealed a great degree of similarities in the conception of warfare as a social tool of the state, utilized as a sometimes necessary, albeit tragic, means of establishing peace justice and harmony. What differences did arise, were relatively minor, and came primarily from the differing conceptions of morality and justice within each civilization – thus indicating a great degree of universality to the conception of warfare.
    [Show full text]
  • Al-Qaeda & Taliban Unlawful Combatant
    AL-QAEDA & TALIBAN UNLAWFUL COMBATANT DETAINEES,..., 55 A.F. L. Rev. 1 55 A.F. L. Rev. 1 Air Force Law Review 2004 Article AL-QAEDA & TALIBAN UNLAWFUL COMBATANT DETAINEES, UNLAWFUL BELLIGERENCY, AND THE INTERNATIONAL LAWS OF ARMED CONFLICT Lieutenant Colonel (s) Joseph P. “Dutch” Bialkea1 Copyright © 2004 by Lieutenant Colonel (s) Joseph P. “Dutch” Bialke I. INTRODUCTION International Obligations & Responsibilities and the International Rule of Law The United States (U.S.) is currently detaining several hundred al-Qaeda and Taliban unlawful enemy combatants from more than 40 countries at a multi-million dollar maximum-security detention facility at the U.S. Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. These enemy detainees were captured while engaged in hostilities against the U.S. and its allies during the post-September 11, 2001 international armed conflict centered primarily in Afghanistan. The conflict now involves an ongoing concerted international campaign in collective self-defense against a common stateless enemy dispersed throughout the world. Domestic and international human rights organizations and other groups have criticized the U.S.,1 arguing that al-Qaeda and Taliban detainees in Cuba should be granted Geneva Convention III prisoner of war (POW)2status. They contend broadly that pursuant to the international laws of armed conflict (LOAC), combatants captured during armed conflict must be treated equally and conferred POWstatus. However, no such blanket obligation exists in international law. There is no legal or moral equivalence in LOAC between lawful combatants and unlawful combatants, or between lawful belligerency *2 and unlawful belligerency (also referred to as lawful combatantry and unlawful combatantry).
    [Show full text]
  • Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts
    Civilians in Cyberwarfare: Conscripts Susan W. Brenner* with Leo L. Clarke** ABSTRACT Civilian-owned and -operated entities will almost certainly be a target in cyberwarfare because cyberattackers are likely to be more focused on undermining the viability of the targeted state than on invading its territory. Cyberattackers will probably target military computer systems, at least to some extent, but in a departure from traditional warfare, they will also target companies that operate aspects of the victim nation’s infrastructure. Cyberwarfare, in other words, will penetrate the territorial borders of the attacked state and target high-value civilian businesses. Nation-states will therefore need to integrate the civilian employees of these (and perhaps other) companies into their cyberwarfare response structures if a state is to be able to respond effectively to cyberattacks. While many companies may voluntarily elect to participate in such an effort, others may decline to do so, which creates a need, in effect, to conscript companies for this purpose. This Article explores how the U.S. government can go about compelling civilian cooperation in cyberwarfare without violating constitutional guarantees and limitations on the power of the Legislature and the Executive. * NCR Distinguished Professor of Law and Technology, University of Dayton School of Law. ** Associate, Drew, Cooper & Anding, P.C., Grand Rapids, Michigan. 1011 1012 Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law [Vol. 43:1011 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. INTRODUCTION .............................................................
    [Show full text]
  • War Crimes: War Crimes/Atrocities Are More Prevalent in the Modern Era (1 940-Present) Than in Prior Periods of History
    War Crimes: War Crimes/Atrocities are More Prevalent in the Modern Era (1 940-Present) than in Prior Periods of History by SGMDunn MSG Harris MSGRivera MSG Smith Haines Research Paper USASMA, Class #55, L-Ol 11 War Crimes: W ar Crimes/Atrocities are More Prevalent in the Modern Era (1940-Present) than in Prior Periods ofHistory I. Introduction II. War Crimes of World War II A. The European Theatre 1. German War Crimes 2. Nazi Concentration Camps B. The South Pacific Theatre ill. War Crimes of the Vietnam Era A. MyLai B. Prisoner of War Camps IV. War Crimes After the Vietnam Era A. Operation Desert Storm B. Operation Iraqi Freedom C. Possible US War Crimes V. Counter Argument (War Crimes prior to 1940) A. The Sino-Japanese War 1. The Battle of Shanghai 2. The Nanjing Massacre B. The Southwestern United States 1. The Massacre ofGoliath 2. TheAlamo VI. Closing 2 War crimes/atrocities are more prevalent in the modem era (1940-present) than in prior periods of history. War by its very nature is a murderous affair, and is often an extremely dirty and cold-blooded activity. After all, the goal of war is to kill the enemy, and in doing so, to force ones will upon another. However, whenever an individual, or a country goes too far and commits acts so inhumane, indefensible, and outside the rules ofwar, these acts are considered war crimes. But what is actually considered a war crime? According to the Geneva Convention: Control Council Law No. 10, a war crime is defined as "atrocities or offences against persons or property constituting violations ofthe laws or customs of war, including, but not limited to murder, ill treatment or deportation to slave labour or for any other purpose, ofcivilian population from occupied territory, murder or ill treatment ofprisoners ofwar or persons on the seas, killing ofhostages, plunder ofpublic or private property, wanton destruction ofcities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity" (Friedman 908).
    [Show full text]