UN The Geneva Conventions — the world’s rules of war — are 75 years old and ignored nearly everywhere - The Geneva Conventions, which have been adopted by nearly all the world’s countries since they were finalized on Aug. 12, 1949, are back on their heels as armed militia groups and national forces regularly disregard the rules of war.

  • Want to keep track of this thread?
    Accounts can bookmark posts, watch threads for updates, and jump back to where you stopped reading.
    Create account
1.png

At its 75th anniversary, the world’s best-known rulebook on the protection of civilians, detainees and wounded soldiers in war has been widely ignored — from Gaza to Syria to Ukraine to Myanmar and beyond — and its defenders are calling for a new commitment to international humanitarian law.

The Geneva Conventions, which have been adopted by nearly all the world’s countries since they were finalized on Aug. 12, 1949, are back on their heels as armed militia groups and national forces regularly disregard the rules of war.

“International humanitarian law is under strain, disregarded, undermined to justify violence,” President Mirjana Spoljaric of the International Committee of the Red Cross, which oversees the conventions, said Monday.

“The world must recommit to this robust protective framework for armed conflict, one that follows the premise of protecting life instead of justifying death,” she said.

The conventions, with roots dating to the 19th century, aims to set rules around the conduct of war: They ban torture and sexual violence, require humane treatment of detainees and mandate searches for missing persons.

The conventions “reflect a global consensus that all wars have limits,” Spoljaric told reporters at ICRC headquarters in Geneva. “The dehumanization of both enemy fighters and civilian populations is a path to ruin and disaster.”

The Red Cross says the conventions are needed now more than ever: It has counted more than 120 active conflicts around the world, a six-fold increase from the half-century anniversary in 1999.

These days, many countries and combatants exploit loopholes in international humanitarian law or interpret it as they see fit. Hospitals, schools and ambulances have come under fire, aid workers and civilians are killed, and countries refuse access to detainees.

Article Link

Archive
 
Nuclear saturation bombardment and manufactured biological agents are the only two currently available strategic weapon capabilities that should be proscribed by treaty. Tactical nukes are not as scary as people think and chemical weapons are not worth the effort.
 
I thought punishments for war crimes were something handed down after the fact. I didn't know the rules were meant to be preventative.

I feel like there was probably already a debate about this by much smarter people than our generation.
 
“The world must recommit to this robust protective framework for armed conflict, one that follows the premise of protecting life instead of justifying death,” she said.

Not going to happen, Joe Biden and Kamala have killed it at the command of Bibi.
 
The Geneva Conventions only work among civilized nations. They're like chivalry, or those old timey battles in the 18th Century when soldiers lined up neatly to slowly walk at each other and shoot only when they saw the whites of their enemies' eyes.
 
I think it's the Hague Convention and not the Geneva Convention that restricts it, but the restrictions on hollow point ammunition is a fucking stupid one that needs to go.
 
When fighting for your home and family, having some gay laws written by bureaucrats is not a top priority.
Hospitals, schools and ambulances have come under fire, aid workers and civilians are killed, and countries refuse access to detainees.
Unless it happened in Ukraine, it seems to be entirely anti Israel reference with only the bottom stapled in for a "both sides", which shows how bullshit it is since the UN and other globohomo organisations never call out Palestinians for this shit and behave as if Israel's actions have no context.
 
I think it's the Hague Convention and not the Geneva Convention that restricts it, but the restrictions on hollow point ammunition is a fucking stupid one that needs to go.
The Hague Convention was supposed to apply only to countries who signed on and adhere it. But the fucking lawyers and especially military lawyers had to go traitor by making it apply only to their own militaries against everybody who didn't sign it.
 
Ah yes, those rules of war ignored harder than ever by every retarded Facebook boomer's favorite eastern European country they hadn't even heard of two years ago before the state, media, and corporate power establishment told them that they're morally righteous to support it gay raping captured soldiers and sending the video to their widows, or dropping grenades on wounded young men waiting for medevac and praying they'll get to see their wife and kids again.

Fuck Ukraine, behead Zelinskiy, nuke Kiev.
 
All international laws are empty verbiage unless nations either voluntarily agree to abide by them or some supranational or global authority enforces them.

The law is meaningless without the capacity to inflict violence to maintain it. When the UN can intervene anywhere in the world and execute or intern people on its own recognizance is when international law will matter-not a day before.
 
Nuclear saturation bombardment and manufactured biological agents are the only two currently available strategic weapon capabilities that should be proscribed by treaty. Tactical nukes are not as scary as people think and chemical weapons are not worth the effort.
The reason they're banned to begin with is because they actually work. The end wars quickly and decisively, which is not conducive for the powers that be that need forever wars.
 
The reason they're banned to begin with is because they actually work. The end wars quickly and decisively, which is not conducive for the powers that be that need forever wars.
Biological agents are banned because they're uncontrollable after release

Chemical weapons are banned because they're nasty and don't really bring any advantage. If one side uses them the other would use them as soon as it could, protective gear is not exactly hard to mass produce, so all they would do is crank up the awful

The fear that it would escalate to strategic nuclear weapons being used, or that no one would really give a shit about fallout (cmon they're not that big, some ground bursts are fine!) if tactical nukes were popping off, plus if both sides had them there's no real advantage to be gained again, is why they aren't. Yay we dropped a half dozen tactical nukes on their defense lines and killed a hundred thousand of their soldiers, but nooooo they dropped a half dozen tactical nukes and killed a hundred thousand of our soldiers. So they can't defend and we can't attack, wtf was the point
 
Last edited:
The Geneva Conventions also only apply to soldiers who openly wear the uniform of the country they're fighting for. If you are not wearing a uniform then you don't count and can pretty much be immediately executed as a spy. Every war since WWII has had, at best, only one side doing that at any time.

So why would people follow the Geneva Conventions?
 
I always thought rules regulating conduct during war were retarded.

If a war escalates enough to be a serious affair, expecting people not to lose themselves in endless bloodshed is a fool's endeavor.

The only use you can claim for them is punishing the guilty party for violations but that's only really possible if said guilty party are also the losers. If the guilty party are also the clear victors then who the hell is gonna punish them for violating these rules?

Prohibitions on nuclear weapons only work because they are so destructive that MAD is almost certainly guaranteed if someone is stupid enough to use them.
 
Laws are meaningless without enforcement.

The only way to enforce the Geneva convention on a soldier-by-soldier basis is to step into a hot war.

Which is why nobody cares to.

Better to wait and charge whoever is left standing.

Which is also useless as the victors have won the country and can just say "you and what army?" to demands they hand themselves over.

Meanwhile? The losers are either dead, or in a situation where prosecution is just a humiluation ritual.

Liberal love of and belief in the ability of law alone to solve problems strikes again.

All the GC encourages is that wars run longer and nastier.

Why sign a peace treaty if your next stop is The Hague?
 
Once you got a taste, once your buddy got blowoff by dirty chinks/arabs/ niggers etc its really easy to fall into BLOOD FOR THE BLOOD GOD

And it's pretty obvious after shit like ISIS that expecting mercy is pointless
 
Back
Top Bottom