What Is Not Allowed in War?

As despicable as war might be, going back thousands of years certain militaries have tried to agree on ethical kinds of warfare. Believe it or not, in the Old Testament it’s written in one chapter that during war, trees should not be damaged, but eating from them was fine. In the 7th century the Muslim Army was told, “You must not mutilate dead bodies. Neither kill a child, nor a woman, nor an aged man.” And again, soldiers were told they should leave those trees alone. Even in the often-violent medieval times in Europe there were boundaries, with the church writing there should be “just” warfare. But it wasn’t until modern times that we started taking the ethics of war – perhaps an oxymoron for some people – seriously.

Every army in history will have had certain rules as to what is just going too far during war. But throughout history these rules of engagement were mostly an agreement made by two militaries. They weren’t always followed of course, but at least battling armies understood that even killing people had to be unpinned by laws that precluded all out barbarism. It wasn’t until 1864 and the Geneva Convention when laws of war became an international thing. These rules were partly the idea of a Genevan businessman called Henry Dunant. He’d witnessed firsthand the carnage of the Battle of Solferino during the Second War of Italian Independence. After seeing this he wrote a book called “A Memory of Solferino” and in it he not only described the horror of what he had experienced but he also recommended that armies follow certain rules such as offering humanitarian assistance to the wounded. In 1863, 16 countries got together to talk about creating rules of war, partly based on the ideas of Dunant. In the end, 12 nations agreed on certain terms and that is what is called the First Geneva Convention.

The focus of the agreement was taking care of those injured on the battlefield, not finishing them off or just leaving them to die, as often happened before that. For his efforts Dunant won the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901. The Geneva Convention was in years to come updated numerous times. For instance, after World War One it was about the treatment of prisoners of war: POWs. After World War Two, in 1949, we had the Fourth Geneva Convention, and a total of 196 countries signed this, albeit some ratifying the treaty with what are called “reservations.” There have since been three amendments in the form of what we call protocols. These are sometimes breached, such as when armies used certain banned weapons or when soldiers were tortured after they had been captured.

Now let’s have a look at what things are not allowed. We know that soldiers that have been wounded must be helped. It’s is written that they should not be treated in a dehumanizing way and that they should not be humiliated. The conventions tell militaries that these soldiers, “in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, color, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.” If a person is injured, he should not be a target any longer. Moreover, it doesn’t matter if you are not on the injured person’s side; if someone is hurt badly and attention can be given to them, then that should happen. Then you have people who are a part of a military that don’t necessarily fight, including chaplains and medical staff. These people should be left alone, but the treaty states this can change of course if that person is armed.

We are also told that if one side doesn’t have enough medical personnel, it has a right to take hostage medical personnel from the other side so they can begin treating the wounded. It goes without saying that these hostages should be treated well. Perhaps a lot of people died on the battlefield and are just lying about. We are told that these people should be picked up when possible and given a proper burial. Sometimes fighting should even stop so the dead can be moved. Their bodies should be treated with respect and if it is possible those people should be buried in a way that respects their religion, if their religion is known of course. There is even something called the “Graves Registration Service” which should mean the dead can be traced and if need be, their bodies exhumed and sent back home. Anything found on the body, rings, money, etc., should be returned to the dead person’s next of kin.

This is a major part of the rules of war, being good to the injured and respecting the dead. Then you have the people who have been captured, and as you know these folks are called POWs. They too should be treated with respect, not tortured, not treated inhumanely, and treated for wounds if need be. What can happen, though, is certain people are not given POW status. This happened in the USA. The Chicago Tribune wrote in 2002 that the U.S. army would give this status to captured Taliban soldiers but not people belonging to the group Al Qaeda. That meant they were denied the rights of POWs and we all know what happened to some of them. Many critics said the U.S. had breached the rules of warfare which says detainees should be treated humanely.

At the time, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, said that would happen but he said these people were not POWs as they belonged to a terrorist organization. When it comes to POWs they also have to be treated according to their rank, which means that an officer might receive better treatment than a lowly private. That’s why POWs are always asked to give their “name, rank and serial number.” Once detained, we are told that they can be questioned, but torture is definitely a no, no. It’s written in the third Geneva Convention that, “No physical or mental torture, nor any other form of coercion, may be inflicted on prisoners of war to secure from them information of any kind whatever. Prisoners of war who refuse to answer may not be threatened, insulted, or exposed to any unpleasant or disadvantageous treatment of any kind.” We all know this has happened and we have heard the stories about the Guantanamo Bay facility and other black sites.

The U.S. has been criticized by human rights advocates, but as we said, these types of prisoners were not classed as POWs. So, of course captured people may be treated badly, but all we are saying is under the international law of warfare they should not be. However, if you search for instances of when detainees have been tortured after they were captured during conflicts, you will find many, way too many for us to mention today. Not only should these people not be demeaned or tortured, but they should be given enough food, water, clothing, while also be allowed to practice their religion and write to their family or friends. They are to be given their location so that those people can write back to them.

At the same time, the captured people should not be paraded around for the public to see; they should not be photographed or videoed for public consumption, which we are told is not treating them with dignity. After hearing this, you should know that it goes without saying that civilians should be treated with dignity if they end up close to an army. They should not be hurt and obviously not be killed. They should be shielded from conflict as much as is possible. Again, you can find many breaches of this law over the years. If you want to spend some time reading news stories containing evidence of soldiers willfully killing civilians, you could be reading for a long, long time, and we are not just talking about militaries of less developed nations.

This is a Guardian headline from 2010, “U.S soldiers killed Afghan civilians for sport and collected fingers as trophies.” We don’t mean to pick on the USA, but only point out that very developed nations breach the rules of warfare from time to time just as less developed nations do. The good news is that often soldiers that carry out war crimes are charged for their violence, as were the soldiers in the case of the U.S. we just mentioned. Killing civilians is plain unacceptable, as is stealing things from them. If their property, or anything else they have, is destroyed during conflict then those civilians should be compensated. If civilians are injured or killed, then the army that did that should also compensate the family.

These are known as “condolence payments.” The Intercept tells us that the U.S. military’s price of life is usually capped at $5,000. This is tricky business of course as who wants to put a price on life. One U.S. attorney told The Intercept, “If I have a case of a 28-year-old doctor, they are going to be paid more than we’d pay for a child of four.” So, what is lost, whether a thing or a person, under the rules of law, should be compensated for. Those civilians that did not die should not be removed from their homes unless it’s for their own safety. They cannot be forced to fight, but they can be made to work if that work is not directly related to violence. They should also be paid for their work and paid according to proper wages, not used as slaves. If a civilian decides that they should want to up and leave during the conflict they must be allowed to do so. But if a good reason can be given why they should not be allowed to leave then they can be stopped.

All civilians have the right to appeal this. Militaries are also told to protect what we call “cultural property.” As you can guess, this might include monuments, certain buildings, places of science, but also just books, works or art, many things that have importance within a culture. You should never mess with the heritage of a culture as far as is possible. There are also laws relating to what weapons one can use. As you probably know, militaries cannot just start dropping the plague on towns or spraying biological weapons around. Yes, militaries all over the world have put considerable effort into developing such weapons, but they are now illegal in war. We might take mustard gas for instance, which was used in the first world war.

This is not allowed to be used anymore. Other things illegal are nerve gas, tear gas, phosphine gas and even pepper spray as it’s a kind of chemical weapon. Foreign Policy magazine tells us that the use of land mines is a war crime, although we are told that 20 countries have not signed the land mine ban agreement, including the USA, Russia and China. The treaty also asks countries to clean up all their landmines, which would be some job for certain nations. We are told napalm is not illegal to use, but it can’t be used to kill people, only to burn things. The same goes for flamethrowers, they can be used to clear forests and such, but cannot be used to set people alight. The list is a long one when it comes to other kinds of banned weapons. For instance, militaries should not use dirty bombs, salted bombs, or hollow-point bullets or poisoned bullets. It was a brief about the ethics in war.