87560555

There are 159 articles in the fourth iteration of the Geneva Convention which was signed on 12 August 1949. It’s worth having a perusal through the Convention, to see what the powers of the world agreed to with respect to protecting civilians in times of war. At times the document reads very coldly such as in article:

Art. 3. In the case of armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties, each Party to the conflict shall be bound to apply, as a minimum, the following
provisions:

(1) Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including members of armed forces who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de combat by sickness, wounds, detention, or any other cause, shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, without any adverse distinction founded on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth, or any other similar criteria.

To this end the following acts are and shall remain prohibited at any time and in any place whatsoever with respect to the above-mentioned persons:
(a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
(b) taking of hostages;
(c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment;
(d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(2) The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.

It is so matter of fact that I actually find myself asking questions like, can there actually be a time when the killing of other people is morally acceptable? If States agree that there are rules of engagement for war, in other words limits around when killing is okay and when it isn’t, what can compel a State to tighten those restrictions forever?

It’s trite of course, but war is insane. The fact that people can be killed in large numbers for whatever reason, and that this activity is actually sanctioned by having it take place within a context is just apalling to me these days.

At any rate, these times might require some deep reflection on what it means to wage wars against people. For that reflection I have gone back to one of the original treatises on international law and the conduct of war, Hugo Grotius’ De Jure Bellis ac Pacis published in 1625 just as the concept of natural rights were being developed in Europe. Grotius’ life was fascinating, as we wove in and out of the turbulent political world of 17th century Europe. A child prodigy, and university student at 11, he practiced law and rose to become Governer of Rotterdam in the early 1600s. He was exiled from Holland, after a Calvinist coup d’etat in 1618, and fled eventually to Paris where he worked as an Ambassador to France for Sweden and helped to negotiate the end of the Thirty Years War. He wrote his classics in exile and became known as the father of international law. He died as the result of exhaustion brought on by being shipwrecked on a trip back to Sweden.

His final words were “By understanding many things, I have accomplished nothing.”