> rules do not apply to war, Geneva Convention notwithstanding.
I don't know what so-called international law says, but if you're going to try to apply rules to war, it seems pretty essential that they apply to all sides or no sides, otherwise you create an exploitable situation that's ripe for abuse. The reward for following the rules should be that the other parties in the conflict follow them, too. The punishment for breaking them should be that the other parties no longer follow them.
that’s a very manichean view. War ist all shades of (horrible) gray and you can have rules, a lot, none, everything is possible. Don’t know what you mean with “Geneva Convention notwithstanding” here, it’s exactly the kind of rules that _can_ exist in times of war – or be completely ignored on both sides.
It’s not because it’s war time that one should just resign, shrug and accept any atrocities. The less atrocities during war time, that more chances for a stable peace afterward.
brabel|4 months ago
palmotea|4 months ago
As opposed to literal hostage taking?
> rules do not apply to war, Geneva Convention notwithstanding.
I don't know what so-called international law says, but if you're going to try to apply rules to war, it seems pretty essential that they apply to all sides or no sides, otherwise you create an exploitable situation that's ripe for abuse. The reward for following the rules should be that the other parties in the conflict follow them, too. The punishment for breaking them should be that the other parties no longer follow them.
illiac786|4 months ago
It’s not because it’s war time that one should just resign, shrug and accept any atrocities. The less atrocities during war time, that more chances for a stable peace afterward.