Last week Harper’s interviewed Gary Solis, Georgetown University Law Center professor and author of The Law of Armed Conflict, on the legality of some of the United States’ more controversial actions in recent years. This includes a legal take on the events surrounding the Wikileaks video released a few weeks ago showing a U.S. Army helicopter mistaking two groups of civilians as combatants and killing them.
While all of Professor Solis’ interview is useful to students of war, it is the last question really hit home for me:
6. Do you expect to see the law of armed conflict change to more closely address conflicts involving nonstate actors, like terrorist groups?
Yes, such changes seem inevitable. The Geneva Conventions remain vital and viable in the “war on terrorism,” but in the foreseeable future conflicts will likely continue to be between states and non-state actors. Such conflicts are not directly addressed in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. Considering specific issues of non-international armed conflict, and new weapons and tactics that currently vex combatants and commentators alike, will make battlefield options less subject to individual national interpretation. For example, what armed response if any is appropriate to cross-border terrorist attacks? Will white phosphorus munitions be banned? Can there be international agreement on the lawfulness of targeting civilian communication facilities? What is the status of captured members of armed opposition groups? Should depleted uranium munitions be prohibited?
Solis’ is correct. Western countries spend large amounts of money and time educating their militaries on the laws of war, yet those soldiers are increasingly faced with situations not discussed in the Geneva Convention or elsewhere. Given this, and given that nonstate actors (accounting for more than half of combatants) are not beholden to the rules of war, the Geneva Convention’s applicability to modern war is rapidly and tragically decreasing.
Christopher R. Albon is a political science Ph.D. specializing in armed conflict, public health, human security, and health diplomacy.
Want more? Subscribe to Conflict Health through RSS or email.
Comments on this entry are closed.