This could be an interesting thread...
International Law, including the treaties that make up the "Laws of War" are in an interesting place today. They were written up to govern the conduct of nation states as they waged war on one another. They had a number of base assumptions behind them that clearly do not hold in the typical conflict of today:
1. That soldiers were draftees, who did not harbour any particular enmity to the other side, but instead were simply called up to fulfill their nations' will.
2. That good behaviour on one side would result in reciprocal treatment on the other side. In other words, you treat Jerry well so that your guys are treated better on the other end.
3. That the signatories had the ability to coerce the people acting on their behalf to follow the rules.
It is arguable how much the laws were ever followed, and instead became more the whip used to exact revenge on the losing side. What is abundantly clear is that no enemy of a Western power has followed them in the last 35-40 years.
Which leaves us in an interesting point here- the rules are likely to be followed only by those who are likely to abide by good behaviour anyway. Take the AP mine ban as a case in point.
- most Western nations (with the obvious exception of the US, but I'll get to that one later) have signed the treaty. However, these are precisely the nations that don't need a landmine ban. If Canada, Britain or any number of Western powers were to have used AP mines, it's likely that they would have been used as intended- as close protection to defensive positions or AT minefields, and marked carefully. If left in the ground, you could expect that these countries would likely have been back in any event to clean up after themselves.
- the nations who need to follow the treaty simply don't- even if they are signatories. I know that many of you will find this shocking, but many countries sign these international treaties without any intention of implementing them, like Canada and Kyoto.
- even worse, most of the UXO that are left around, unmarked, are put there by irregulars or other third parties that are clearly outside of the scope of the treaty.
So, where does that really get us- a piece of paper that is followed rigidly by those who least need it, and ignored by those who need it most.
Back to the US now- they haven't signed the landmine ban for 2 reasons, neither of which is that they are bad guys. The first is that landmines are hugely effective (not withstanding the hype from the Greenpeacers of the world- my trade wouldn't exist without them), and are a key factor in maintaining the standoff with the Norks. The second, and this is clever, is that they have taken the stance that it is perverse to ban AP mines and leave AT, given that both leave dead and injured children in their wake. Their reasoning is that the correct divide should have been persistent and non-persistent- with the idea that a non-persistent mine could be used with impunity, since it will only last for the duration of the conflict. So, without signing the treaty, the US is actually moving toward safer munitions on its own.
If you're looking for a more researched opinion, try sending a message to pbi- he's getting the rubber glove treatment on the Laws of Armed Conflict this year.
