When you think of war, you think of a state of emergency.
Killing is part of war.
quote dr Ralph Janik: “The first thing in war, or one of the first things that die in war, is unfortunately not only the people themselves but also their dignity, which is taken from them.”
But even here, where atrocities are part of everyday life, rules apply.
story
In 1859, Swiss businessman Henry Dunant witnessed the Battle of Solferino. He is deeply shaken by the many helpless soldiers lying dying on the battlefield. He records his experiences in a book and thus lays the foundation for the first Geneva Convention. The goal of the treaty: to alleviate the suffering of the wounded soldiers.
After the atrocities of the Second World War, the law is expanded. Rules for dealing with prisoners of war, wounded soldiers and, above all, civilians are laid down and signed around the world – including by Russia and Ukraine.
In the Ukraine war, wounded and killed civilians are often reported. In doing so, Putin would also have to adhere to the following three principles of the rules of war: distinction, proportionality and caution.
First principle: distinction
The principle of distinction requires distinguishing between civilians and combatants at all times. Civilians and civilian objects are taboo. They must not be attacked – in contrast to military objects and military personnel.
The New York Times published this photo on March 6th. It shows civilians killed by a mortar shell while fleeing to Kyiv.
quote dr Ralph Janik: “Well, civilians who are also fleeing or being evacuated, when those civilians are being killed, being shot at, that’s a very sad textbook case, a very sad textbook example of a war crime. There is no basis or justification whatsoever for opening fire on civilians.”
The distinction is less clear when it comes to civilians throwing Molotov cocktails.
quote dr Ralph Janik: «While they drop them, they can also be attacked. However, it is also true that once this action is completed, one then actually regains civilian status as well. So you’re not a regular fighter who could then be attacked all at once days later.”
The principle of differentiation also applies to the choice of weapon:
Attacks with certain weapons are illegal – for the reason that they can hit civilians as well as combatants.
In sensitive areas such as residential areas, Russia is also not allowed to use these weapons – regardless of whether it has signed corresponding agreements banning certain weapons.
Second principle: proportionality
Because the second principle says: civil damage can be accepted if the military benefit is large enough in relation to it. But how do you weigh something like that?
quote dr Ralph Janik: “So how big is the military advantage in relation to the civilian damage and civilian casualties? And that’s a very, very difficult calculation. And that’s where it gets cynical, because you really calculate: human life – military advantage. They are very abstract concepts that suddenly become real and become very sadly real, of course.”
This video shows a hospital in Melitopol that was shelled by Russian soldiers on February 25.
quote dr Ralph Janik: «These are people who are sick, these are people who are wounded, injured. To attack that is an absolute nightmare and accordingly a war crime. Hospitals are also specifically protected under the Fourth Geneva Convention.”
In such cases, there is no proportionality.
Third principle: caution
But even if the military benefit in the sense of martial law outweighs it and a deployment can be classified as proportionate, the warring parties must keep unnecessary suffering as low as possible: This is what the third principle says: precautionary measures.
Quote from the expert: In principle, prior to attacks, it is required to check whether the target really is legitimate from a military point of view, and also to check whether the situation has changed.
And it is also expected from commanders giving the order for an attack to warn against it. You can’t always do that, because the warning may mean that the whole goal can no longer be achieved and the attack is then reduced to absurdity. But sometimes you can expect it, for example if they are objects where you can’t remove everything anyway and the primary motivation behind the attack is not to kill the people inside, but the equipment inside, the equipment, what whatever role it plays in making war implements.
General statements about what is right and wrong are difficult in war – it often depends on the individual case.
It will therefore probably take some time before the attacks in the Ukraine war are judged by a court. And it is questionable whether Putin will ever be convicted.
So the more important question right now is: why would Putin even play by these rules?
Expert quote: The basic idea here is always to say that war criminals should not be able to feel comfortable after their crimes. They should expect that something like this will not become statute-barred and that they will eventually be held accountable.
And then there is another reason why states should and do comply with international humanitarian law. If we see here that a state is trying to occupy, it’s also about winning the sympathy of the population. And the more war crimes you commit, the more hostile the affected population becomes.
As the war progresses, the civilian population will experience increasing suffering.
The hope remains that the rules of war will also prevent worse from happening in Ukraine.