Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Cerebral Paladin" data-source="post: 5724209" data-attributes="member: 3448">As a practical matter, I think you're likely right.  But as a legal matter, that's not right.  The Geneva Conventions define several different legal regimes:  rules that apply to the treatment of prisoners from a foreign army, rules that apply to the treatment of civilians in a war zone, rules that apply during civil wars, and so forth.  One of the categories is rules that apply when dealing with nonsignatories to the Conventions.  At a first cut, the rules apply in full force with regard to a nonsignatory "Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof."  In other words, you're right that it matters whether the goblins obey the Geneva Conventions; if they do, then (assuming they're "persons") then even though they're nonsignatories, the signatories are fully bound.  But, even if they don't, some rules protect persons despite the fact that they are not troops/civilians of a Power that is behaving as if it's bound by the Conventions.  In particular, Common Article III sets up a baseline of rules that apply regardless of whether the opposing Power abides by the Conventions:  in short, humane treatment for all prisoners, specifically excluding murder, torture, etc., requiring that the wounded, sick, etc. be cared for, and requiring some enforcement provisions like giving the Int'l Red Cross access.Thus, as a technical matter, even if the goblins violate the Geneva Conventions, the legally permissible response is not to retaliate in kind, but rather to prosecute them (through proper trials) for war crimes, after which they can be punished for their violations.  As a practical matter, however, I think you might well be right--if the goblins routinely violated human norms of war, it makes it much more likely that either (a) countries would conclude that they are not "persons" in the language of the Conventions or (b) would simply violate the Conventions in response... although maybe not, because most militaries have a strong attachment to some of the basic parts of the Conventions, violations notwithstanding.</blockquote>

Verification