Last Wednesday I had the opportunity to attend a talk hosted by Jens David Ohlins, an expert on international criminal law. What I learned was that international criminal law is extremely complicated and cannot easily be codified into a set of stringent rules. For example, civilians can’t be intentionally killed; that’s pretty straightforward. However, civilians can be killed if it is a result of targeting a legitimate military target, and the number of civilian deaths isn’t disproportionate to the value of the military target. As you may have guessed, “disproportionate” lacks a concrete definition in this case.
Additionally, the enforcement of international criminal law is a tricky matter. The International Criminal Court can only address matters if they are brought forth by a member nation, or if the U.N. Security Council refers a case to it. Becoming a member nation to the International Criminal Court is voluntary, so any nation that does not wish to be obligated by international criminal law can merely opt not to become a member. Furthermore, it is difficult for the U.N. Security Council to bring a case to the International Criminal Court thanks to the veto power of nations such as America and Russia.
Throughout the discussion, Ohlins repeatedly used the term “rules of engagement” to refer to the international laws governing what acts are and are not permitted during warfare. Acts such as targeting civilians, utilizing chemical weapons, and torture are all forbidden. While it may seem agreeable to have rules governing warfare in order to prevent atrocities and violations of human rights, the notion of “rules of engagement” leaves a sour taste in my mouth.
Whenever I hear the term “rules of engagement,” my thoughts immediately turn to some sort of game. I worry that by creating rules for warfare, we have denigrated war to nothing more than a game, thus severely lessening the severity of war. Is it possible that our good intentions have led us astray? Did we merely create the “rules of engagement” so that we have the freedom to act in war, all the while maintaining that we have done no wrong because we played by the rules? I surely hope that this is not the case, although I am not so confident.
I am on the border for calling modern warfare a game. There is too much at stake, too much at risk for countries to be approaching these events like a game. While I agree that certain diplomatic actions are disgraceful and simply horrible, I might not go as far as to call it a game, but claiming this is an uphill battle, anyway. It is a long shot, but I am intrigued by the idea that rules of engagement were created to justify humanity’s cruel, war-hungry nature.