With the recent hospital bombing in Afghanistan, issues dealing war crimes are brought to light. But what specifically is a ‘war crime’? Isn’t killing involved in war? When is it applicable to say that a country or a leader has committed a war crime since war typically involves casualties among armed forces?

At the Becker Rose Cafe, Professor Ohlin of the Cornell Law School gave a short information session pertaining to war politics as well as his opinions on current events. He started off by detailing the ‘rules’ of war, which are generally understood amongst all powers in conflict. While battle will result in deaths, the combat should, in no way, hurt innocent civilians, injured soldiers (who are beyond the point of service), or medical facilities. There is extra emphasis on hospitals because they are a safe zone since they are typically associated with recovery or healing for people who are suffering. However, if the injuring of civilians occurs as collateral damage, it is perfectly legal. But what does collateral damage mean? If, for instance, a building in destroyed and debris falls onto passing civilians, then this act cannot be deemed a war crime.

Another issue that officials have to deal with when observing these cases is the proportion of civilian deaths when compared to that of soldier deaths. But since these numbers are often hard to calculate, a lot of courts choose not to try these cases unless it is a major event.  The bombing of the Doctors Without Borders hospital in Afghanistan, for example, is one such case and the United States has yet to provide a full debriefing as to what had actually happened before bombing the local hospital. In addition, it is important to note that this unfortunate event happened on a national scale and is part of the reason why further investigation will be conducted to determine if this could actually be categorized as a war crime.

If the problem persisted internationally as seen in Syria, the case is much harder to handle. Much of these issues will be sent to the International Criminal Court, which is a coalition formed from numerous countries. With the current system, if any one of the participating countries vetoes to receive a case, the issue is immediately dispelled and not even glanced at. But from news reports, it is apparent that the civilians of Syria are being killed left and right while Russia is conducting covert, illegal activities in the country. While the reports of criminal activity in Syria may be sent over to the International Criminal Court, Professor Ohlin mentioned that Russia will, without a doubt, veto this case.

Even with a political organization, the world seems to be unable to deal with international war crimes through its failure to effectively implement its resources. With such weaknesses, is it not necessary to revise international political law as well as search for solutions that brings war crimes to an end?