3 ms·

> The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. They also cover treatment of civ

> The Geneva Conventions are treaties between states that define how they will treat each other's soldiers if captured in war. They also cover treatment of civilians, medical units, and infrastructure. Amongst other things. > The Geneva Conventions do not apply to wars with non-state actors or states who are not participants to the treaty Yes, they do. The protections are not as extensive, but the conventions also cover any armed conflict within the territory of a contracting party, such as the Syrian Arab Republic. They also cover occupation of a contracting party's territory, whether armed or not. > The Geneva Conventions would never apply to traitors on your own side, which is the case here. The conventions don't make any exception for traitors. They certainly don't allow Syria to take an ISIS fighter prisoner and avoid their convention responsibilities by handing him over to the US.

Noos 9y ago
The point of the conventions is sort of a mutual aid that encourages nations to abide by rules of war. It is not a right in any real sense, nor does it mean one side must always act ethically to the other side which ignores and flouts it. Essentially its a gentleman's agreement, and is as binding as one of those. Once one side breaks it, I don't think treating them like they haven't is proper.
- saas_co_de 9y ago
  right. the only enforcement mechanism for international law is war (economic or military). So to enforce the laws of war requires more war, which limits their practical effect.
saas_co_de 9y ago
> The conventions don't make any exception for traitors Yes, but the basis of the conventions is treaties between states. Only a state that was party to that treaty would have standing to claim that the treaty had been violated. Since a traitor would be a citizen of the state who would theoretically be violating the treaty then no other state would have standing to assert a violation.

Noos 9y ago

The point of the conventions is sort of a mutual aid that encourages nations to abide by rules of war. It is not a right in any real sense, nor does it mean one side must always act ethically to the other side which ignores and flouts it. Essentially its a gentleman's agreement, and is as binding as one of those. Once one side breaks it, I don't think treating them like they haven't is proper.

saas_co_de 9y ago
right. the only enforcement mechanism for international law is war (economic or military). So to enforce the laws of war requires more war, which limits their practical effect.

saas_co_de 9y ago

> The conventions don't make any exception for traitors Yes, but the basis of the conventions is treaties between states. Only a state that was party to that treaty would have standing to claim that the treaty had been violated. Since a traitor would be a citizen of the state who would theoretically be violating the treaty then no other state would have standing to assert a violation.