Posted on Dec 12, 2024
IHL 101: Combatant Status on the Battlefield | LinkedIn
581
9
3
7
7
0
https://www.linkedin.com/events/ihl101-combatantstatusonthebatt [login to see] 148052993/about/
From insurgent forces to spies, mercenaries, and more, modern battlefields are filled with a wide array of people. What legal status and protections do these various people have during warfare? Join IHL Senior Counsel Thomas Harper for an exploration of what it means to be a combatant and the legal implications of this designation.
This event is open to all. You can register on LinkedIn
From insurgent forces to spies, mercenaries, and more, modern battlefields are filled with a wide array of people. What legal status and protections do these various people have during warfare? Join IHL Senior Counsel Thomas Harper for an exploration of what it means to be a combatant and the legal implications of this designation.
This event is open to all. You can register on LinkedIn
IHL 101: Combatant Status on the Battlefield | LinkedIn
Posted from linkedin.comPosted in these groups: International Law
Combat
Combat
Posted 1 y ago
Responses: 3
1
1
0
I'm on the same ride as LTC Marc King. My status won't matter if I get called back to duty and I'll do my best to take all our enemies out. Even if it means bad things for me. To quote a movie, "My soul is prepared! How's yours?"
(1)
(0)
0
0
0
Everyone seems to want to complicate things more than the Geneva Convention is in reality. If you are fighting in uniform or recognizable article to distinguish you from civilians, under an established chain of command, AND follow the general rules of the Geneva Convention, you are a combatant and entitles to all the protections. If not, you can be bandit, terrorist, foreign fighter, or mercenary, but there is no protection other than they have to give you a trial before they shoot you.
Civilians in a war zone are screwed. The real restrictions are that you aren't supposed to deliberately target civilians, and you are supposed to try to minimize civilian deaths, but what that really means is broadly interpreted. Using a recent conflict, if Hamas is using an orphanage as the location for a Rocket Launcher and chose to make it a huge smoking crater rather than send in troops to fight in an urban environment, it isn't very nice but not violating the Geneva Convention.
The other issue is that you have to be a signatory of the Conventions to be bound by that convention. The best example is the Ottawa Convention against landmines. While in most cases the US does not employ land mines these days, we did not sign that convention.
Civilians in a war zone are screwed. The real restrictions are that you aren't supposed to deliberately target civilians, and you are supposed to try to minimize civilian deaths, but what that really means is broadly interpreted. Using a recent conflict, if Hamas is using an orphanage as the location for a Rocket Launcher and chose to make it a huge smoking crater rather than send in troops to fight in an urban environment, it isn't very nice but not violating the Geneva Convention.
The other issue is that you have to be a signatory of the Conventions to be bound by that convention. The best example is the Ottawa Convention against landmines. While in most cases the US does not employ land mines these days, we did not sign that convention.
(0)
(0)
0
0
0
US does outline certain Rules of Engagement and violators can be punished.
Rich
Rich
(0)
(0)
Read This Next
Continue with Facebook 
Continue with Google