Dunno if this is a GD or a flat our GQ, so feel free to move… I posted it here because it involves lots of hypotheticals
Can a nation be held civilly liable for acts of collateral damage inflicted in war?
Imagine there’s a Superpower, let’s call them Superpower A, and they decide to invade a country (let’s call it Afraqistan) to dethrone an evil tyrant (let’s call him Mustafa). We declare that the freedom-loving Afraqi people are not our enemies, we just want to bring the criminals responsbile for whatever to justice, and democracy to Afraqistan. So in comes Superpower A, they arrest Mustafa and topple his statues. Yay! Mission accomplished.
Now, imagine there’s this other guy, let’s call him Abdul. Abdul owns a Radio Shack franchise in Capital City and business, frankly has gone all to hell since the invasion. His cash flow has dried up, what with people being afraid to go out onto the streets, suicide bombers everywhere and the fact that a haywire cruise missle demolished half his shop. Also, his wife was killed in the “shock and awe” phase of the war, presumably by another of Superpower A’s bombs.
Can Superpower A be held civilly liable for the loss of Abdul’s income (he was a non combatant and declared not to be the objective of the mission) and his lovely wife (let’s call her Scherharazade), or a) is there some magic law which protects governements from being held accountable for the consequences of actions against non-hostile foreign nationals b) are Mustafa’s crimes considered predicate actions and therefore he is vicariously responsible or c) is the value of Abdul’s freedom condidred greater than any material loss (not that Abdul was being opressed before the war - he was doin’ alright beforehand) or d) tough shit.
Once again, feel free to move to GQ if this does have a clear cut, non-contentious answer.
This does have a definite answer, depending on the Haig Convention, the Geneva Convention, the principle of soverign immunity, the laws of the country in which the charges are brought (or the laws of the international tribunal, if it’s a case of “war reparations” or something similar), and probably many other issues. I’m sure a legal expert will be able to go into details.
I can tell you that civil (and criminal) cases have been brought, some sucessfully, against the British Army over incidents involving individual soldiers in Iraq, but these were all cases where the Rules of Engagement had been violated.
The answer at least sometimes is yes. Let’s assume the US declares war on Cuba. Through stupid error, the US blows up a French ship flying the French flag in international waters neither heading toward Cuba, or leaving Cuba. The French damn well WOULD expect compensation.
And they’d probably get it, but only via a voluntary payment by the US. It would be a payment made for diplomatic, not legal, reasons.
A nation can only be held civilly liable if it chooses to be held civilly liable. That is done by passing a law waiving sovereign immunity for a particular type of claim. No nation is going to waive sovereign immunity so that it can be civilly liable for war damage.
But the US has already effectively done this through treaties. Yeah, in theory the US could just ignore the treaties and blow up ships randomly from friendly nations. Just not going to happen. And at least in theory, the US Constitution does allow foreign nations to sue the US, where the SCOTUS has original jurisdiction. It just assumed short of war that will honor its legal obligations.
Not sure about your interpretation of the Constitution. Here’s the relevant text;
So the courts have jurisdiction over cases between foreign countries and states, but not the United States. And you are incorrect as to original jurisdiction.
In any event, the underlined phrase is key. Congress can except war damages from the jurisdiction of US courts.