In a ‘legally declared war’, usually, can a enemy be charged with a criminal offense such as auto thief? Or does that fall under some other ‘rules’ related to war such as in war that is to be expected? What about civil lawsuits? Are crimes exempt during war for the enemy?
In Kellys Heroes, Savalas stated that they would hang, until it was pointed out that robbing the bank was on the other side of the front line. So at least in movie world, the most they probably would have faced AWOL charges or missing movement, as Archie Bunker started that accidental offensive, officially.
Real world, I have no idea, but its worth noting that the Troops in OIF turned in bags of a million bucks cash, so apart from the moral upstanding nature of the troops, was there real world consequences of not turning it in, and simply burying the money.
Declan
According to Article 53 of the Fourth Geneva Convention (relating to the protection of civilians in wartime) “Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.” That exception is probably broad enough to cover a lot of auto theft and so on (“it was absolutely necessary to our military operations for us to requisition that guy’s car”), but–especially if your side loses the war–you could certainly be tried for war crimes based on your treatment of the enemy civilian population. See the Fourth Geneva Convention in general.
Article 93 of the Third Geneva Convention (relating to the protection of prisoners of war) states that “offences committed by prisoners of war with the sole intention of facilitating their escape and which do not entail any violence against life or limb, such as offences against public property, theft without intention of self-enrichment, the drawing up or use of false papers, the wearing of civilian clothing, shall occasion disciplinary punishment only.”
So, they’re not supposed to punish you very harshly for stealing things off someone’s clothesline in order to facilitate your getting away, or probably even hotwiring some guy’s car to try to make it to Switzerland. But if you stop to steal a few million dollars in jewels on the way, or murder someone in order to get his car, then the enemy can put you on trial and sentence you to whatever sentence they would give to a member of their own forces for larceny or murder.
Of course, when the US invaded Afghanistan, they arrested Omar Kadhr after a firefight in which a US soldier was killed. After years of trying, they finally convicted him of murder.
He was 15 at the time, so the USA will not only charge soldiers with criminal acts for what they do during a war, they will in fact convict child soldiers.
Was he a soldier? It’s not like the Taliban government formally inducted all their combatants into official units, with name/rank/serial number uniform or army unit numbers. He was on the front lines with a weapon to defend the government from invasion. Kadhr’s father had been a friend of bin Laden and in his camp, so when the shooting broke out everyone in the camp was press-ganged into the fight. (Seriously, do you think anyone had the option “thanks, but I’ll sit this one out”?)
Kahdr, one of the last western citizens in Guantanamo, finally pled guilty so as to finish the ordeal and get repatriated to Canada, not because he felt guilty.
I believe there is a provision for such a impromptu militia force that is accepted as a soldier for purposes such as what you describe.
The US does not have the best record following rules of war especially in regards to the treatment of the captured enemy, so allowing this man to be tried for murder would not be unexpected from this nation.
Which brings the other point to the OP, if the rules established would be ignored.