In other words, is there some treaty that prevents soldiers from being prosecuted by civil authorities for killing and destroying?
For example: In Iraq, American (and other) soldiers have killed Iraqi citizens and destroyed public and private property. What prevents the Iraqi civil authority (such as it is) from prosecuting these men and women? After all, they were not invited to Iraq by the then-reigning leadership of the country?
Another: In Vietnam, the US military was invited by the then-recognized government. Soldiers came and killed many people while in Vietnam. What prevents the now-reigning government from seeking civil prosecutions?
Yet another: The US (and others) invaded France in order to drive the Germans out. No doubt many French were killed by “friendly” forces in order to acheive this goal. Certainly tremendous destruction was brought on French assets. Can the French seek criminal or civil compensation for having a war fought in their streets?
I’m not really looking for political answers (like “Americans are criminals for being in Iraq” or "The French are lucky Americans saved them). I just seem to remember reading that there was some document, maybe part of the Geneva Convention, that gives combatants immunity from local criminal prosecutions.
No, a treaty is not needed. Nothing prevents Iraqi’s from prosecuting American troops. But, how the heck do you expect them to enforce their decision? Usually the victor in a conflict imposes judgement on the vanquished. If Hitler had won in WWII then no Nazi’s would have been subjected to War Crimes. It is an extension of the concept of “to the victor, go the spoils”
Again nothing prevents such prosecutions, but the inability to enforce such judgements makes the point moot.
If you are asking whether the French can seek reparations against the Allies for the destruction resulting from our efforts to liberate France, then my response belongs in “the Pit”. If you are asking if Germany should have made reparations, then then the answer is yes. And they were forced to do so by the victors, the Allies.
Uniformed Soldiers, following “lawfull” orders may not be prosecuted. This is a difficult issue considering the fact that many Nazi’s were prosecuted for what for them were "lawful"acts while in uniform. But it gets back to the fact that the winner gets to decide what rules will be applied.
Face it, the world is not fair, no matter how much we wish it were. In the end might may not make right, but might determines what will be done.
Not true, assuming that Iraq is a signatory to the Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War(1949). First off, US soldiers, if captured, would be POWs under the convention. Chapter 3 “PENAL AND DISCIPLINARY SANCTIONS”, details how prisoners may be tried. Some of the highlights:
Is a country bound to treaties entered into by regimes that have subsequently been overthrown? (ie Iraq) Consider that Italy was not bound to its treaties with Nazi Germany after there was no one left to enforce such treaties.
I was not answering according to the ficticious niceties of illusory international law I was answering according to the way the real world works. International law is fine in theory but in practice how important is a law that cannot be enforced? Think back to the World Court judgement condemning the US, and ordering compensation for the illegal mining of the Nicaraguan harbor. Do you think Nicaragua has seen a single penny in reparations as a result of that decision?
In accordance with the board’s official purpose, I’d like to point out that, taking the question as one of philosophical science, not every political philosophy holds that such a thing is even a right at all. Libertarianism, for example, holds that rights are a plenipotentiary attribute of property ownership. There is no right to commit a violent act. There is merely the right to defend your property or, if necessary, to secure its return. In most contexts, rights and property are synonyms. This is not an invitation to debate. I’ve merely given one particular academic view.
There’s no absolute rule about this, that I’m aware of, though I’m certainly not an international law expert. If it’s a change of administration, then generally yes, the new administration is bound by the treaties that the old one entered into (though they can probably still explicitely repudiate them if they wish to). If it’s a change of government (such as in Iraq), then its more tricky. Often times the new government will implictely accept the obligations of the old government, because there will be a lot of international pressure to do so if they decided not to. But there’s no hard and fast rule here, each case would have to be looked at individually. In the case of Iraq, no new civilian government has been formed yet, has it? So we don’t know yet how they will treat the treaty obligations they’ve inherited.
That’s a topic for GD.
I don’t doubt that no treaty is needed at the moment to stop Iraq from prosecuting Amercian soldiers, but Drum God was asking in general.
Be aware that treaties are but one source of international law. The other source is customary international law, which is more or less an uncodified set of rules that is binding upon all nations as a bare minimum of standards of conduct. Customary international law applies regardless of whether or not a country has signed any treaties on the subject.
Customary international law provides combatant immunity to what we would consider legitimate acts of war: killing another combatant, for example, can’t be considered murder under this doctrine. Of course, it is not unlimited, and customary law has been followed up with specific conventions on the laws of war to protect noncombatants. Violations of this doctrine can be called war crimes, which are subject to criminal punishment.
Here is a pretty good bullet-point discussion of the concept of laws of war.
And to address the canard that always surfaces about international law not being real law: the overall purpose of international law is not to carry out punishments for non-compliance, but to moderate the behavior of sovereign states.
Oh, and as far as whether treaties continue in force for “new” countries, no authoritative answer is possible. There is consensus that treaties that do things like set land borders are required to remain in effect by a new country.
Beyond that, some think that states then are bound by all agreements of the previous government, others think that a new country is afforded a blank slate. In terms of Iraq, it probably comes down to a decision to be made by a fully sovereign government, once formed.
Ravenman: Are you perhaps at Georgetown or an Alumnus (Alumni?) of that or a similar institution? If so, I am am interested in the employment situation in D.C.
There are such treaties, as already mentionned. The Geneva convention and the customary law of war pretty much covers that.
They weren’t. They didn’t pay anything and there wasn’t any such clause (especially since the peace treaties were signed only during the 90’s ). The Marshal Plan has been a major source for funding the reconstruction, both in France and Germany.
And about treaties and international law, it reminds me of the interview of a UN civil servant whose job was to keep the international treaties (I mean the documents). He said amongst other things that people just didn’t realized the importance of international treaties, even in their everyday life. That without them, they wouldn’t even be able to send a letter beyond their country’s borders, let alone trade or travel. Treaties aren’t only related to wars, drawing borders or such things. There are plenty of mundane things which are handled by treaties.
No, it doesn’t. Whether we’re “officially” at war is not relevant to determining who is a POW under the Geneva Convention. From the link I posted earlier:
Did the government of France have to give some sort of permission for USA, UK, Canada, etc. to invade their country and carry out combat operations against the occupying Germans? Maybe this was more of a WWII question, but once there, how did the French get the Americans to leave?
Well, there were two French governments at the time. There was a government-in-exile lead by Charles De Gaulle that was allied with the USA, UK, and the rest. And then there was the Vichy French government which ruled the parts of France that were not under German occupation, and was allied with Germany. The de facto ruler of Normandy at the time of the D-Day invasion was Germany, and they certainly didn’t give permission for it. Who the de jure government was at the time is a matter of debate, I think. It would have been either De Gaulle’s government or the Vichy one, depending on who you considered the legitimate successor to the pre-surrender French government. Vichy France obviously never gave permission for an invasion. De Gaulle’s government probably implicitly did, as they were involved in the war effort, but I don’t know that the US or UK ever explicitly asked De Gaulle to grant permission for an invasion. I suspect the governments involved wouldn’t have seen that as necessary.
The Americans left voluntarily. It was never an issue once WWII was over. Permanently occupying France was never something the US seriously considered.
Oh good grief! The US never thought to request permission from the French, to fight and die to liberate them from Nazi opression. Besides who should we have asked? What if we asked Jeac Blow and he said no? Does that mean we should have let the Nazis do whatever they wanted?
Besides, France had already surrendered and legally were no longer a legal country rater they were an occupied territory. As such, they had no legal standing to complain if the US, after being attacked at Pearl Harbor by an ally(crap how do you spell that word?) of Germany.
There was never any question of getting US troops to leave. We pulled out as fast as we fucking could.
