History UsefulNotes / TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar

Also note that medics and similar positions are permitted to carry small arms solely for self-defence (though, many chose not to). In particular today, when medics are integrated into the unit as a soldier first, medic second, most do not wear a Red Cross/Red Crescent symbol and do carry weapons. Also, even specialized actual medics are permitted to carry and use weapons against those who would attack those under their care; e.g. if the enemy is harming the wounded (itself a war crime), medics are entirely justified in responding with lethal force. In these cases, they are considered lawful combatants, and are not war criminals for carrying weaponry. See below for other cases where medics are treated differently.

Article 75 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977) contains a prohibition of [[ColdBloodedTorture torture]] as one of the basic minimum protections applicable to everyone, even if they are eligible for protection under none of the other Geneva Conventions. The "legitimate" in the header above refers to the fact that under the original Geneva Conventions, there are protections only for lawful combatants and [[WouldNotShootACivilian noncombatants]], not "unlawful combatants". In other words, torturing unlawful combatants (along with anyone and everyone else) is a war crime.

Ceasefires take effect at a set time after the agreement, allowing the word to get to troops in the field. In practice, people ''generally'' stop firing once they're told of the ceasefire; no one wants to be the last to die in a war. Although, this might not be the case when it is unclear whether the ceasefire is the actual end of the war. As a ceasefire usually entails that the battle lines will remain where they are, people might attempt to use the time period to get a favourable positions. Standing orders of the Pakistan Army are that Pakistani forces will continue to jockey for favourable positions until the coming into effect of the ceasefire (although major offensives are forbidden) while the Israeli Army seems to have a policy (if not formal orders) which is similar. This is a risky proposition, the enemy might decide to simply abandon the plan.

Common Article 2 of the Geneva Conventions "apply to all cases of declared war or of any other armed conflict which may arise between two or more of the High Contracting Parties, even if the state of war is not recognized by one of them." For this to exist, it must be against a state by forces belonging to another state: the acts of purely private persons do not constitute an international armed conflict unless such persons act on behalf of the state, including instances when states incorporate proxy forces in their operations. However, this does not mean that states must use their military forces: non-military forces such as border guards may be engaged in acts constituting an international armed conflict.

Common Article 3 applies to "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties." This application is more difficult than Common Article 2, and is often common between State and non-state forces or non-state forces themselves within the state. To meet this definition of armed conflict, hostilities must be beyond any ordinary capabilities of first responders, and non-state forces must exhibit a certain degree of organization.

Wounding or killing combatants is not a war crime. '''Combatants''' are people who fight (e.g. infantry, guerilla fighters, insurgents, etc) or directly assist those fighting (e.g. logistics personnel). That means, for example, a computer programmer or network technician setting up a military network is a legitimate military target, but a programmer or tech setting up a computer network for a news bureau, even though they are filming in a war zone, is not. This is why anyone who works in a combat or combat logistics position wears a uniform while on duty ''even if they are not in a combat area'', so that combatants and civilians are clearly distinguished. It is a war crime for a combatant to disguise themselves as a civilian with the intent to attack, but disguising themselves for any other reason, including desertion and escape, is perfectly legal.

Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but perhaps the best known incident in the USA's history was was General William Tecumseh Sherman's 1864 'March to the Sea' that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during the UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war). Vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, [[ThrowTheDogABone the slaves were set free]], and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted for this campaign anyway (instead, [[WrittenByTheWinners they wrote]] [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRXmuvLU8LQ an infuriatingly catchy song]] about it), but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, he would almost certainly be acquitted, as his property-destruction acts would even today be considered cruel but not illegal, and tracing any of the civilian casualties directly to his orders would be virtually impossible.

!! Medics and chaplains

[[TheMedic Medical personnel]] and [[GoodShepherd chaplains]], being noncombatants, are not technically prisoners of war, though they must receive as good treatment as the prisoners. Furthermore, they must be permitted to carry out their ministrations. They can be required to minister to prisoners from other nationalities, however, and are still bound by professional and ethical obligations that may compel them to minister to the enemy in an emergency.

Wounding or killing combatants is not a war crime. '''Combatants''' are people who fight (e.g. infantry, guerilla fighters, insurgents, etc) or directly assist those fighting (e.g. logistics personnel). Wounding or killing '''noncombatants''' ( e.g. civilians, prisoners of war, medics, chaplains, etc) is a war crime. That means, for example, a computer programmer or network technician setting up a military network is a legitimate military target, but a programmer or tech setting up a computer network for a news bureau, even though they are filming in a war zone, is not. This is why anyone who works in a combat or combat logistics position wears a uniform while on duty ''even if they are not in a combat area'', so that combatants and civilians are clearly distinguished. Wounding or killing combatants who have surrendered, [[SinkTheLifeBoats are leaving damaged vehicles]] (except tank crews leaving damaged tanks or airborne infantry leaving damaged planes), or become '[[KickThemWhileTheyAreDown hors de combat]]' ("outside the fight," i.e. incapable of fighting) all constitute war crimes. It is a war crime for a combatant to disguise themselves as a civilian with the intent to attack, but disguising themselves for any other reason, including desertion and escape, is perfectly legal.

Non-combatants are persons who are not or cease taking part in armed hostilities. In the context of international armed conflicts, they are referred to as “protected persons” under the Geneva Conventions, but they benefit from minimum protection in non-international armed conflicts as well. Deliberately targeting civilians is a war crime. Also, wounding or killing enemy fighters who are [[KickThemWhileTheyAreDown hors de combat]] ("outside the fight," i.e. incapable of fighting), such as those who have surrendered, are [[SinkTheLifeBoats leaving damaged vehicles]] (except tank crews leaving damaged tanks, infantry troops leaving damaged boats near or close to shore, or airborne forces leaving damaged planes), are wounded and sick, or became shipwrecked, constitute war crimes.

!! Persons parachuting from disabled aircraft

Common Article 3 applies to "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties." This application is more difficult than Common Article 2. This is often common between State and non-state forces or non-state forces themselves within the state. To meet this definition of armed conflict, hostilities must be beyond any ordinary capabilities of first responders, and non-state forces must exhibit a certain degree of organization.

Wounding or killing combatants is not a war crime. '''Combatants''' are people who fight (e.g. infantry) or directly assist those fighting (e.g. logistics personnel). Wounding or killing '''noncombatants''', i.e. civilians, is a war crime. That means, for example, a computer programmer or network technician setting up a military network is a legitimate military target, but a programmer or tech setting up a computer network for a news bureau, even though they are filming in a war zone, is not. This is why anyone who works in a combat or combat logistics position wears a uniform while on duty ''even if they are not in a combat area'', so that combatants and civilians are clearly distinguished. Wounding or killing combatants who have surrendered, [[SinkTheLifeBoats are leaving damaged vehicles]] (except tank crews leaving damaged tanks or airborne infantry leaving damaged planes), or become '[[KickThemWhileTheyAreDown hors de combat]]' ("outside the fight," i.e. incapable of fighting) all constitute war crimes. It is a war crime for a combatant to disguise themselves as a civilian with the intent to attack, but disguising themselves for any other reason, including desertion and escape, is perfectly legal.

There are several quasi-military jobs that were taken into uniformed services to give protection under the Geneva convention to those workers. Otherwise they were unlawful combatants and possibly spies. The Public Health and NOAA Corps are American examples of battlefield surveyors and ambulance personnel put in a uniform to give them protection on a battlefield.

!! Civilians

If a member of the armed forces followed an [[JustFollowingOrders order to commit an act which clearly constitutes a war crime under the laws of war]], they are every bit as responsible for it as the superiors who ordered them to do it. During the Nuremberg and High Command trials many military officers unsuccessfully used the "I was just following orders" defence--afterwards known as the Nuremberg Defence--in a bid to avoid harsh sentencing. This is because, somewhat stereotypically, under pre-war German law the most severe category of murder (and its attendant sentences) was reserved for those committed for emotional reasons (hatred, anger, love). More generally they (successfully) strove to convince the press and public that they had been victims of the Nazi regime too. However, the Allied judicial panels were interested in ''prior intent'' and not their exact motivations. Hundreds of military personnel, including a dozen high-ranking officers, were convicted of war crimes and served prison sentences of up to five years.

However, if a soldier is ordered to commit a war crime but will not face any punishment for refusing, they bear full responsibility for the act. Note that the 'punishment' of being transferred from an active sector like Ukraine or Serbia (with high pay and opportunities for rapid promotion) to another unit, [[ReassignedToAntarctica even if that unit is in a 'quiet' sector]] like occupied Denmark or training bases in Germany, is ''not'' considered punishment for these purposes. This is why German military officers were indicted at Nuremberg and the High Command Trials: German military personnel could almost always refuse to participate in war crimes without any adverse consequences, and the hierarchy would just find someone else to do the job. Because the option of refusing was always there, a handful of German officers of all levels were brought to trial and convicted for issuing or obeying illegal orders .

!! Enforcement

While actual enforcement of these laws takes place through a wide variety of mechanism (international NGO's, UN and regional bodies etc.), the biggest incentive to follow these rules is TheGoldenRule. If you do not follow the rules, the enemy most certainly will not. This is especially true in the case of treatment of [=POWs=]: if you mistreat enemy troops over whom you have total control, the other side will lose any compunctions about mistreating your service members that they have captive. This is one of the reason that armed forces personnel are rather keen on these rules.

The history of war is replete with examples where a relatively small-scale breach of the rules regarding the killing of [=POWs=] or shot-out airmen resulted in massive retaliations by the other side. To give a pair of [=WW2=] examples: A Japanese fighter machine gunning a bailed-out [=B-17=] crew and killing eight of the thirteen at Bismarck Sea resulted in the US and Australians sinking the lifeboats and rafts of the convoy after it was destroyed, killing thousands of Japanese soldiers; during the Battle of the Bulge the murder of a group of American prisoners by the SS caused a number of American units to refuse to accept surrenders during the course of the battle, costing hundreds of German lives. Worst of all, public opinion compelled the USA to prosecute the junior SS officers responsible in the postwar trials process. This gave the Soviets a 'foot in the door' when arguing for the prosecution of more senior officers responsible for War Crimes.

* The Geneva Conference (1925) led to the banning of chemical weapons during war.

* The 1993 Chemical Weapons Treaty further banned certain chemical weapons.

The different treaties that make up the laws of war also prescribe symbols to denote people, places or things that are not legitimate targets in time of war. The best known of these is the Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal symbols that are jointly protected by the Geneva Conventions and the International Committees of the Red Cross. The symbol in wartime is used to mark medics and medical vehicles and facilities that are officially noncombatant and illegal to fire at. Unfortunately, not all combatant forces have heeded the laws, and medics have been forced during some conflicts to remove the red cross from their uniforms as all it did was present a better target and [[ShootTheMedicFirst point out the medic]]. Field hospitals and military medical facilities also use the symbol, which is why it is legitimately used all over the TV series ''Series/MASH'', as it is set at an Army hospital during wartime. However, most uses of the symbol in fiction, such as on medkits (and in real life[[note]]at least for any entity not Johnson and Johnson, whose trademark registration of the symbol predates the Geneva Conventions and so they are allowed to use the Red Cross symbol via the GrandfatherClause, a privilege upheld in court as recently as the past two decades[[/note]]) get a quick and stern rebuke from either the ICRC or the Geneva Commission, as they fear dilution of the symbol into becoming just a generic medical symbol, losing the specific meaning of "this person, place or thing is not legal to fire upon". Go to TheColoredCross for more information.

Also on the subject of medics, this is the main reason that TheColoredCross is a trope on this wiki. The Red Cross symbol, while also connected to the Red Cross and Red Crescent movement, is primarily a '''protective symbol''' -- the Red Cross (as well as the Red Crescent and the Red Lozenge) were intended to denote medical personnel, facilities and vehicles that were off limits in combat. In short, the Red Cross/Crescent/Lozenge means "it is a war crime to fire upon this person, place or vehicle". This is why, as mentioned in TheColoredCross, the International Committee of the Red Cross is adamant about it not being used generically in media for medkits, doctors or nurses, as it dilutes the original protective meaning. The symbol itself is protected by the Geneva Conventions, and dressing as a medic to ambush the enemy is a ''[[SeriousBusiness major]]'' offense, as it would encourage the other side to start shooting all medics to defend against the ruse.

There was a distinct difference in the interpretation of this order in 'the east' and in 'the west'. In countries with racially acceptable populations which were to become German puppets after Germany won, it was often interpreted to mean 'the deportation of the male population for slave labour'. In countries with racially undesirable populations which were to be largely or totally eliminated to make room for German settlement, it was understood as 'death for 100 civilians for every member of the military killed by partisan action.' More [[SarcasmMode understanding]] local commanders [[DealWithTheDevil would consult with local leaders]] and attempt to fulfill their quotas using 'inessential' members of communities]] such as Jews or Romani ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust before they were deported in 1942]]), disabled or mentally ill people, gays, the elderly, or children. In roughly that order.

There was a distinct difference in the interpretation of this order in 'the east' and in 'the west'. In countries with racially acceptable populations which were to become German puppets after Germany won, it was often interpreted to mean 'the deportation of the male population for slave labour'. In countries with racially undesirable populations which were to be largely or totally eliminated to make room for German settlement, it was understood as 'death for 100 civilians for every member of the military killed by partisan action.' [[OfficerAndAGentleman More understanding local commanders would consult with local leaders and attempt to fulfill their quotas using 'inessential' members of communities]] such as Jews or Romani ([[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust before they were deported in 1942]]), disabled or mentally ill people, gays, the elderly, or children. In roughly that order.

!! Tear Gas

Wounding or killing combatants is not a war crime. '''Combatants''' are people who fight (e.g. infantry) or directly assist those fighting (e.g. logistics personnel). Wounding or killing '''noncombatants''', i.e. civilians, is a war crime. That means, for example, a computer programmer or network technician setting up a military network is a legitimate military target, but a programmer or tech setting up a computer network for a news bureau, even though they are filming in a war zone, is not. This is why anyone who works in a combat or combat logistics position wears a uniform while on duty ''even if they are not in a combat area'', so that combatants and civilians are clearly distinguished. Wounding or killing combatants who have surrendered, [[SinkTheLifeBoats are leaving damaged vehicles]] (except tank crews leaving damaged tanks), or become '[[KickThemWhileTheyAreDown hors de combat]]' ("outside the fight," i.e. incapable of fighting) all constitute war crimes. It is a war crime for a combatant to disguise themselves as a civilian with the intent to attack, but disguising themselves for any other reason, including desertion and escape, is perfectly legal.

** Several other Arab states technically declared war on Israel and joined the Arab armistices, but never actually engaged in combat with the IDF. Most if not all of these countries have pledged to sign peace treaties with Israel upon the establishment of a Palestinian state, and some (including the Gulf States and Morocco) have good relations with Israel on the down low.

Technically not illegal, but strongly discouraged for fear of reprisal with deadly chemical weapons. [[FridgeLogic Oddly enough, use of tear gas is banned in normal warfare but legal for use by civilian law enforcement.]][[note]]A practice that's become increasingly controversial in its own right.[[/note]] It's also legal to tear gas your own troops as part of their training. Citing how common UrbanWarfare is in the modern [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror War on Terror]], many U.S. service members have begun to criticize the arbitrary ban on tear gas, as it would actually save lives lost on both sides in deadly house-to-house fighting by forcing the occupants out into the open where they can be sorted out non-lethally. However, there is justification, as while in police situations the police is unlikely to have access to deadlier nerve gas, in the military there is a risk that the command would use tear gas as an excuse to deploy the deadlier version of tear gas and lying to the grunts that they are carrying tear gas and to use NBC safety gear when deploying it.

Moreover, the rule against killing or wounding civilians does not extend to seizing or destroying their property; examples from the 20th century wars are innumerable, but perhaps the best known incident in the USA's history was was General William Tecumseh Sherman's 1864 'March to the Sea' that wrecked Georgia in September-December 1864 (and later campaigns in the Carolinas in early 1865) during the UsefulNotes/TheAmericanCivilWar (a war fought largely in accordance with the modern rules of war). Vast quantities of civilian property (including railroad infrastructure, manufacturing facilities, manufactured goods, cotton, private homes, and especially food and slaves) were seized and destroyed (the food was eaten, the slaves were set free, and the rest was either burned or reduced to rubble) while relatively few civilians were actually killed. Sherman's side won, so he would never have been prosecuted for this campaign anyway (instead, [[WrittenByTheWinners they wrote]] [[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SRXmuvLU8LQ an infuriatingly catchy song]] about it), but if he were magically resurrected and placed on trial before a fair tribunal, he would almost certainly be acquitted, as his property-destruction acts would even today be considered cruel but not illegal, and tracing any of the civilian casualties directly to his orders would be virtually impossible.

Prisoners are permitted to escape (many belligerent forces see it as a duty to do so) and executing them or anyone else for attempting to do so is a war crime. It's not a war crime to wound or kill prisoners attempting to escape, provided you give them a clear warning first.

* [[DressingAsTheEnemy Pretending to be members of enemy armed forces]] ''in a combat situation''. Note that the use of enemy uniforms for reconnaissance or intelligence-gathering purposes is ''not'' perfidy--although the enemy are still allowed to shoot you for ''espionage'' if you get caught.

[[RapePillageAndBurn Deliberately wounding or killing civilians]] is a war crime, as is issuing or obeying orders to wound or kill civilians. This is subject to some fine distinctions, however; if civilians are in or near a legitimate military target, it is not generally considered a war crime to destroy the target in the absence of other options. This is how it was not considered a war crime for the various belligerents during World War II to go around bombing each others' factories--the factories were generally producing either war materiel or other items necessary or useful to the war effort, and thus the fact that the workers were civilians was considered less important than the military character of the goods they produced. More contentious was, first, [[UsefulNotes/TheHomeFront the London Blitz]] and, later, the RAF and US Army Air Force's 1944-45 attempts to more efficiently destroy factories and rail hubs by creating firestorms in the urban areas around them, and the ''Luftwaffe'' and RAF's attempts to create firestorms in urban areas with no industrial plant or rail infrastructure in order to 'demoralize' enemy populations unarguably constituted war crimes.

The prohibition of shooting aircrews parachuting from disabled aircraft does not apply to the dropping of [[ItsRainingMen paratroopers]] who may be fired upon during their descent, whether their aircraft is in distress or not. Belligerents must distinguish between those who are bound upon hostile missions (such as paratroopers entering into combat areas to fight enemy forces and/or destroying enemy supply lines) and those who are not (such as aircrews parachuting from disabled aircraft as they are out of combat and are not descending for hostile purposes).

* The armistice ending the Korean War was signed in July 1953, but no peace treaty will be signed in the foreseeable future. North Korea has technically withdrawn from it, several times in fact, but all parties treat it as extant.

The reason behind the ban on both hollowpoints and Dum-Dums is the idea that military weapons should serve a military purpose, and no more. That is, follow the idea of Least Suffering--a weapon should cause the minimum amount of damage to incapacitate a person, and no more, or kill someone quickly, rather than maim. Intentionally maiming an opponent serves no moral purpose that a "normal" wound wouldn't, and therefore is excessive, and banned. In reality, at least in modern ammunition design, expanding ammunition is designed to kill the target ''faster'', though that's not what the thinking was in 1899.

Technically not illegal, but strongly discouraged for fear of reprisal with deadly chemical weapons. [[FridgeLogic Oddly enough, use of tear gas is banned in normal warfare but legal for use by civilian law enforcement.]] It's also legal to tear gas your own troops as part of their training. Citing how common UrbanWarfare is in the modern [[UsefulNotes/TheWarOnTerror War on Terror]], many U.S. service members have begun to criticize the arbitrary ban on tear gas, as it would actually save lives lost on both sides in deadly house-to-house fighting by forcing the occupants out into the open where they can be sorted out non-lethally. However, there is justification, as while in police situations the police is unlikely to have access to deadlier nerve gas, in the military there is a risk that the command would use tear gas as an excuse to deploy the deadlier version of tear gas and lying to the grunts that they are carrying tear gas and to use nbc safety gear when deploying it.

Under Article 42 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977), aircrews parachuting from disabled aircraft are not to be fired upon, as they are already out of the fight and now completely helpless to defend themselves. In the European Theatre during World War II, any pilot who intentionally fired at parachuting aircrews in sight of the enemy effectively [[BerserkButton signed their own death warrant]] (except on the Eastern Front, where the Soviets deliberately refused to follow the laws of war and the Germans retaliated in kind). Any enemy fighter pilots in the area would ditch all other priorities just to take the son of a bitch down.

Technically not illegal, but strongly discouraged for fear of reprisal with deadly chemical weapons. [[FridgeLogic Oddly enough, use of tear gas is banned in normal warfare but legal for use by civilian law enforcement.]] It's also legal to tear gas your own troops as part of their training. Citing how common UrbanWarfare is in the modern [[TheWarOnTerror War on Terror]], many U.S. service members have begun to criticize the arbitrary ban on tear gas, as it would actually save lives lost on both sides in deadly house-to-house fighting by forcing the occupants out into the open where they can be sorted out non-lethally. However, there is justification, as while in police situations the police is unlikely to have access to deadlier nerve gas, in the military there is a risk that the command would use tear gas as an excuse to deploy the deadlier version of tear gas and lying to the grunts that they are carrying tear gas and to use nbc safety gear when deploying it.

Both orders are illegal now and were illegal at the time, although the preamble to the 'Commissar Order' had claimed that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the Soviet Union and its citizens because the USSR was not a signatory of it. [[BlatantLies The Soviets had signed it,]] but even if they hadn't then ordering prisoners to be killed would still have been illegal. After the war the Soviet Union pushed to have German officers in Anglo-American custody who had implemented those two orders (on Eastern Bloc citizens) tried for war crimes. The British and Americans complied in several cases, and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Erich_von_Manstein#Summation_and_verdict Erich von Manstein was famously convicted]] for enforcing elements of both Orders (killing POW, NKVD/NKGB special forces, partisans, civilians in 'retaliatory deterrance', [[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust and Jews]], for a total at least in the tens of thousands), only to be released from prison after serving 4 years of his 18 year sentence for 'good behavior'. [[note]] In a wild and totally unrelated coincidence, that year was 1953 and he immediately found employment [[UsefulNotes/WeAreNotTheWehrmacht helping found the Bundeswehr (est. 1955)]].[[/note]]

Technically not illegal, but strongly discouraged for fear of reprisal with deadly chemical weapons. [[FridgeLogic Oddly enough, use of tear gas is banned in normal warfare but legal for use by civilian law enforcement]]. It's also legal to tear gas your own troops as part of their training. Citing how common UrbanWarfare is in the modern [[TheWarOnTerror War on Terror]], many U.S. service members have begun to criticize the arbitrary ban on tear gas, as it would actually save lives lost on both sides in deadly house-to-house fighting by forcing the occupants out into the open where they can be sorted out non-lethally. However there is justification as while police situations where police is unlikely to have access to deadlier nerve gas. In the military there is a risk that the command would use tear gas as an excuse to deploy the deadlier version of tear gas and lying to the grunts that they are carrying tear gas and to use nbc safety gear when deploying it.

Both orders are illegal now and were illegal at the time, although the preamble to the 'Commissar Order' had claimed that the Geneva Convention did not apply to the Soviet Union and its citizens because the USSR was not a signatory of it. [[BlatantLies The Soviets had signed it,]] but even if they hadn't then ordering prisoners to be killed would still have been illegal. After the war the Soviet Union pushed to have German officers in Anglo-American custody who had implemented those two orders (on Eastern Bloc citizens) tried for war crimes. The British and Americans complied in several cases, and [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Erich_von_Manstein#Summation_and_verdict Erich von Manstein was famously convicted]] for enforcing elements of both Orders (killing POW, NKVD/NKGB special forces, partisans, civilians in 'retaliatory deterrace', [[UsefulNotes/TheHolocaust and Jews]], for a total at least in the tens of thousands), only to be released from prison after serving 4 years of his 18 year sentence for 'good behavior'. [[note]] In a wild and totally unrelated coincidence, that year was 1953 and he immediately found employment [[UsefulNotes/WeAreNotTheWehrmacht helping found the Bundeswehr (est. 1955)]]. [[/note]]

While actual enforcement of these laws takes place through a wide variety of mechanism (international NGO's, UN and regional bodies etc), the biggest incentive to follow these rules is TheGoldenRule. If you do not follow the rules, the enemy most certainly will not. This is especially true in the case of treatment of [=POWs=]: if you mistreat enemy troops over whom you have total control, the other side will lose any compunctions about mistreating your service members that they have captive. This is one of the reason that armed forces personnel are rather keen on these rules.

Ceasefires take effect at a set time after the agreement, allowing the word to get to troops in the field. In practice, people ''generally'' stop firing once they're told of the ceasefire; no one wants to be the last to die in a war. Although, this might not be the case when it is unclear whether the ceasefire is the actual end of the war. As a ceasefire usually entails that the battle lines will remain where they are, people might attempt to use the time period to get a favourable positions. Standing orders of the Pakistan Army are that Pakistani forces will continue to jockey for favourable positions until the coming into effect of the ceasefire (although major offensives are forbidden) while the Israeli Army seems to have a policy (if not formal orders)which is similar. This is a risky proposition, the enemy might decide to simply abandon the plan.

A ship is allowed to fly the flags of an opposing or neutral nation (although protected symbols are banned) as it approaches an enemy vessel or the coast. However, before it engages the enemy, it has to lower the colours it is flying and reveal its true colours. Witness the [[AWolfInSheepsClothing Q-Ships]] of UsefulNotes/WorldWarOne and UsefulNotes/WorldWarTwo, converted merchant ships loaded with [[NighInvulnerable things which float like cork, balsa]] and [[{{Irony}} wooden coffins]] to render them nearly unsinkable--and also large artillery hidden by drop-down panels. When an enemy submarine approached to close range and surfaced to attack with a deck gun, [[OhCrap the colors were raised, and the panels were dropped.]]

->''"The (Third) Geneva Convention, ''Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War'' (of 12 August 1949), Article 4.A(2), defines a Lawful Combatant as "(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; (b) that of having fixed distinctive insignia recognizable at a distance; (c) that of carrying arms openly; and (d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with [[TitleDrop the laws and customs of war]]."''