History UsefulNotes / TheLawsAndCustomsOfWar

It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There are a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this Hell is developing a lot of standards. Here are just a few samples, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_control The Other Wiki]] has a more comprehensive list:

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.

When the U.S. Army adopted its "Modular Handgun System" (Sig Sauer's M17 semi-automatic handgun in 2019, it chose to include hollow point ammo as an option for the pistol, for the same reason that US law enforcement does: a pistol is a self-defense weapon used in extreme circumstances, and hollow points are more effective in stopping the threat while, at the same time, being less likely to go ''through'' the target and [[HumanShield hit whatever's behind him or her]].

When the U.S. Army adopted its "Modular Handgun System" (Sig Sauer's M17 semi-automatic handgun in 2019, it chose to include hollow point ammo as an option for the pistol, for the same reason that US law enforcement does: a pistol is a self-defense weapon used in extreme circumstances, and hollow points are more effective in stopping the threat while, at the same time, being less likely to go ''through'' the target and [[IneffectiveHumanShield hit whatever's behind him or her]].

Serious consideration is now being given on abandoning this voluntary restriction, at least for handgun ammunition, when the U.S. Army adopts its next handgun (provisionally slated for 2018).

It is worth noting that the Convention only names lawful combatants and noncombatants directly. '''Unlawful combatants''' are a US invention, based only partly on the Geneva Convention.

[[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 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.

Realizing that the people it fights have frequently not adhered to Geneva (as UsefulNotes/WorldWarTwo, the UsefulNotes/VietnamWar and every other conflict since 1941), the United States military, plus others, trains its aircrew (along with others particularly likely to end up behind enemy lines, such as [[ElitesAreMoreGlamorous special forces]]) in torture resistance techniques, including "waterboarding" them.

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 Germans deliberately refused to follow the laws of war and the Soviets retaliated in kind). Any enemy fighter pilots in the area would ditch all other priorities just to take the son of a bitch down.

There might be a clear winner or loser at the end of an armistice; what matters is that the sides have ''only'' agreed to stop fighting until further notice. Generally speaking, an armistice is when the war has ''clearly'' ended. Usually, [[PeaceConference peace talks]] and a peace treaty immediately follow but the term "peace treaty" is something of a misnomer: a peace treaty is actually about restoring (or establishing) diplomatic recognition and ties, as well as settling at least some of the disputes that led to the war in the first place ([[CaptainObvious generally in the victor's favour]], assuming that there is one).

It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There is a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this hell is developing a lot of standards. Here are just a few samples, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_control the other Wiki]] has a more comprehensive list:

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, 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 .

It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There is a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this [[EvenEvilHasStandards hell is developing a lot of standards.]] Here are just a few samples, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_control the other Wiki]] has a more comprehensive list:

The only things that you are obliged to tell the people capturing you are your name, rank, serial (or service) number and date of birth. The US permits provision of relevant health and welfare information too (e. g. blood type, allergies, that kind of thing). Telling more may result in a court martial if and when you get home. Nevertheless, your captors are permitted to offer positive inducements--better food/living conditions, less/easier work, money--for providing intelligence. They are ''not'' allowed to take you away for interrogation; you must approach them (which means you run the risk of more immediate vigilante punishment from your comrades as well as penalties back home). ''Negative'' inducements are strictly prohibited (see below).

Any unit of any armed force in an untenable situation may surrender, from an individual soldier to a platoon to a whole division to the entire armed forces of a state (at which point that state is deemed to have ended its participation in the conflict). A surrender can be under conditions or unconditional, the latter meaning that only international law applies. The Allies in World War Two demanded--and got--an unconditional surrender from Germany.[[note]]They got one from Japan, as well. Italy, however, did ''not'' surrender: it [[HeelFaceTurn switched sides]].[[/note]] It has been argued that the end of the war in Europe is also a case of ''debellatio'', completely destroying a hostile state, as Nazi Germany ceased to exist.

After the war the Poles and Soviets attempted to have the German commanders in Anglo-American custody who had enforced these orders tried for war crimes. They were partially successful in that some of the actions of some figures, even a few of the ones [[UsefulNotes/WeAreNotTheWehrmacht important to the rearmament of West Germany]] including [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heinz_Guderian#Later_life_and_death Heinz Guderian]], were eventually investigated by US and British commissions. Ultimately a full thirteen of these people (including Marshalls Kesselring and Manstein, who had been in British custody) were convicted of War Crimes and served up to five years in jail before their early release for reasons of 'good behaviour' and poor health.

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]], 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.

Once taken to a camp (these have to be designated in a way that aircraft can see them and should be well away from the front line), prisoners are to be well treated. ([[SarcasmMode How well they were treated made headlines when the fate of Vietnam War prisoners became common knowledge]], but the Vietnamese could just point out [[CrapsackWorld their own civilian population endured similar misery in their everyday life back then]].) They are allowed to write letters home and receive them--although the captors are allowed to censor these communications, so long as it is done reasonably quickly--UsefulNotes/TheRedCross can send them parcels with food and religious freedom is allowed. You also are allowed pay in line with your rank.

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]]. Any enemy fighter pilots in the area would ditch all other priorities just to take the son of a bitch down.

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.' [[AnOfficerAndAGentleman 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.

A ceasefire simply means a temporary cessation of hostilities, whether in one sector (for allowing prisoner exchanges, collecting of the wounded)or theatre-wide (usually as prelude to the cessation of the conflict as a whole) , while an armistice is the wartime equivalent of the end of the fighting stage before the final resolution, it means in essence that sides are recalling their Generals and sending in the diplomats.

[[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 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.

Technically not illegal, but strongly discouraged for fear of reprisal with deadly chemical weapons. 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.

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." [[AnOfficerAndAGentleman 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.

Mercenaries, even if they are uniformed regular units conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, are still specifically not covered by the Geneva Conventions as specified by Article 47 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977). Terrorists are ''not'' covered by the Geneva Conventions--they fail eligibility under Geneva III because of their failure to meet the standards listed above[[note]]There is no universally agreed upon definition of what a "terrorist" is, so by some definitions of the term, some terrorists may be eligible to be [=POWs=][[/note]], and they are not covered as civilians under Geneva IV because Geneva IV does not apply to individuals taking a direct part in ongoing hostilities, only to noncombatants and similar personnel. In addition, the usual ''tactics'' of terrorists, most especially random attacks against noncombatants, are themselves acts specifically proscribed by Geneva IV. However, article 75 of the First Additional Protocol establishes certain very basic minimum protections that apply to ''everyone'' regardless of whatever categories of eligibility they may or may not qualify for, including terrorists/unlawful combatants.

* The Hague Convention (1899) (and the second Hague Convention (1907)) that led to rules of declaring and conducting warfare.

Note that this article is written primarily from an American perspective - while the ''international'' laws of war are just that, several parts of the article reference policies implemented in the USA, but not necessarily elsewhere.

!![[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dum-dum Dum-Dum Bullets]]

!!Hollowpoints

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.

!!Tear Gas

!!Combatants

!!Civilians

!!Persons parachuting from disabled aircraft

!!Name, rank and number- Prisoners Of War

There are actually four Geneva Conventions- number three being the relevant one for [=POWs=].

!!Being taken prisoner

Any unit of any armed force in an untenable situation may surrender, from an individual soldier to a platoon to a whole division to the entire armed forces of a state (at which point that state is deemed to have ended its participation in the conflict). A surrender can be under conditions or unconditional, the latter meaning that only international law applies. The Allies in World War Two demanded- and got - an unconditional surrender from Germany.[[note]]They got one from Japan, as well. Italy, however, did ''not'' surrender: it [[HeelFaceTurn switched sides]].[[/note]] It has been argued that the end of the war in Europe is also a case of ''debellatio'', completely destroying a hostile state, as Nazi Germany ceased to exist.

!!In captivity

!!Being forced to work

!!Torture of ''anyone'' in ''any way'' is a war crime

!!Medical Experiments

!!Escaping

!!Medics and chaplains

!!Lawful Combatants

Mercenaries, even if they are uniformed regular units conducting operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war, are still specifically not covered by the Geneva Conventions as specified by Article 47 of the First Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions (1977). Terrorists are ''not'' covered by the Geneva Conventions - they fail eligibility under Geneva III because of their failure to meet the standards listed above[[note]]There is no universally agreed upon definition of what a "terrorist" is, so by some definitions of the term, some terrorists may be eligible to be [=POWs=][[/note]], and they are not covered as civilians under Geneva IV because Geneva IV does not apply to individuals taking a direct part in ongoing hostilities, only to noncombatants and similar personnel. In addition, the usual ''tactics'' of terrorists, most especially random attacks against noncombatants, are themselves acts specifically proscribed by Geneva IV. However, article 75 of the First Additional Protocol establishes certain very basic minimum protections that apply to ''everyone'' regardless of whatever categories of eligibility they may or may not qualify for, including terrorists/unlawful combatants.

!!No Quarter

!!Showing Your True Colours

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.]]

This is not as relevant these days- it's a lot harder to disguise a particular cruiser type than a sailing ship and naval warfare these days takes place at far longer ranges. There is a story of a British aircraft carrier pretending to be a Pakistani cruise liner on radar (by broadcasting such a registration beacon and answering hails in ''Urdu'') in order to sneak up on some Americans during a training exercise. The USN was only alerted to the deception when the British opened fire. When they protested that the British should have announced their identity beforehand, the British argued that [[RulesLawyer they had been flying the physical Pakistani flag the whole time (see the note), and raised the physical White Ensign when they launched...but of course, the USN was too far away to see them.]] [[note]]The inside joke is that Pakistan's official language is English, and that is what would be used by a real Pakistani merchant vessel (Urdu is the most-spoken language of Pakistan, but English is the language of government) and Pakistani ships do not fly the Pakistani flag, they fly the merchant ensign, the British were counting upon American crews being unaware of this fact......[[BatmanGambit but that's another trope.]][[/note]]

!!Perfidy

* Note that the last two are only illegal if you're going to ''attack''. Doing these in order to desert or to escape the battlefield are not illegal (but your own side will, of course, shoot you - presumably after a trial, we hope - if they catch you deserting).
* Pretending to be UN forces, members of the Red Cross[=/=]Red Crescent, or other international organisations. Note that if the UN is running a military operation (e.g. UsefulNotes/TheKoreanWar), you're allowed to use their logo on your tank ... it's when the UN doesn't give you permission and you use it that you're running afoul of Article 38.

* [[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.

!!It is not acceptable to say "I was just following orders".

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.

That said, subordinates only share in the moral responsibility for committing war crimes if they wouldn't be punished for refusing to commit it. Punishment in this context means execution, torture, and under some interpretations imprisonment. If they ''are'' threatened with such punishment, then they don't share in the moral responsibility for committing the crime and can't be convicted for it -- after all, not everyone is cut out to be a martyr, and even if in hindsight we find the decision repulsive, we can sympathize with a person (probably a terrified young person) for deciding to follow horrific orders when the alternative is death, torture, or extreme deprivation.

!!Enforcement

!!Ceasefires, Armistices

In 1899, the Hague Convention stipulated that bullets must not be designed to expand or flatten within the body, causing grievous harm. This has been a contentious point, as modern rifle calibers often yaw or tumble within tissue due to their velocity and shape, and this behaviour has been encouraged with both 5.56x45mm NATO and 5.45x39 rounds by selectively weakening the full metal jacket in certain portions or the addition of an air pocket, while the [[BritsWithBattleships British]] were doing this [[OlderThanYouThink all the way back in 1910]], designing the .303 British Mk VII, a full metal jacket round with the front part of the core made of aluminum.

This is not as relevant these days- it's a lot harder to disguise a particular cruiser type than a sailing ship and naval warfare these days takes place at far longer ranges. There is a story of a British aircraft carrier pretending to be a Pakistani cruise liner on radar (by broadcasting such a registration beacon and answering hails in ''Urdu'') in order to sneak up on some Americans during a training exercise. The USN was only alerted to the deception when the British opened fire. When they protested that the British should have announced their identity beforehand, the British argued that [[RulesLawyer they had been flying the physical Pakistani flag the whole time (see the note), and raised the physical White Ensign when they launched...but of course, the USN was too far away to see them.]] [[note]]The inside joke is that Pakistan's official language is English, and that is what would be used by a real Pakistani merchant vessel (Urdu is the most-spoken language of Pakistan, but English is the language of government) and Pakistani ships do not fly the Pakistani flag, they fly the merchant ensign, the British were counting upon American crews being unaware of this fact......but that's another trope.[[/note]]

These bullets, which expand in a person's body, are prohibited in formal warfare, but allowed in domestic law enforcement and actually required in some jurisdictions for hunting. Their downsides are that they have poor performance against armour and barriers as well as sometimes not expanding correctly. In addition, automatic or semi-automatic weapons capable of reliably feeding hollowpoints are a relatively recent invention. Their upsides is their relatively low chance of overpenetration and causing collateral damage ''[[AccidentalMurder behind]]'' your target, and of course increased stopping effectiveness.

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 1993 Chemnical Weapons Treaty further banned certain chemical weapons.
* The 1997 Ottowa Treaty on anti-personnel land mines

In fact, having rules on what countries (and, by extension, their militaries) can do in times of war is considerably OlderThanDirt, as even nonliterate, stone age peoples have usually had [[http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-War-Its-Practices-Concepts/dp/087249196X/ customs and taboos]] strictly limiting what may be done in war, and Hugo Grotius' classic ''On the Laws of War and Peace'' (1625) cites back to ancient Greek and Roman sources for many of its rules.

A quick way to show that a killer is really a bad guy is to have their bullets having a cross cut into the tip. This will cause the bullet to expand when it enters the body, causing far more damage. Since hollow points are permitted in most non-military applications and are more reliable ([[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FMJ jacketed]] dum-dums have a disturbing tendency to leave the jacket in the barrel of the gun, nevermind the fact that they don't expand that reliably) dum-dums are usually used to show how bad someone is. Or that setting predates the invention of hollow points. Named after an arms factory in India, by the way.

In 1899, the Hague Convention stipulated that bullets must not be designed to expand or flatten within the body, causing grievous harm. This has been a contentious point, as modern rifle calibers often yaw or tumble within tissue due to their velocity and shape, and this behavior has been encouraged with both 5.56x45mm NATO and 5.45x39 rounds by selectively weakening the full metal jacket in certain portions or the addition of an air pocket, while the [[BritsWithBattleships British]] were doing this [[OlderThanYouThink all the way back in 1910]], designing the .303 British Mk VII, a full metal jacket round with the front part of the core made of aluminum.

These bullets, which expand in a person's body, are prohibited in formal warfare, but allowed in domestic law enforcement and actually required in some jurisdictions for hunting. Their downsides are that they have poor performance against armor and barriers as well as sometimes not expanding correctly. In addition, automatic or semi-automatic weapons capable of reliably feeding hollowpoints are a relatively recent invention. Their upsides is their relatively low chance of overpenetration and causing collateral damage ''[[AccidentalMurder behind]]'' your target, and of course increased stopping effectiveness.

While civilians are allowed by the Geneva Conventions to take up arms as militia against an invading army, they must still abide by the Geneva Conventions in their own behavior, be "carrying arms openly", and do their best to have "a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance" in order to still enjoy the protection of the Geneva Conventions for themselves. The intent of this particular section of the Geneva Conventions is to make the distinction between combatant and noncombatant immediately obvious at a distance so as to minimize noncombatant casualties by letting the enemy be able to know which people are fighting them and which ones are just bystanders. The "illegal combatant" distinction generally comes into play when that distinction is deliberately being abused.

Also note that medics and similar positions are permitted to carry small arms solely for self-defense (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.

[[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 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 'demoralise' enemy populations inarguably constituted war crimes.

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=SVqUBShAuao 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.

[[JustFollowingOrders Again, obeying orders in killing civililans]] doesn't make it not a war crime. One example of what ''not'' to do is [[http://users.clas.ufl.edu/ggiles/barbaros.html the German Military (Wehrmacht)'s]] [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_crimes_of_the_Wehrmacht#Barbarossa_Decree 13/5/1941 'Barbarossa Decree']]. Section I.4 mandated that:

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 labor'. 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." [[AnOfficerAndAGentleman 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.

Once the other side captures you, they are allowed to search you and restrain you. They can confiscate your pack animals (these are still used in less developed parts of the world where motorized transportation has problems, particularly in rugged/mountainous terrain), weaponry and any military documents. However, a prisoner must be permitted to retain his personal protective equipment, such as helmets and gas masks. And, once a prisoner has been captured, his health, safety, and wellbeing is the responsibility of his captors.

Mercenaries that are an integral part of a given State's military system (Gurkhas, Foreign Legionaires, etc.) are not considered mercenaries for this purpose even though they are in fact soldiering for a foreign state, which is a common definition of "mercenary".[[note]]Well, technically, "soldiering for a foreign state to which they do not necessarily intend to immigrate." The thousands of European Jews (for instance) who joined the US military shortly after arriving during UsefulNotes/WorldWarII would not be considered mercenaries, even though they were not US citizens, because they joined as immigrants to the US and intended to acquire US citizenship through service. And joining the Foreign Legion ''is'' a method for immigrating to France.[[/note]] A captured Legionnaire would be covered by the Convention.

The 1949 version also covers spontaneous resistance movements, even not in uniform, if their conduct abides by the laws and customs of war. However, they are not exempt from the four basic requirements at the top of this subheading and most classic resistance movements deliberately avoid using uniforms or identifying symbols, thus forfeiting their protection and leaving them liable to be shot as spies or saboteurs. Many resistance actions, such as sabotage or bombing, also fail to be 'carrying arms openly'. A resistance movement that did fulfill all the requirements, even just to the point of using colored armbands during their overt attacks, should still qualify.

A more infamous order, which applied not just in the occupied Soviet Union but across the entire European theatre of war (and even applied to some people who spoke English, making it famous in the Anglosphere) was the 1942 'Commando Order' (which remained law [[NoOntologicalInertia until Germany's cessation of existence]]). Section 3 states:

This applies also to ground troops, who may wear enemy uniforms as a deception but before firing upon enemy forces, they must put on proper insignia so that if they are captured, they are entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. However, as lawful combatants can still be tried for any criminal offenses they commit in the execution of their duty (rape, theft, etc.), if they are captured using enemy uniforms to gather intelligence/spread despondency or falsehoods within the ranks of the enemy behind enemy lines, they may be tried for espionage and, if found guilty, executed or otherwise punished as per the laws of the nation that has captured them.

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" defense--afterwards known as the Nuremberg Defense-- 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 attendent 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.

A ceasefire simply means a temporary cessation of hostilities, whether in one sector (for allowing prisoner exchanges, collecting of the wounded)or theater wide (usually as prelude to the cessation of the conflict as a whole) , while an armistice is the wartime equivalent of the end of the fighting stage before the final resolution, it means in essence that sides are recalling their Generals and sending in the diplomats.

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 battlelines 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.

There might be a clear winner or loser at the end of an armistice; what matters is that the sides have ''only'' agreed to stop fighting until further notice. Generally speaking, an armistice is when the war has ''clearly'' ended. Usually, [[PeaceConference peace talks]] and a peace treaty immediately follow but the term "peace treaty" is something of a misnomer: a peace treaty is actually about restoring (or establishing) diplomatic recognition and ties, as well as settling at least some of the disputes that led to the war in the first place ([[CaptainObvious generally in the victor's favor]], assuming that there is one).

** Lebanon's last active and official participation in a war with Israel was in 1948, with the armistice signed in 1949; however, Israel has intervened in Lebanon against non-state military forces (e.g. the Palestinian Liberation Organization and Hizballah) several times since then, most recently in 2006.

It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There is a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this [[EvenEvilHasStandards hell is developing a lot of standards.]] here are just a few, [[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arms_control The other Wiki]] has a more comprehensive list:

It is untrue that all is fair in love and war. Especially in war. There is a considerable number of treaties governing the conduct of war. WarIsHell, but now even this [[EvenEvilHasStandards hell is developing a lot of standards.]] In fact, this is considerably OlderThanDirt, as even nonliterate, stone age peoples have usually had [[http://www.amazon.com/Primitive-War-Its-Practices-Concepts/dp/087249196X/ customs and taboos]] strictly limiting what may be done in war, and Hugo Grotius' classic ''On the Laws of War and Peace'' (1625) cites back to ancient Greek and Roman sources for many of its rules.

The U.S. military has consistently honored the ban on expanding ammunition despite having no legal obligation to do so, since the United States specifically ratified all sections of the Hague Convention ''except'' the one covering expanding bullets. All other major powers ratified the entire Hague Convention. However, serious consideration is now being given on abandoning this voluntary restriction, at least for handgun ammunition, when the U.S. Army adopts its next handgun (provisionally slated for 2018).