Geneva Convention equivalent

[Tobias]

That leaves the Zhodani, and they've been in contact with the Imperium for a millenium and fought several big wars and who know how many proxy wars in that time. By the Classic Era they've had more than enough time to work out their own set of conventions of war. Perhaps they had something very similar of their own even before they met the Imperials; who knows?

The Zhodani probably wouldn't have had any laws developed from internal wars because they have not had such wars for millenia. On the other hand, the Zhodani IMTU have a very strict code of limiting attacks on designated military targets and very strong mechanisms to prevent wanton violence against civilians. My reasoning for this is that in a basically civilian, harmonious and peaceful society it is problematic enough to train people to kill at all - the Zhodani military has a strict psychological screening process for this reason. Excesses of brutality will be seen as clear indicators of mental illness.

 

[McPerth]

Geneva Convention mostly deals with PoW's and their treatment, but in later legislation, it is very clear the treatment of civilians.

But all that presupposes that the opponents stick to the same rules. When they don't, the Aslans don't either.

Geneva Convention treats many aspects of the war. First Convention dealed mostly with wounded and medical personnel. Latter it came to include prisoners, shipwrecked, civilian population, and some rules in combat (e.g. banning of chemical weapons).

It's perhaps the first atempt to 'humanize' war, by giving it some humanitarian rules (at least to formaly do so). As any law without some force behind to enforce it, it has become a 'gentlemen agreement' (I will honor it as long as you respond in kind), mostly as the Aslan case Ranke here says.

This intepretation suffers from a phenomenon for which there needs to be a term: The tendency to compare everything to Hitler.

In WWII there were war attrocities made by all sides, but enter into it would (IMHO) enter too close to RW politics. So, please, let's not quote occasions, countries or persons that can force the moderators to intervene (in their moderators role. Off course, they're welcomed as participants in the discussion, as anyone is).

In fact, the only war crime for wich you can be punished (again, if history has some lesson for us to learn) is losing the war. Since Kadesh, winners are always right and used right means to win, while losers were criminals that deserved their defeat, or so tells history (BTW, curiously enough, nearly always written by those same winners...)

EDIT:

As written, it much rather sounds like a colonialist setup.

BTW, this form of colonialism (appropriating from occupied countries ressources) is also banned by the Convention

 

[McPerth]

After some more research, I've found one point of the Convention that clearly (as canon is) is not in force in OTU:

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977

(…)
Art 47. Mercenaries

1. A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.

2. A mercenary is any person who:

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;
(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;
(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;
(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;
(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and
(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces

(emphasis is mine)

This implies mercenaries are (under Geneva Convetion) illegal combatants and so they are not under its protection.

 

[rancke]

After some more research, I've found one point of the Convention that clearly (as canon is) is not in force in OTU:

To quote myself:

My take is that the Imperial Code of Military Justice is more or less copied from the Sylean Federation's code of military justice, and that that in turn was more or less copied from the 2nd Imperium's code of military justice, and that was copied almost verbatim from the Terran Condereration's code of military justice (with perhaps a small leavening of stuff from the 1st Imperium's code), and that in turn was formulated by the United Nations, and thus embodied the Geneva Conventions.

I do not propose that everything in the Geneva Conventions is embodied in the Imperial Code of Military Justice. Mostly just the stuff that deals with the military's treatment of prisoners and civilian populations.

Nor do I propose that the MCMJ has been enforced at all times in all cases throughout the history of the Imperium.

I'm pretty sure the Pacification Campaigns saw its share of Geneva Convention violations in dealing with conquered civilian populations. Such as [non-canon alert] rounding up the most ardent opponents to the Imperium and shipping them to worlds outside the Imperial borders (like the Spinward Marches) and dumping them there[*].

[*] Though in some cases this was actually part of the peace settlement; the opponents surrendered on condition that the Imperium would pay for transportation to a nice empty world for them.​

Another example is the devastation of Ilelish's equatorial belt.

But whether these were violations of the Imperium's own rules or parts of the Geneva Conventions that the Imperium had never adopted in the first place or dropped later is another question.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

This intepretation suffers from a phenomenon for which there needs to be a term: The tendency to compare everything to Hitler.

As written, it much rather sounds like a colonialist setup.

Ah, quite humorous, guaranteed that to mention the word "colonial" to Americans and the image conjured will be of tri-cornered hats, fried dough and axe throwing contests, not Hitler. Such are the vagueries of culture, however, not just due to the unfortunate symbol given to the Solomani, but the very blurb on the cover of: "Self-Proclamed Champions of Human Supremacy" gives little to the doubt of the conotation.

 

[Dragoner]

I gess you mean the enslaving of the civilian population would be a break of the Convention. Estigarribia's coup wouldn't, as Geneva Convention doesn't deal with coupt d'etat.

So seen, Estigarribia was defending the Convention, but that was made by Terran military, where the idea of the Convention has been ingrained for centuries, when Estigarribia made his coup.

Yes, the enslavement of the Vilani population is what I mean.

It doesn't imply in the further text of the situation that it was the sense of the covention that drove Estigarriba to coup the government, but the Kantian ideal of sympathy and humanism. Which of course could be understood to be what is behind the Geneva Convention in itself.

I have been thinking of an adventure called: "Estigarriba's Epiphany" where charaters find his long lost journal on a storage device.

And this lead to Imperial Laws of War, but are they applied in broader wars?

I would say yes, in a general sense, at least IMTU.

 

[McPerth]

I do not propose that everything in the Geneva Conventions is embodied in the Imperial Code of Military Justice. Mostly just the stuff that deals with the military's treatment of prisoners and civilian populations.

I didn't mean that. I just posted it to show how things can have changed in the view of the war. What is seen today as an illegal combatent (so breaking the laws of war) is seen in OTU as a normal thing in war.

 

[aramis]

It was 3789 years ago according to the wiki.

Though I can't say I have ever heard of a politician using the Code of Hammurabi as a precedent for legislation. It's almost a pythonesque moment, I can see John Cleese standing up as an MP and saying: "In the Code of Hammurabi..."

Some SCOTUS decisions' opinions have mentioned it for continuity of certain types of behavior... usually also with the Mosaic, Roman, and English systems of law in the same paragraph. A professor of mine mentioned this in a US History class. (Said prof was a practicing member of the Bar)

 

[Uxi]

Another thing to consider is that just because there's a convention-equivalent doesn't mean that every article has been ratified by every polity. The US still hasn't (and probably won't ever) ratify Protocol I and II, even if it abides by most of the articles on it's own.

I doubt a direct lineage would be evident though influence of previous antecedents would be likely.

 

[Peter Newman]

Traveller states that the Imperial Rules of War are uncodified because the Imperium doesn't want people finding loopholes in a set of written laws. Without written rules of war it seems unlikely that they have a Geneva Convention since it is just a subset of the current Terran Rules of War.

On the other hand I suspect that the unwritten rules tend to discourage atrocities, but don't actually forbid them, except for the use of weapons of mass destruction, a power the Imperium prefers to keep to themselves.

Note that one of the older Traveller computer games included an Imperial Service oath.

In it the new service-members swear to obey "all orders' not 'all lawful orders'.

This suggests that there may not be such a thing as unlawful orders per se.

Does anyone have the full text? [I know the computer games aren't strictly canonical, but Marc did approve them.]

 

[rancke]

Traveller states that the Imperial Rules of War are uncodified because the Imperium doesn't want people finding loopholes in a set of written laws. Without written rules of war it seems unlikely that they have a Geneva Convention since it is just a subset of the current Terran Rules of War.

It's apples and oranges. Or at least apples and fruit barrows. The Imperial Rules of War are guidelines for how many and what kind of atrocities the Imperium will tolerate before stepping in. That doesn't necessarily (and IMO definitely do not) mean there aren't any explicit rules and regulations against various crimes.

The omission of the word 'lawful' could indicate that the Nurenberg principle is no longer accepted. But it could also mean that it's so universal that it goes without saying. An unlawful order may be a contradiction in terms in that all orders are per definition lawful, but it could also mean that an unlawful order is per definition null and void.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

Nuremberg in itself is not necessarily good Stare decisis as it was a military tribunal conveined by the victorious allied powers, something that would not be acceptable in international law today.

 

[rancke]

Nuremberg in itself is not necessarily good Stare decisis as it was a military tribunal conveined by the victorious allied powers, something that would not be acceptable in international law today.

Which is why I referred to the Nurenberg principle, which I believe is the principle that the "I was just following orders" defense is invalid. In any case, we're talking about what is acceptable to the Imperium, not current international law (except insofar as current international law is reflected in the Imperium's laws and practices).

Also, bear in mind that 'lawful order' doesn't just cover orders to do something; it also covers orders that the person issuing them are entitled to give. I presume you wouldn't interpret the omission of the word 'lawful' from the abovementioned Imperial service oath to mean that the serviceman is swearing to obey all orders no matter what the source. I see no obvious reason to presume that it means that he promises to obey all orders, even those that would constitute, e.g. treason. In fact, the only reasonable interpretation seems (IMO) to be that he promises to obey all lawful orders.


Hans

 

[Dragoner]

I would say it is to follow ALL orders to the best of ability, thus not making each lowly enlisted man a judge of what is or is not "lawful." The "I was just following orders" defence was used succesfully at Nuremberg and later on. There was a lot of politics there, like Churchill contributing money to Manstein's defence and after which Manstein becoming one of the primary organizers of Germany's post-war army. Much of what was done at Nuremberg was codified in later post-war treaties which provide the stare decisis for legislation building upon that.

 

[McPerth]

On the other hand I suspect that the unwritten rules tend to discourage atrocities, but don't actually forbid them, except for the use of weapons of mass destruction, a power the Imperium prefers to keep to themselves.

As I remember, the IRW don't talk about mass destruction weapons, but strictly about nuclear ones.

I also wonder if those rules were already defined when CT:Bk4 mercenary was written, as in two of its example tickets (Strike and Commando, pages 21 and 22 respectively) it's explicity written no nuclear weapons are expected to be used (although in both of them also explicits some chemical weaponry may be), so not taken as given nukes are out of league.

 

[Peter Newman]

The Imperial Rules of War are guidelines for how many and what kind of atrocities the Imperium will tolerate before stepping in. That doesn't necessarily (and IMO definitely do not) mean there aren't any explicit rules and regulations against various crimes.
Hans

It's clear that the Imperium has a law against murder. It is also clear that the Imperium allows wars in which killings occur. Therefore these killings must not count as 'murders'. Therefore it is clear that the normal rules against killings do not apply in wars. The next question in my mind is 'What other normal laws don't apply in wartime
in the Imperium?'

The omission of the word 'lawful' could indicate that the Nurenberg principle is no longer accepted. But it could also mean that it's so universal that it goes without saying. An unlawful order may be a contradiction in terms in that all orders are per definition lawful, but it could also mean that an unlawful order is per definition null and void. Hans

It could - in a society of laws. The Imperium is a society of men (or sophonts really). The interpretation you suggest seems almost completely alien to the Imperium.

 

[rancke]

As I remember, the IRW don't talk about mass destruction weapons, but strictly about nuclear ones.

The Imperial Rules of War doesn't say anything. They're unwritten. They say as little about nuclear weapons as they say about chemical and bacteriological weapons.

I also wonder if those rules were already defined when CT:Bk4 mercenary was written...

Very likely they were not.


Hans

 

[rancke]

It's clear that the Imperium has a law against murder. It is also clear that the Imperium allows wars in which killings occur. Therefore these killings must not count as 'murders'. Therefore it is clear that the normal rules against killings do not apply in wars. The next question in my mind is 'What other normal laws don't apply in wartime in the Imperium?'

A law against murder is not a law against killing. It's a law against unlawful killing. Laws against murder apply just as much in wars as out war.

It could - in a society of laws. The Imperium is a society of men (or sophonts really).

Just what do you think that actually means? A society of men not of law? Can any Imperial Duke revoke any of the Emperor's laws he doesn't like? Because otherwise there would appear to be laws in the Imperium after all.

The interpretation you suggest seems almost completely alien to the Imperium.

One of the meager number of facts we know about the Imperium is that nobles are equal with everyone else before the law. Does that sound like there are no laws?

Another of those few facts is the existence of an Imperial Code of Military Justice (mentioned in one of the CT adventures, IIRC). And a third is the existence of a law about responding to distress calls.

EDIT: Note that I'm not claiming that my interpretation is the only possible one, just that it is a possible one. You seem to be saying that since the Imperium is a society of men, my interpretation is not possible. What does "the Imperium is a society of men" actually mean and why does it make my interpretation completely alien to the Imperium?


Hans

 

[McPerth]

The Imperial Rules of War doesn't say anything. They're unwritten. They say as little about nuclear weapons as they say about chemical and bacteriological weapons.

From Library Data, Imperial Encyclopedia (MT) page 28:

Imperial Rules of War: (…)Unlike the above rules, one prohibition is clear and firm throughout the Imperium: use or possession of nuclear weapons, if discovered, and regardless of size and type.

As shown in this quote, I'm afraid this nukes subject is the only one clear in Imperial Rules of War

 

[rancke]

As shown in this quote, I'm afraid this nukes subject is the only one clear in Imperial Rules of War

"The above rules" referred to are also unwritten. The prohibition against the use of nukes can be clear and firm without being written down anywhere.

Incidentally, the Imperial Encyclopedia is viewpoint writing. It is not guaranteed to be completely accurate (Even Encyclopedia Brittanica is not completely error-free ). Usually we assume that if the Library Data says something, it's true, but that's not necessarily the case.


Hans