Geneva Convention equivalent

[McPerth]

"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.

I'm not so sure about if the IRW are unwritten or written so ambiguous and vague as to allow any interpretation the ranking officer/noble in spot, so giving him/her room to maneuver appealing to the IRW.

Many written laws nowdays are so made, being ambiguous enough to allow governments (or judges) this room to maneuver (and too often confusing people about what can be considered legal and what cannot).

As an example, and I will cite it, but I won't keep discussing it, because it can lead to an unwanted debate about RW politics, while most countries have specific laws dealing with terrorism, no one has given a specific definition about what terrorism is, as any definition you make will either make terrorists some groups you don't want to, or say some group is not terrorist while you believe they are. So, in a practical way, a terrorist is anyone who uses some terror tactics and the government says they are.

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.

True, any Enciclopedia has errors or inaccuracies (either interested or in good faith). Let me quote the referee's section, that reinforces the explicit forbiding about nukes, and can be considered more accurate, as don't represent the player's information,but what's going behind the scenes.

From Library Data (referee’s Introduction), Imperial Encyclopedia (MT) page 49:

Imperial Rules of War:While the Imperial Rules of War strictly forbid the use of nuclear weapons by local combatants, the Imperium does retain the right to use such weapons himself

 

[rancke]

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.

I just checked on what the US service oath and UCMJ says. The oath just says 'orders', not 'lawful orders'. The 'lawful' bit is in the military code.


Hans

 

[McPerth]

I just checked on what the US service oath and UCMJ says. The oath just says 'orders', not 'lawful orders'. The 'lawful' bit is in the military code.

The Spanish oath is about fulfilling the military obligations, to keep the Constitution and to obey the King and officers (it says nothing about orders, it's implicit).

When I did my miliary term (in 1984, then compulsory in Spain), we were taught about the military code, and it was specified that any unlawful order (any one against the Constitution) was to be disobeyed, or obeyed at one's own responsability.

BTW, when I asked (privately) to an NCO what to do if we were ordered to shoot to kill, as the Constitution recognized the right to life, he avoided to answer me :devil:.

 

[Peter Newman]

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.

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.
Hans

""the ruling figure at the subsector capitol is a high-ranking noble selected by higher levels of government. This duke has a free hand in government and is subject only to broad guidelines from his superiors. But at the same time, the duke owes fealty to the higher levels of government, ultimately to the Emperor himself. The feudal approach depends greatly on a sense of honor, one cultivated by the hereditary aristocracy. This sense of honor is very strong in the Imperium." [CT Sup 8 p 7-8]

What I am saying, what CT clearly says, is that the Imperium is not the sort of place where everything is spelled out from a central source, the Imperium is the sort of place where the man on the spot makes his best choice within a set of broad guidelines and is then responsible for it. Therefore there cannot be an extensive set of detailed rules telling
him what to do.

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? Hans

The Imperium has lots of laws. They just tend to be broader and more specific than ours.
They have to be given the communications lags. If the Duke says 'Don't do that.' then his subjects cannot say 'You can't tell me that because per the Imperial Code of Justice, Section 673, Clause 4, subsection J2 I have the right to do so.'

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

What I am saying is that your interpretation seems to come from a 21st century European point of view, not from the 17th century European/American point of view that Traveller is designed to emulate. Don't think of a 21st century soldier who has to worry about some set of rules directing their every action and laid down by a military and a government he can communicate with rapidly.

Think of Captain Cook or Captain Kirk out there on the frontier weeks or years from communication making a decision for themselves. You seem to expect that the Imperium has a specific rule for everything when CT canon says that they do not.

 

[rancke]

""the ruling figure at the subsector capitol is a high-ranking noble selected by higher levels of government. This duke has a free hand in government and is subject only to broad guidelines from his superiors. But at the same time, the duke owes fealty to the higher levels of government, ultimately to the Emperor himself. The feudal approach depends greatly on a sense of honor, one cultivated by the hereditary aristocracy. This sense of honor is very strong in the Imperium." [CT Sup 8 p 7-8]

This is a broad statement. The workings of the Imperium in 81 words. A generalization that broad is almost guaranteed to be less than accurate. There are certainly plenty of specific canonical examples that contradicts it in one way or another. Often minor ways, but contradictions nevertheless.

What I am saying, what CT clearly says, is that the Imperium is not the sort of place where everything is spelled out from a central source, the Imperium is the sort of place where the man on the spot makes his best choice within a set of broad guidelines and is then responsible for it. Therefore there cannot be an extensive set of detailed rules telling
him what to do.

No, but there can be a set of broad principles and a leavening of detailed rules for certain subjects. For example, an Imperial Code of Military Justice that applies to all Imperial forces everywhere, in and out of the Imperium. For another, a pan-Imperium ban on chattel slavery.

The Imperium has lots of laws. They just tend to be broader and more specific than ours.

Which is it, broader or more specific?

They have to be given the communications lags. If the Duke says 'Don't do that.' then his subjects cannot say 'You can't tell me that because per the Imperial Code of Justice, Section 673, Clause 4, subsection J2 I have the right to do so.'

Why not? He can then tell the subjects that the law doen't apply. They can complain to a higher authority, and if the authority agrees with them, the duke gets a rocket up his backside. Just as there was a set of very rigid instructions for the conduct of anyone in the Royal Navy from ships' boys to admirals (try googling the Articles of War and look them over). An admiral on a foreign station had broad discretionary powers, but if he broke the Articles of War, he could be hanged just as the lowliest mutinous dog of a sailor could. (Actually, since the method of execution was set by tradition rather than law, he would probably be shot instead as a concession to his social status. Byng was shot instead of hung).

What I am saying is that your interpretation seems to come from a 21st century European point of view, not from the 17th century European/American point of view that Traveller is designed to emulate.

What makes you think the 3rd Imperium was designed to emulate the 17th Century? Why not the Roman Empire? The writers drew inspiration from many sources and if the was any concious philosophy behind it, I think it would have been that similar problems produce similar solutions. Or they could have been using Toynbee's theories about the cyclical nature of history just as H. Beam Piper did (They certainly were familiar with Piper).

The 3rd Imperium is not 17th Century Britain or the Roman Empire; it just has some of the same problems. This produces a similarity between the Royal Navy and the Imperial Navy, except for all the differences, and it produces a similarity between the Imperium and the Empire except for all the differences.

Don't think of a 21st century soldier who has to worry about some set of rules directing their every action and laid down by a military and a government he can communicate with rapidly.

I don't. I think of a soldier belonging to a society that is the linear cultural heir to the Terran Confederation. And I think of adventures and amber zones that assume that the PCs' moral compass defaults to 20th Century Western values. Even when they're expected to break the law, it's often 20th Century law they're expected to break. Or they're expected to be OK with breaking the law because it's NOT 20th Century law.

Think of Captain Cook or Captain Kirk out there on the frontier weeks or years from communication making a decision for themselves. You seem to expect that the Imperium has a specific rule for everything when CT canon says that they do not.

No, I expect the Imperium to have some principles and guidelines for everything and specific rules for some things. Which canon says they have.


Hans

 

[aramis]

I just checked on what the US service oath and UCMJ says. The oath just says 'orders', not 'lawful orders'. The 'lawful' bit is in the military code.


Hans

When I took the oath (3x - Enlistment, in Basic, and when I became a member of the civil service), it was "Lawful Orders" not "orders" - but that was 1986, 1987, and 1996.

 

[rancke]

When I took the oath (3x - Enlistment, in Basic, and when I became a member of the civil service), it was "Lawful Orders" not "orders" - but that was 1986, 1987, and 1996.

The source of my information could be wrong.


Hans

 

[aramis]

The source of my information could be wrong.


Hans

The problem is the wording has gone back and forth over the years.

The UCMJ can't be licitly enforced for unlawful orders; that doesn't stop NCO's and officers from punishing folks for breaking unlawful ones.

In the context of the Imperium, however, there is less (not no, just less) sense of a distinction between authority and color of authority, and between all orders and all licit orders. We see Norris justify breaking imperial law by retrieving the warrant, and the warrant exempts him from most laws by simple possession of it.

So I expect that, in the 3I, "Just following orders" works for non-officers and non-noble junior officers.

 

[rancke]

The UCMJ can't be licitly enforced for unlawful orders; that doesn't stop NCO's and officers from punishing folks for breaking unlawful ones.

But people are also punished for following unlawful orders. The catch is that it's your superior's superiors and/or a military tribunal who decides if the order was actually unlawful, and if they disagree, you get punished for refusing it. Still, one thing is enforcement, another is the actual law. The lowliests ranker is expected to refuse unlawful orders and do not get to hide behind the Nurenberg defense.

In the context of the Imperium, however, there is less (not no, just less) sense of a distinction between authority and color of authority, and between all orders and all licit orders. We see Norris justify breaking imperial law by retrieving the warrant, and the warrant exempts him from most laws by simple possession of it.

That's a matter of interpretation. The warrant gives him broad powers, including that of ignoring orders from people who he usually have to obey. I don't think there's any support for the notion that it allows him to break Imperial laws.

About the specific example of Norris fetching his warrant from an interdicted world, here's my take:

Assumption: Dukes do not usually require permission to dispensate interdicts in their duchy. Administering Imperial edicts in the light of local events is one of their prime functions.

Fact: Norris was forbidden to land on Algine.

Assumption: This was a result of an order from someone with authority over him. Possibly Santanocheev, more likely Delphine (Santy's proclamation on the TNS would IMO have to have been authorized by Delphine.)

Assumption: The authority of an Imperial Warrant is conferred by Strephon; the warrant is just the physical proof of that authority.

Norris strongly suspected that Strephon had issued him a warrant. If he was right, his authority superceded that of Delphine. If he was wrong, it didn't. The gamble he took by going to Algine was not that of being able to find the warrant; it was of whether it had been issued in the first place.

So I expect that, in the 3I, "Just following orders" works for non-officers and non-noble junior officers.

That's certainly a possibility. But it's only a possibility.


Hans

 

[aramis]

The real question is "What is an illegal order?"

Under the UCMJ, the ONLY illegal orders are orders that would result in the commission of a crime.

The Imperium most likely (and by all canon appearances) interprets command authority FAR more loosely, and with much more authority at the independent command level. To be blunt: The 3I as presented is far more "ends justify means" oriented than any european or north american modern society.

If a modern general knows a civil resistance group is working on a nuclear device, he has to still contact higher command and get authorization before taking them out (unless the rules of engagement already allow).

A 3I General likely can just go ahead and stop them. So long as he does, and doesn't trigger a general uprising, he's likely to get away with exceeding his rules of engagement. Very much like 17th & 18th C UK officers - succeed or else.

 

[rancke]

The real question is "What is an illegal order?"

Under the UCMJ, the ONLY illegal orders are orders that would result in the commission of a crime.

According to the source I linked to above that's not true. The order has to be related to the service and can't be the result of personal animus towards the recipient. (According to a TV series I saw once, a major can't order an enlisted man to mow his lawn ).

The Imperium most likely (and by all canon appearances) interprets command authority FAR more loosely, and with much more authority at the independent command level. To be blunt: The 3I as presented is far more "ends justify means" oriented than any european or north american modern society.

What are all these canon appearances you keep talking about? Active members of the Imperial services don't appear much in the adventures I know of, and I'm prepared to bet (a small sum) that those where they do appear don't present much evidence for general operating procedures.

If a modern general knows a civil resistance group is working on a nuclear device, he has to still contact higher command and get authorization before taking them out (unless the rules of engagement already allow).

Obviously that only works in a setting where communication is fast enough to allow that sort of micro-managing by higher command. But you're conflating authority with lack of laws. An Imperial commander who is out of touch with HQ is merely authorized to make the same legal decisions that would otherwise fall to higher command to make. I see no reason to suppose that he's allowed to break laws that a higher authority is not allowed to order him to break.

A 3I General likely can just go ahead and stop them. So long as he does, and doesn't trigger a general uprising, he's likely to get away with exceeding his rules of engagement. Very much like 17th & 18th C UK officers - succeed or else.

I've already responded to that fallacy just a few posts earlier. Royal Navy officers on foreign stations were subject to an extremely rigid set of rules. Many of the Articles of War gives a court-martial no discretion about the punishment it must inflict on any found guilty of breaking them.

I know of no canon that says an Imperial officer is allowed to exceed his rules of engagement. Those rules of engagement may not be very rigid, but that's a different issue.

I think you're conflating your own view of the Imperium with canon. (Something I've caught myself doing too).


Hans

 

[aramis]

Actually, an officer CAN order an enlisted man to mow his lawn. The EM has to do so, and has the obligation to report the abusive order - it's not an illegal order, just abuse of authority - the officer will be in deep excrement for it. Abuse of authority is a serious court martial offense.

Was almost textbook for the example we were given by the JAG officer at dix. (The JAG gave an example of washing the captain's car, not mowing his lawn. But close enough.) And as long as it's during duty hours, many privates won't complain; such "abuse" is often a way of avoiding some other more onerous unit activity.

And some NCO's do abuse it. I know one case of a guy on corrective restriction, and his PLT Sgt got permission to take him out of barracks... in exchange for which, said NCO's wife was singing "Chubby Mother-F*er, Buff my floor, doo dah, doo dah..." as he scrubbed the kitchen floor. (And I'm one of 10 witnesses to that one. But the Pvt got to see his sig-other... so he wasn't about to complain.)

Heck, during boot, I got time off (on base liberty) for calming a DI's wife about their impending move to Alaska, and later, on holdover (Being sent home, but awaiting discharge paperwork), for picking up smogs for a DI. And mowing the col's quarter's lawn. The last was assigned at 0700, with due back to unit at 1630; the task took until 0945, counting travel time. Technically, the Col's quarters were off base. So we had written orders.

 

[Uxi]

Right. An illegal order is something you'll get convicted for if you obey. So weigh the consequences of Article 90/91 versus that and make your decision.

 

[rancke]

Perhaps my example was poorly chosen. The commentary on Article 90 that I found here list some other defenses for disobeying an order that does not involve commiting a crime. I would have thought that

"...Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of in-creasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article."​

would cover a refusal to wash the captain's car, but perhaps it is punishable under another article.

Another valid defense (claims the commentary) is refusing orders that violate the recipient's rights.

"(iv) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order."​

That wouldn't necessarily involve breaking any laws, would it?


Hans

 

[aramis]

Perhaps my example was poorly chosen. The commentary on Article 90 that I found here list some other defenses for disobeying an order that does not involve commiting a crime. I would have thought that

"...Disobedience of an order which has for its sole object the attainment of some private end, or which is given for the sole purpose of in-creasing the penalty for an offense which it is expected the accused may commit, is not punishable under this article."​

would cover a refusal to wash the captain's car, but perhaps it is punishable under another article.

Another valid defense (claims the commentary) is refusing orders that violate the recipient's rights.

"(iv) Relationship to statutory or constitutional rights. The order must not conflict with the statutory or constitutional rights of the person receiving the order."​

That wouldn't necessarily involve breaking any laws, would it?


Hans

Yes, it absolutely WOULD be breaking the laws. It's criminally punishable in many places in the US to willfully violate someone's civil rights, and it's a violation of the UCMJ, as well, last I checked.

 

[rancke]

Yes, it absolutely WOULD be breaking the laws. It's criminally punishable in many places in the US to willfully violate someone's civil rights, and it's a violation of the UCMJ, as well, last I checked.

You're right. I wasn't thinking. Sorry.


Hans

 

[Carlobrand]

The Geneva Conventions and related agreements evolved as much from self-interest as from higher motives: among other things, the signatories wanted their own soldiers treated well if captured so their folks'd be less reluctant to march to battle and less inclined to call for an early halt. Where potential agreements seemed to contradict self-interest, it's been harder to put forward agreements that everyone would follow (see: mines).

With respect to the Spinward Marches at least, there's strong incentive for intergovernment agreements on the conduct of war. The Zhodani have to protect their troops and officers from Imperial bigotry toward psionics, and the Imperium's likely to be a bit hypersensitive to the potential for their captured troops to be routinely scanned or "re-educated". Either side has an interest in assuring proper handling of POWS by the other. And, even with nuclear dampers to clean up the long-term mess, it's just too easy for ground wars to degenerate into massive nuclear exchanges - armies turning whole regions into blasted desert in the course of trying to overcome the other's armored vehicles with tac-missiles. Then too, let's not even think about the squadrons of battleships, each with dozens of missile bays launching 50 nuclear missiles each. Given the temptation to resolve strategic problems by simply nuking the contested starport or opposing ground troops with more missiles than the defense can possibly handle - without regard to collateral damage to the planet's agriculture, ecology, or industrial infrastructure - there is certainly incentive for agreements setting limits on potential escalation.

The contrast of the pre-assassination war conduct with post-assassination conduct (for those who live in a Milieu where there was an assassination) probably illustrates some of the broader agreements on conduct that existed pre-assassination: you don't deliberately target civilian population and infrastructure, you don't nuke the starport or civilian orbital facilities, you don't execute or brutalize captive troops, and so forth. They applied to foreign powers, but it appears they did not apply when dealing with "traitors" and their supporters, which is actually a fairly common state of affairs.

I expect the Zhodanis have some sort of agreement requiring proper (nondiscriminatory) treatment of their troops - and possibly limiting the use of medical or technological tools in interrogation - in exchange for limits on their use of psionics on Imperial captives. That's a straightforward quid-pro-quo. Likely there are pretty strict limits on the use of atomics from orbit - else there's not much need for troops, since he who holds the orbit rules the world if there is nothing to restrain him. (Yes, there are Planetary Defenses per Invasion Earth and other sources, but there are a lot more worlds too small or low tech for effective defense, and it's too easy for a multistellar government to overwhelm the defenses of a single planet.) And, I expect the Vargr don't have much interest in agreements of any character.

Beyond that - well, it's hard to see how a planet can survive a ground war with unrestricted use of tac-nukes, but it's also hard to see any general giving up their best tool against hi-tech armor, so that could go either way.

I don't know what is true of the Solomani. There seems to be a lot of resentment there that would undermine any agreements, but then I'm not as familiar with that sector.

 

[BytePro]

If you hold orbit - planetary bombardment needn't involve any explosives - KE will do just fine.

LPO and extreme altitude air-bursts for disruption via EMP would probably be the most enticing reason to ignore/avoid a complete ban - but such should be ineffective against higher TL military assets (and civilian already designed to operate in space environs).

 

[McPerth]

The Geneva Conventions and related agreements evolved as much from self-interest as from higher motives: among other things, the signatories wanted their own soldiers treated well if captured so their folks'd be less reluctant to march to battle and less inclined to call for an early halt. Where potential agreements seemed to contradict self-interest, it's been harder to put forward agreements that everyone would follow (see: mines).

When Jean-Henri Dunant suggested what ended as Geneva convention, I am quite sure he was moved by higher motives, but, of course, nations have no friends, but interests, and I agree most (if not all) nations signed the Geneva Conventions for self interest more than humanity. I (sadly) agree with you the humanity on them is but a by-product of this self interest, albeit a laudable one.

The contrast of the pre-assassination war conduct with post-assassination conduct (for those who live in a Milieu where there was an assassination) probably illustrates some of the broader agreements on conduct that existed pre-assassination: you don't deliberately target civilian population and infrastructure, you don't nuke the starport or civilian orbital facilities, you don't execute or brutalize captive troops, and so forth. They applied to foreign powers, but it appears they did not apply when dealing with "traitors" and their supporters, which is actually a fairly common state of affairs.

Even today, and mostly in civil wars/revolts, is not as clear as it should do discern what are (in the Convention terms) what are legal contendents and what ilegal ones, and even in some cases what are civilians and what fighting people. As the Convention only 'protects' legal contendents and civilians, leaving ilegal fighters out of it, there have been quite an atrocity not seen as such by the ones who commited it, on grounds of being illegal contendents.

Regardless of what rules may apply to war in the Imperium and its neighbours, its quite clear none of them are honored (at least by some contendents) in the Rebelion war.

I expect the Zhodanis have some sort of agreement requiring proper (nondiscriminatory) treatment of their troops - and possibly limiting the use of medical or technological tools in interrogation - in exchange for limits on their use of psionics on Imperial captives. That's a straightforward quid-pro-quo. Likely there are pretty strict limits on the use of atomics from orbit - else there's not much need for troops, since he who holds the orbit rules the world if there is nothing to restrain him. (Yes, there are Planetary Defenses per Invasion Earth and other sources, but there are a lot more worlds too small or low tech for effective defense, and it's too easy for a multistellar government to overwhelm the defenses of a single planet.) And, I expect the Vargr don't have much interest in agreements of any character.

From JTAS 13, page 39, on the AZ Thoughtwaves:

forcible psychic invasion of non-combatents is against regulations

so it seems the Zhodani have strict rules about dealing with captured civilian populations, and we can infere they will probably have (although not so strict) about military prisoners.

There also don't are (AFAIK) references to non accepted surrenders, nor to prisoners executions, so I guess some agreements must be among 3I and the Zhodani.

I don't know what is true of the Solomani. There seems to be a lot of resentment there that would undermine any agreements, but then I'm not as familiar with that sector.

True, but the Solomani consider themselves as superior (also in morale sense) that other men, and have a tradition to keep with, so I guess their rules are the most like the Geneva Convention

 

[rancke]

There also don't are (AFAIK) references to non accepted surrenders, nor to prisoners executions, so I guess some agreements must be among 3I and the Zhodani.

One of the sample PCs in either Beltstrike or Tarsus was captured by the Zhodani early in the 5FW and exchanged fast enough to be involved in the last fighting of the war, so it seems that the Zhodani and the Imperium have prisoner exchanges while war is still going on.


Hans