Geneva Convention equivalent

[Timerover51]

That's in Section III, Art. 27-34:

(Note that this is the 1929 GC; it was revised in 1949.)

"SECTION III
WORK OF PRISONERS OF WAR

CHAPTER 1
General

Art. 27. Belligerents may employ as workmen prisoners of war who are physically fit, other than officers and persons of equivalent statue, according to their rink and their ability.
Nevertheless, if officers or persons of equivalent status ask for suitable work, this shall be found for them as far as possible.
Non-commissioned officers who are prisoners of war may be compelled to undertake only supervisory work, unless they expressly request remunerative occupation.
During the whole period of captivity, belligerents are required to admit prisoners of war who are victims of accidents at work to the benefit of provisions applicable to workmen of the same category under the legislation of the detaining Power. As regards prisoners of war to whom these legal provisions could not be applied by reason of the legislation of that Power, the latter undertakes to recommend to its legislative body all proper measures for the equitable compensation of the victims.


CHAPTER 2
Organization of work

Art. 28. The detaining Power shall assume entire responsibility for the maintenance, care, treatment and the payment of the wages of prisoners of war working for private individuals.


Art. 29. No prisoner of war may be employed on work for which he is physically unsuited.


Art. 30. The duration of the daily work of prisoners of war, including the time of the journey to and from work, shall not be excessive and shall in no case exceed that permitted for civil workers of the locality employed on the same work. Each prisoner shall be allowed a rest of twenty-four consecutive hours each week, preferably on Sunday.


CHAPTER 3
Prohibited work

Art. 31. Work done by prisoners of war shall have no direct connection with the operations of the war. In particular, it is forbidden to employ prisoners in the manufacture or transport of arms or munitions of any kind, or on the transport of material destined for combatant units.
In the event of violation of the provisions of the preceding paragraph, prisoners are at liberty, after performing or commencing to perform the order, to have their complaints presented through the intermediary of the prisoners' representatives whose functions are described in Articles 43 an 44, or, in the absence of a prisoners' representative, through the intermediary of the representatives of the protecting Power.


Art. 32. It is forbidden to employ prisoners of war on unhealthy or dangerous work. Conditions of work shall not be rendered more arduous by disciplinary measures."​

The Japanese, having never signed the Geneva Convention, pretty much tossed all of this out the window when it came to European prisoners of war. Non-Europeans generally were simply shot out of hand, although Indian prisoners were "highly encouraged" to join the Indian National Army and fight for Japan. If you want some somewhat sickening reading, read up on the Japanese treatment of prisoners and also of the Chinese in occupied China. Note, the individuals involved in this from Japan were average Japanese soldiers, not SS concentration camp guards.

 

[Condottiere]

We know it's partially cultural, partially racist, partially ideological, and partially historic.

It harkens back to a historical genocidal all or nothing imperialism, in which the opposing ruling caste either submits or fights to the death, and peasants live on sufferance, reinforced by a new nationalistic cult of personality ideology.

 

[McPerth]

OTOH, the Imperial Rules of War might have different specifications? Particularly if mercenaries are encouraged, or at least tolerated.

Sure, and I myself said this at the initial times of this thread, about 9 years ago:

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.

 

[Condottiere]

It suddenly struck me: a lot depends as to who actually wrote the definition, because it looks like Gurkhas are exempt.

And until recently, joining the United States military was open to non citizens., as it gave an accelerated path to citizenship.

 

[McPerth]

It suddenly struck me: a lot depends as to who actually wrote the definition, because it looks like Gurkhas are exempt.

And until recently, joining the United States military was open to non citizens., as it gave an accelerated path to citizenship.

See that in both cases (as well as French and Spanish Foreign Legions), it could be arged that point "a" of the definition does not apply, as they form part of the respective standing forces, so they are not "specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict".

Those same reasons make point "e" also dubious.

 

[AnotherDilbert]

Foreign Legions are specifically not mercenaries:

2. A mercenary is any person who:
...
(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

 

[BRover]

Sure, and I myself said this at the initial times of this thread, about 9 years ago:

True--but it does get hard to recall all that was said as one follows all the posts in the interim . . .

 

[Merc465]

I believe one of the optional protocols to the GC loosens things up with regards to revolutionaries and/or freedom-fighters; Tom Kratman has had some trenchant things to say about that in other fora.

Why wouldn't mercenaries be uniformed?

In any case, getting back to basics, my laws of war interpretation is that the (originally) U.N. forces that established the Second Imperium carried with them the then-"international" laws and customs of war that were/are codified in the GC. Those would necessarily have morphed due to experience of interstellar warfare against the Vilani-dominated forces of the First Imperium, which operated from a different cultural basis and imperial experience.

Fast-forward through the short-lived Second Imperium, the Long Night, the Sylean founded Third Imperium that incorporated cultural and experiential heritage from both Vilani and Solomani sources. Modify that based upon interstellar war with peer-competitors such as the Zhodani and near-peer competitors like the Sword Worlds each having their _own_ customs-of-war.

So we can posit an "unwritten" (actually un-codified) laws, customs, and usages of interstellar war derived from all these cultures, empires, and experiences. The Third Imperium will have it's own UCMJ (uniform code of military justice) equivalent but that is for the governance of its _own_ forces. It has only a few actual Laws of war (covered elsewhere), but a wealth of "customs" which it will interpret and follow based upon the situations it faces and the judgment of the commanders and political leaders involved (such as archdukes, et cet.).

Not to mention, the enemy always gets a vote.

Does it also matter whether mercenaries are uniformed? As I recall, technically terrorists (and revolutionaries?) are not covered by the Geneva Conventions, since they are not uniformed or employed in the recognized armed forces of signatory states.

 

[Merc465]

I'm actually the grandson of a survivor of the Bataan Death March, you your point is well taken.

The Japanese, having never signed the Geneva Convention, pretty much tossed all of this out the window when it came to European prisoners of war. Non-Europeans generally were simply shot out of hand, although Indian prisoners were "highly encouraged" to join the Indian National Army and fight for Japan. If you want some somewhat sickening reading, read up on the Japanese treatment of prisoners and also of the Chinese in occupied China. Note, the individuals involved in this from Japan were average Japanese soldiers, not SS concentration camp guards.

 

[Condottiere]

Rent An Army: How Much Does It Actually Cost?

Many people have heard the phrase the world's oldest profession and know that it doesn’t refer to soldiers, but on record the world's oldest profession is actually that of the mercenary. While today the word has an extremely negative connotation, in the past being a mercenary was a perfectly acceptable and even respectable line of work. In fact, it was only in the last few hundred years that standing national armies became the norm around the world, meaning that for most of human history wars were fought by men and women paid good coin to put their lives on the line. Today we're going to look at the use of mercenaries throughout history, and end with the greatest mercenary battle of the modern age.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtyuqzV-mRc&ab_channel=TheInfographicsShow

 

[McPerth]

Curiously enough ,that's something I have defended for years: if we understand a profession as someone excused from other duties to specialize in specific ones, the oldest profession on the worls was probably soldier.

Nonehteless, the discussion about profesional soldier versus conscript armies or national militias has always existed (at least since soldiers exist, I guess) and never solved.

Carthague used a profesional/mercenary army, and rules over half Mediterranean Sea until beaten by a Militia Army...

This same militia army had to turn profesional as its Imepirun grow, mostly to keep barbarian militas away (and did it quite well for long time...

Bizantium kept its imperium with a basically profesional army...

Hundred year war saw a reemergence of mercenaries, and feudal levies (milita) were usually beaten...

Centuries latter, Machiavelly again advocated for national milita army against the profesional mercenaries of the time (the Condotieri)...

In thirty Years Wars, most armies were mercenaies/professionals again...

American Revolution basically pitched a milita army versius a profesional one, and the latter lost...

In Franco-Prussian war, a conscript army beated a basically profesional one...

Both World Wars were fought basically by conscript armies...

As you see, things have changed along times, but the discussion remains, and both sides have their reasons.

I won't talk about latter wars, as it would near current politics too much.

 

[Condottiere]

I like using the CoDominium as an example, because Pournelle tends to cover the subject well.

1. Earth recruited mercenaries are considered cheap, and possibly disposable; going by the described behaviour in New Washington, they are disciplined enough to use as a garrison and security force.

2. Friedland hires out their armoured and self propelled artillery units.

3. From wherever the Covenant Highlanders hail from, their product are highly disciplined light infantry.

4. The Confederacy has regular troops; they have armoured car cavalry, but the implication is not much else armoured or mechanized.

5. It's implied that as an independent mercenary unit, Falkenberg's Legion is exceptional, and is probably along the lines of a Regimental Combat Team, as well as having a secret patron, the Navy.

6. I think it's New Zion that hires out transport, and assault shuttles.

7. On Arrarat, a megacorporation tries to influence events by bribing the governor and patronizing the local criminal gangs, what is probably a lot more complex political socio economic environment than described, as the governor has to try to balance out all vested interests, including his own.

 

[BRover]

In the Dorsai series, almost all the planets use a professional and mercenary military, at least in additional to any native forces. Most mercs are either Dorsai (the elite ones) or Friendlies (not as good, but cheaper).

 

[Condottiere]

I haven't read the entire series, but Dorsai always felt like Dune: with a team of investigators doing CSI by crawling around a room and sniffing, and then the brother of the murdered commander going in naked to kill the entire terrorist cell.

 

[Straybow]

"American Revolution basically pitched a milita army versius a profesional one, and the latter lost..."


I dunno, Cornwallis was still in a strong position to hold out for reinforcements from Britain until the French flotilla showed up with more cannon than both Brit and Yank armies combined. So the professional army (hemmed in on a peninsula by the militia army) lost to the threat of professional naval siege from the militia's ally.


The militia did push the Brits out of the Carolinas, Trenton (staging for Philadelphia), parts of Virginia, in part because there were too few strategic points for the professional army to hold. One history compared the Brit's fight in the Colonies to "trying to punch a pillow." Nothing the fist can connect with to deliver a felling blow. They held New York because of naval support, which was about 25k, but couldn't get to Philadelphia's 30k. I don't think any other city was much over 10k.


The best the militia army managed was stalemate, but that was an achievement worth noting.

 

[Condottiere]

Arguably, if the Royal Navy had maintained command of the sea, and/or the conflict had turned existential, the British might have found the will to continue the war.