Morality and International Humanitarian Law

Summary of the thread until now:

Crono: If it is ok to kill soldiers it is ok to kill civilians. And vice versa. gjm: But wait there are important differences between soldiers and civilians. Soldiers kill and are often willing to be killed. We should consider these distinctions in evaluating this issue. Crono: Civilians are part of the war effort too and are willing to help in killing. (Adding after my comment: Collective punishment is a good tactic!) Me: Some people aren't part of the war effort. Protesters, children. Crono: If killing children prevents suicide bombers, do it. Also, look at these other cases where we should kill civilians.

You've given some arguments for why you think killing civilians is good strategy in some circumstances. But I don't see how this answers the issue gjm brought up. Even if there are circumstances in which killing civilians in justified it doesn't follow that reasons for killing soldiers are good enough reasons to kill civilians. It seems like the fact that soldiers are more willing to die and that they are likely to kill if they aren't killed first are very good reasons for requiring weaker justifications for soldier killing than civilian killing. Why is gjm's point wrong?

Also, as this is a discussion about international law the question is about setting norms for war fighting. As such, do you think collective punishment and killing the children of soldiers to deter them make sense as norms governing conduct during wars?

I would also note that while you've given evidence that breaking international rules regarding killing civilians can be useful, the question is whether or not the benefits outweigh the costs. How much shorter will the war be if you kill all the farmers? How many fewer men will die in total because you nuked that city? How much less will future generations value human life because rape and torture are considered acceptable means to an end?

My knee-jerk reaction is that having these standards may indeed reduce overall casualties and that they are important for international image and future cooperation. I am open to evidence to the contrary though.

Yes, well then it hardly seems right to kill the farmers and other civilians who don't protest for fear of their lives and the lives of their family.

Which question are you answering "yes" to?

The first.

Also, evidence?

As an answer to the first question it is a normative claim. All else being equal I prefer a universe in which bullets are bit than where they are not bit. The evidence for this is that I say I do, have no particular motive to lie and consistently demonstrate sufficiently aversive reactions to non-bullet-biting for me to have reliably inferred whether or not I consider it an intrinsic good. Depending on your moral philosophy you may consider it appropriate to declare my answer false but this would not be because of evidence.

In response to the second question, biting bullets also increases the relationship between one's consequentialist values and one's belief about optimal actions to take. Unless other assumptions and reasoning are sufficiently poor there will be a correlation to other good things.

What reason is there to think that the Nazis would have treated a country like Poland differently if it surrendered without resisting? They made clear their view of the rights of Poles (none) and the purpose of the invasion (replacement of the Polish population with German settlers) for a while before the invasion. At least some of the actual plans and directives for this had been drafted before the invasion as well. I could give you references if you like, but unfortunately I've loaned away one of my main sources, a book called The Wages of Destruction. I'll have to see if I can find an ebook copy if you want specific refs.

In brief, a country that wants to offer better terms to enemies who surrender will publicize this fact and offer good terms of surrender. Germany didn't do this, instead they publicized their leadership's view on races and human rights and might makes right. Why not believe they meant what they said?

The Soviet Union ended up worse off than it would have been under Nazi rule? Possible, but certainly not guaranteed from the evidence. I suspect Austria and Denmark's similarity to Germany and the relative absence of the demographics that Hitler targeted may have played a role.

Perhaps nations fight back precisely because they have more to lose.

gwern, I amended my coment (grandparent of this comment) so that now our comments no longer contradict each other. For those reading via the comment feed, here is gwern's comment again:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but my history books make a specific point of mentioning that Mongol treatment of captured cities was incredibly brutal when the city had resisted, and that cities that immediately surrendered were treated very well; which is what taw is saying with 'just giving in'.

This is what I remember learning a well and a cursory google search appears to confirm it.

Oh please, everyone war in history was two nations both "just defending themselves" or having an otherwise good excuse and invader stories are as reliable as the ticking clock of torture stories.

No they didn't. Some just wanted to take over stuff and said as much.

What usually happens is that elites of one country want to get some concessions from elites of other country, and the common people in both suffer. Their vast suffering counts for nothing compared to the slightest one of the elites, of course.

You have changed from everyone to usually. You also completely neglect the fact that the inhabitants of invaded countries are not always treated particularly well. By 'not treated particularly well' I mean they are killed, raped, taken as slaves or generally left destitute.

Invasions are not happy events for the populous, even when you do not put up a fight. Especially if you are not the same colour as the conqueror. Prevent them if it is convenient to do so.

Although I find your cynicism appealing the position you have taken in support of your is untenable. You don't need to kill all the enemy soldiers for "War's are never about justice" to be victorious here.

If there were an external force that was decent enough and powerful enough, then it would make sense to have that force actually decide which side is right on the merits, and that would pretty much be the end of war. That would be great. Whether it is possible, or whether it is likely to become possible, are very important questions. But right now no such force exists. Humanitarian law serves the function of limiting the human suffering caused by war, and as such is very valuable.

Given the current state of the world, Putin's Russia is going to be one of the enforcers. How do you feel about that?

There have been proposals for an independent force under the control of the UN.

How independent could it really be? Who would be giving the orders?

The UN General Assembly? That has all the disadvantages of a non-representative democracy - tyranny of the majority and so on. Plus the disadvantages of deciding questions of law and morals by vote. You'd get big alliances or parties sticking together right or wrong, and demanding rent from others (join us in votes or we'll vote war on you).

For instance what if all the Arab countries voted for war against Israel? What a bunch of countries voted for war against some little county you never heard of? I don't want to rely on the other countries diligently fact-checking every time when they suffer no repercussions for making mistakes.

What if votes were by UN GA with veto power to a few big countries, like today's GA resolutions? That just means those big countries, like the US, are above the law and can also grant their proxies and satellites above-the-law status. And because these countries aren't afraid of ever being voted against, they don't care much (from symmetrical considerations) about enforcing the law correctly against other countries. Instead they enforce the law only in their own interests.

Plus, in any war declared by a voting body like the UN, the voters are liable to cancel the war after the first battle gone wrong.

OK, what if decisions were made by some International Court of Justice? Well, how would you elect the judges to this court? Or do you want 1000-judge panels with a judge from every country? That would be the same as voting.

For various reasons the kind of nations that are going to be involved in enforcement are going to be more democratic, more liberal, more legitimate and more powerful than the states run by war criminals.

Why is that? I think a much simpler explanation for the state of affairs today, and a much better predictor of the future, is - the nations involved in enforcement are going to be whichever nations belong to the most powerful military and economic global alliances. They have to be to be able to enforce judgments against anyone else; and they do it to protect their own economic interests.