corriere.it
Modern Warfare as Inherent War Crime: A Critique of International Law
This article critiques international humanitarian law, arguing that modern warfare's inherent targeting of civilians makes all participants potential war criminals, regardless of intent. The author contrasts legal definitions with historical realities, focusing on the psychological effects of court pronouncements.
- How does the author's understanding of history inform their critique of international humanitarian law's effectiveness?
- The article connects the legal definition of war crimes—actions endangering civilian life or infrastructure—to the historical reality of civilian casualties in all major conflicts. This connection highlights the inherent tension between legal frameworks and the actual conduct of war.
- What is the central contradiction between the legal definition of war crimes and the historical reality of modern warfare?
- The author argues that modern warfare inherently violates international humanitarian law by indiscriminately harming civilians, rendering all participants, including historical figures like Roosevelt and Truman, potential war criminals. This is due to the nature of modern weaponry and strategic choices.
- What are the broader implications of the author's assertion regarding the psychological impact of international court rulings on public perception of war and decline?
- The author suggests that the international court's pronouncements, while having limited practical impact, serve a psychological purpose for a Western European public increasingly averse to war, providing a sense of moral comfort despite a potential underlying decline in influence. This psychological effect outweighs the practical deterrent effect.
Cognitive Concepts
Framing Bias
The narrative is structured to emphasize the failings and ineffectiveness of international humanitarian law. The introduction immediately sets a skeptical tone, framing the law as essentially powerless against the realities of war. The author uses rhetorical questions and historical examples to reinforce this negative framing. This approach leads the reader to preemptively judge the law's efficacy negatively.
Language Bias
The author uses strong, emotive language such as "criminals of war", "invincible", and "declining without remedy." The author also uses phrases like "malcelata soddisfazione" (concealed satisfaction) which carries a strong negative connotation about public reaction to legal pronouncements. More neutral phrasing could be employed to maintain objectivity.
Bias by Omission
The article focuses heavily on the limitations of international humanitarian law without exploring counterarguments or alternative perspectives on its effectiveness or potential for positive impact. The author presents a strongly critical view without acknowledging any potential benefits or successes of the law. This omission prevents a balanced understanding of the topic.
False Dichotomy
The author presents a false dichotomy between the ideals of international humanitarian law and the realities of warfare. The implication is that either the law is completely ineffective or that all participants in modern warfare are war criminals. The nuances and complexities of applying the law in different situations are not considered. The framing is overly simplistic.
Sustainable Development Goals
The article discusses the indictment of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and his Defense Minister for war crimes, highlighting the importance of international humanitarian law and accountability for violations. This directly relates to SDG 16, Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions, which aims to promote peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels. The discussion of war crimes and the pursuit of justice contributes to strengthening institutions and promoting accountability, which are key aspects of SDG 16.