When our own government (USA) has violated the Geneva conventions many times we must keep in mind what the real purpose of the conventions seem to be. To be a tool to be used against 'the other guys'. The strong against the weak.
> a tool to be used against 'the other guys'. The strong against the weak.
Recently some African countries have withdrawn from the International Criminal Court on that basis; only the weak are prosecuted. It's inconceivable that a U.S. leader would be prosecuted, for example.
However, the GC are used by everyone against everyone, including the strong against the strong, so the strong don't escape scrutiny. I believe U.S. law requires the government to obey them. For example, the Bush administration crafted careful (and sometimes convoluted) legal arguments that their actions complied with the GC - they respected the GC enough to feel they couldn't just ignore the rules.
On the other hand: The Geneva Conventions are not followed or implemented perfectly, but neither is any law or rule. International governance is anarchy; there is no real authority; in that realm, nothing will get nearly 100% compliance.
Do the GC have a positive impact? Now militaries and governments are legally bound and their people trained to follow these rules, and accusing someone of 'violation of the Geneva Conventions' carries weight. Imagine the world without them.
>Recently some African countries have withdrawn from the International Criminal Court on that basis; only the weak are prosecuted
Actually only two (Gambia and Burundi) has withdrawn arguing this. And in both cases, everyone knows the withdrawal is related to their own human rights abuses.
South Africa has announced its intention to withdraw (don't know if it's effective) because they believe it hinders its mediation efforts in conflict zones. (ie. we cannot help Uganda settle with the LRA because we're bound to arrest LRA leaders as soon as they set foot in South Africa)
Agreed, thanks for clarifying. I was not addressing the issue carefully. However, I thought that criticism was more widespread than the countries that withdrew.
Have you read any of the Geneva Conventions, let alone those specifically to which the USA is a signatory? Their rules for the treatment of prisoners are limited to uniformed combatants with specific insignia, not random terrorists or insurgents hiding among civilians.
