What are war crimes and who is held accountable for them?

Categories of war crimes

There is a long list of actions that have been deemed war crimes. Let’s start with crimes against humanity.

Targeting civilians intentionally is considered a war crime under international law. This includes the murder, rape, torture, deportation, and enslavement of any civilian populations which are committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack on a country.

The persecution or genocide of a specific group of people based on their national, ethnic, racial, or religious identity is also illegal.

On top of this, it is illegal under international law to direct attacks against civilian objects, or rather infrastructure used by regular people on an everyday basis. Buildings meant to be protected from damage caused by war, include houses, hospitals, schools, museums, and places of worship.

There is also a list of weapons and biological agents that are banned from use during war, according to international law. These bans were put in place after World War I, but the law was updated in 1993 to prevent the development, stockpiling, and transfer of such substances.

Many chemical and biological weapons have also been banned from use during war. These include but are not limited to phosgene, mustard gas, and white phosphorus, as well as nerve agents such as ricin, sarin, and VX.

These are just a few acts of war that are considered punishable by international law, a list that is updated on a regular basis to include modern weaponry.

Who is held accountable and how?

Today, war crimes are punishable in two ways: death or long-term imprisonment of combatants, soldiers, and or political leaders themselves.

To charge individuals with committing war crimes requires conducting a hearing in the International Criminal Court (ICC), which was founded in 2002 for this purpose.

The powers held by the ICC are recognised by 122 countries that signed the Rome Statute in support of it. Those who haven’t signed, including world superpowers such as the United States, Russia, and China state that they want the power and control over the prosecution of their criminals and do not want to have the input of the ICC.

Only the nations that have agreed to and signed the ICC treaty are obliged to adhere to the authority of the court. As a result of this, military personnel from non-participating territories are unable to be held to a trial regardless of the war crimes they may have committed.

Getting soldiers, armies, or countries on trial for war crimes is not an easy feat. Like regular criminal trials, the context of certain acts must be considered. There also must be evidence of a war crime taking place beyond a reasonable doubt.

The ICC also prides itself on being objective and comprehensive. This means that if one country accuses another of committing war crimes, both parties involved in the case will be investigated for their actions.

This makes the process extremely tedious, creating huge limitations for the ICC, especially when countries (Russia and the US for example) do not operate under its jurisdiction. It largely grants them impunity from alleged war crimes.

Even for countries that support the ICC, the thorough nature of such court hearings can see investigations into war crimes take decades.

A full list of cases conducted by the International Criminal Court can be viewed here.

How politics slows a rush towards accountability

International political relations have proven to convolute to what degree nations are willing to accuse one another of war crimes.

For example, President Joe Biden labelled Russian leader Vladimir Putin as a war criminal without hesitation. It’s no question that the hostile and turbulent relationship between the United States and Russia enables Biden’s willingness to make this statement.

When it comes to Israel’s actions on Gaza, however, things have been more difficult. The US-Israel relationship is an extremely strong one both politically and in a military sense – with America sending $4billion a year to fund Israel’s military organisation – as this is mutually beneficial for both parties.

Getting any American president to explicitly condemn Israel outright would be a bit like asking Bonnie to turn on Clyde – despite clear evidence that war crimes have taken place, including bombings of civilian homes, hospitals, and UN schools.

It’s anybody’s guess whether the ICC will be able to condemn actions now taking place in the Ukraine or Israeli war. Even if it is able to, reaching final conclusions may take many years.

War in the age of the Internet

In a time when anybody with a smartphone can double as a photojournalist, global citizens are now able to watch acts of war play out in front of our eyes.

Depictions of war crimes can’t be as easily hidden, but unfortunately, context is more easily lost or easily misconstrued. Much of this convolution is intensified with help of mass media, making the truth harder to find and justice more difficult to achieve.

Dissecting any media is an added layer of evidence for the ICC to consider, a task that is difficult even in domestic trails.

In the end, any decided punishment for actions that cause the loss of lives, homes, and infrastructure can never bring those things back. In war, there are no winners.

Everyone involved is made a victim when peace loses its place as a priority.