Kerstin von Lingen, Lecturer at the University of Heidelberg, has recently published a very readable online essay on the term of “Crimes against Humanity” and its historical development in the course of the twentieth century.You will find Kerstin’s essay in Zeithistorische Forschungen/Studies in Contemporary History published by the Zentrum für Zeithistorische Forschung Potsdam @: is the Coordinator of the Junior Research Group: Central research focus of this project is to analyse the interaction of concepts of legality and justice between Asia and Europe during the War Crimes Trials program in various countries in East Asia between 19, taking into account the legal proceedings, the role of the United Nations War Crimes Commission, as well as the political implications emanating from Decolonization and Cold War considerations.Finally, if one were to read the combative and brutal-sounding headline alone, one might imagine that the U. military is threatening to beat Islamic State soldiers with shovels after capturing them, as a form of revenge or show of brutal force.
The group engages in subjects as different as United Nations War Crimes Commission’s policy, Dutch trials in Indonesia, French trials in Indochina, Chinese trials and Soviet trials in Far East (Khabarovsk), and the position of India at Tokyo.
On first impression, beating the Islamic State fighters to death with shovels sounds like a clear-cut case of stooping to the enemy’s level of barbarity. 9: [The Islamic State] needs to understand that the Joint Force is on orders to annihilate them ...
Threatening to kill or harm fighters if they surrender is unlawful; declaring that you will protect them if they surrender but kill them if they do not surrender but continue to fight is simply a statement of the fundamental obligations and authorities set forth in the law of armed conflict. The means and methods by which the command sergeant major suggested killing the enemy, however, is not among those concerns.
In today’s world of drones, precision-guided munitions, and cyber and autonomous weapons, we can easily forget that war is just as often fought with AK-47s, improvised explosive devices, machetes and even bare hands.
However, the senior enlisted adviser’s pronouncement specifically and correctly states that if Islamic State fighters “surrender, we will safeguard them to their detainee facility cell, provide them chow, a cot and due process.” Detention in armed conflict is designed to prevent enemy fighters from returning to the battlefield and is protective custody, not punitive in nature.
However, unless enemy fighters manifest a genuine intent to surrender, the law does not include any obligation to capture rather than kill in the course of combat operations. troops does raise valid concerns about the danger of dehumanizing or demonizing language in wartime.
ABC News reported that the idea has “raised eyebrows” and one service member posted a horrified statement of alarm on Facebook condemning the use of: ...
this sort of crude and barbaric language with regards to anyone, not even our crudest and most barbaric enemies. ’ ‘Beating them to death with our entrenching tools?
’ HOW MANY TIMES have we all taken our services’ respective courses on the law of armed conflict?
Courses which emphasize that America takes the high road?