So why is it that there are treaties against Anti-Satellite Weapons and combat shotguns, which everybody uses in violation of those treaties, yet everyone almost without exception follows the Gevena Conventions to the letter?

A few thoughts ...

 

* The Geneva Conventions deal with broad and (relatively speaking) non-controversial issues like civilians, POWs and wounded.

 

* The Geneva Conventions are ratified by just about everybody and their dog, probably in large part to the nature of the subject matter (as above).

 

* Is there really a treaty against combat shotguns? I know there have been disagreements in the past about whether they violate certain Hague Conventions because of the nature of the injuries they may inflict, but I think in large part the argument against them is either weak or obsolete.

So why is it that there are treaties against Anti-Satellite Weapons and combat shotguns, which everybody uses in violation of those treaties, yet everyone almost without exception follows the Gevena Conventions to the letter?

 

Who does ? I think you're mistaking wishful thinking with reality.

 

As CV said, mostly everyone signed them (and some of the accompanying treaties often thought as being part of it), but no one follows them to the letter.

And as he implies, you're most likely including all warfare international laws, treaties and agreements under the banner of the Geneva convention, which is wrong

You do know that the Geneva convention really only deals with the treatment of wounded soldiers (and since 1929, POWs) and the respect of non-belligerents ?

Weapons and their lawful usage is NOT covered by it.

The first convention (1864) dealt with creating volunteer corps for the treatment of wounded soldiers on the battlefield, and the clear identification of medical army personnel and volunteers.

The second extended the first (1906) (note, nothing about civilians as of yet)

The third, in 1929, defined rules for POWs, it was revised in 1949, when the Fourth convention was signed, adding treatment of civilians to what is commonly referred to as the Geneva Convention (as you can see, there are four, plus many revisions).

 

Mostly everyone does NOT follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter, which completely forbid civilian casualties, or the more PC term of "collateral damage", as a means of waging war.

It also forbids any form of rough treatment of POW (aka interrogation techniques), which everyone partakes in, even the so nice Canadians

It also calls for a certain protocol to warfare, which is never followed these days : declarations of war, when they're effected at all, are done after hostilities have well started... (note : this might be actually be part of Hague conventions...)

Parts of the Geneva convention are sadly outdated in face of modern warfare : it was put in place at a time when the establishment still thought in terms of set battlefields, the 19th century.

That's why it's been updated at late as 2006.

 

Again, it deals with the issues pertaining to the consequences of war, more than the actual conduct of war, even if it includes guidelines (which no one follows in the Western world, we all bomb majorly civilian targets to get at the enemy) on its conduct.

 

As for what weapons and practices are legal, signatories can't even agree on the limitations, and they have specialized lawyers who deal with that kind of militaro-diplomatico-legalese for a living. So, for the rest of us, it's even harder to make heads or tails of it

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

 

Note : I'm no expert or lawyer

Note : I'm no expert or lawyer

 

But you are the birthday boy today, so we'll let it go at that.

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

But you are the birthday boy today, so we'll let it go at that.

 

Sorry for hijacking the thread.

 

My, erh, thanks for noticing.

I think...

Hehe, cheers, and thanks.

So why is it that there are treaties against Anti-Satellite Weapons and combat shotguns, which everybody uses in violation of those treaties, yet everyone almost without exception follows the Gevena Conventions to the letter?

 

Who does ? I think you're mistaking wishful thinking with reality.

 

As CV said, mostly everyone signed them (and some of the accompanying treaties often thought as being part of it), but no one follows them to the letter.

And as he implies, you're most likely including all warfare international laws, treaties and agreements under the banner of the Geneva convention, which is wrong

You do know that the Geneva convention really only deals with the treatment of wounded soldiers (and since 1929, POWs) and the respect of non-belligerents ?

Weapons and their lawful usage is NOT covered by it.

The first convention (1864) dealt with creating volunteer corps for the treatment of wounded soldiers on the battlefield, and the clear identification of medical army personnel and volunteers.

The second extended the first (1906) (note, nothing about civilians as of yet)

The third, in 1929, defined rules for POWs, it was revised in 1949, when the Fourth convention was signed, adding treatment of civilians to what is commonly referred to as the Geneva Convention (as you can see, there are four, plus many revisions).

 

Mostly everyone does NOT follow the Geneva Conventions to the letter, which completely forbid civilian casualties, or the more PC term of "collateral damage", as a means of waging war.

It also forbids any form of rough treatment of POW (aka interrogation techniques), which everyone partakes in, even the so nice Canadians

It also calls for a certain protocol to warfare, which is never followed these days : declarations of war, when they're effected at all, are done after hostilities have well started... (note : this might be actually be part of Hague conventions...)

Parts of the Geneva convention are sadly outdated in face of modern warfare : it was put in place at a time when the establishment still thought in terms of set battlefields, the 19th century.

That's why it's been updated at late as 2006.

 

Again, it deals with the issues pertaining to the consequences of war, more than the actual conduct of war, even if it includes guidelines (which no one follows in the Western world, we all bomb majorly civilian targets to get at the enemy) on its conduct.

 

As for what weapons and practices are legal, signatories can't even agree on the limitations, and they have specialized lawyers who deal with that kind of militaro-diplomatico-legalese for a living. So, for the rest of us, it's even harder to make heads or tails of it

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Conventions

 

Note : I'm no expert or lawyer

 

 

Most of that I was already aware of, but thanks. And no, I was not lumping all treaties into one cohesive body of law. I just was wondering why it seems like the Geneva Conventions are followed even to the extent we are led to believe.