The law of armed conflict

What Hacker News says

1. ratsbaneMay 2014
   A great book on this subject is The Law of Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law in War by Gary Solis (related to nrsolis?) I think it's currently used as a textbook at West Point and other places. I have a copy here. Solis is a clear advocate for rules of conduct in war and for the punishment of those who break those rules but he also does not shy away from pointing out the frequent cases when, as you note, guilty soldiers on the winning side escape punishment. E.g., here is a quote from the book concerning the trial of Ernest Medina, implicated in the My Lai massacre:

   The prosecution urged that Medina knew, or should have known, of the massacre, but, in addition to inciting it, he took no action either to stop it or to subsequently bring to justice those who committed crimes. “Even if he did not personally commit any crimes in My Lai, Medina clearly failed to maintain control over men under his command who were committing scores of them.”42 Despite apparently meeting the von Leeb–List standard – knew or should have known – and, for that matter, the Yamashita standard – must have known – Medina was acquitted.43 One civilian nonlawyer who viewed the trial found the case poorly prosecuted.44 Another calls it “a striking example of the extent to which a domestic . . . tribunal will devise a restricted formulation of the superior responsibility doctrine in order to avoid the prosecution of its own nationals.”45 But that ascribes a sinister motive to the court-martial that did not exist. (p.422)

   http://www.amazon.com/The-Law-Armed-Conflict-International/d...

   I hope this information is helpful.

   Show morethread
2. systemvoltageFeb 2022
   NATO doesn't quite work like a dictatorship with a supreme commander at the top.

   > NATO is an alliance of 30 sovereign nations but their individual sovereignty is unaffected by participation in the alliance. NATO has no parliaments, no laws, no enforcement, and no power to punish individual citizens. As a consequence of this lack of sovereignty the power and authority of a NATO commander are limited. NATO commanders cannot punish offences such as: failure to obey a lawful order; dereliction of duty; or disrespect to a senior officer.[147] NATO commanders expect obeisance but sometimes need to subordinate their desires or plans to the operators who are themselves subject to sovereign codes of conduct like the UCMJ. A case in point was the clash between General Sir Mike Jackson and General Wesley Clark over KFOR actions at Pristina Airport.[148]

   > The NATO commander can issue orders to his subordinate commanders in the form of operational plans (OPLANs), operational orders (OPORDERs), tactical direction, or fragmental orders (FRAGOs) and others. The joint rules of engagement must be followed, and the Law of Armed Conflict must be obeyed at all times. Operational resources "remain under national command but have been transferred temporarily to NATO. Although these national units, through the formal process of transfer of authority, have been placed under the operational command and control of a NATO commander, they never lose their national character." Senior national representatives, like CDS, "are designated as so-called red-cardholders". Caveats are restrictions listed "nation by nation... that NATO Commanders... must take into account."[147]

   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO

   I suspect orders for countering cyber attacks are similar.

   Show morethread