In the past, war rules were followed. However, many soldiers in the current period ignore these rules. Governments have been seen to ignore the actions of these soldiers. According to the United Nations, governments should punish any soldier who is found to break war laws. This can serve as a good example to other soldiers to ensure that these laws are followed. The issue of whether war laws should be obeyed or not is controversial in that some people do not support it. There are various reasons that make people to oppose obedience to war laws.
People belief that war rules actually do not exist. Putting in place war laws means that people accept war activities. However, war is uncivilized way of dealing with disagreements. Many other methods can be used to solve conflicts. Governments should use these methods to solve conflicts instead of encouraging wars and putting in places rules to regulate the war. Having rules that are to regulate wars shows that war is a good thing that can work if well controlled. However, the fact remains that wars are destructive since they lead to deaths and destruction of property. If there are no war laws, people will be aware of consequences of war hence will oppose it as much as possible (WRIGHT, 1983).
It is important to note that in wars, people seek to avoid death. Even the soldiers in the field are willing to do anything they can to avoid death. This is acceptable to anybody. Sometimes, soldiers are forced to break war rules as a means of surviving. For example, it is not possible to assume that any women or children that one meets with are civilians. This is why soldiers are tempted to shoot at women and children they come across. This is regardless of the fact that laws do not allow them to kill civilians. It has been realized that many countries have been found to recruit women and children as soldiers. It is therefore difficult to determine whether the women or children that soldiers come across are either soldiers or civilians. In the current world, this rule is difficult to observe (O'CONNELL, 2012).
Buildings are hiding places of soldiers. According to war rules, soldiers are not allowed to destroy property unnecessarily. However, failure to destroy structures such as houses poses danger to soldiers in that their enemies could be hiding in these structures. The fact that soldiers end up destroying structures as a way of ensuring that they are secure means that it is difficult to observe war laws.
Another rule that is difficult to observe is that one should attack an individual with an equivalent weapon. In this case, it means that when attacked using a knife, one should use a knife and not a gun. In reality, this cannot be observed. A weapon is capable of killing regardless of its levels of danger. In this regard, those who oppose obeying war rules argue that every individual should use the weapon that he/she has. This is considering that the two fighting sides are enemies and are ready to kill each other (WRIGHT, 1983).
With advance in technology, it is difficult to observe war rules. Governments usually send aircrafts that have the weapons to attack a given part of a country. These aircrafts are controlled from a far distance and have no soldiers or pilots. This means that these aircrafts are ready to destroy everything that is present in the target region. It is difficult to spare innocent civilians, Red Cross officials and even property that do not pose any risk to the opponents. Since this is done with the authority of the government, it means that they are not ready to observe war laws (O'CONNELL, 2012).
Soldiers who are injured are not supposed to be attacked. This is one of the rules of war. However, it is possible that the injured individuals have weapons that they can use to attack. In case they are treated, they are likely to continue attacking. To avoid being attacked, soldiers attack even injured individuals. Everyone in the war field aims at ensuring their safety. Anything that is likely to interfere with their safety is attacked. Soldiers therefore attack injured individuals considering that they were also attacking and have the ability to continue attacking once they are okay (BOOT, 2002).
According to war laws, an individual who is not armed and has a white flag should not be attacked. That person shows that the other side is willing to end the war. Those who argue that war laws do not exist claim that even though the other side is willing to end the war, this does not guarantee that the war is to end. One of the sides may not be willing to end the war and this means that such a person should be attacked.
Some fights involve dealing with terrorists. These terrorists are willing to use any kind of weapon to achieve their objectives. They do not care about their local civilians or people such as Red Cross officials and United Nations officials. When a country is dealing with terrorists, it becomes difficult to observe war rules. They have to use weapons similar to those being used by the terrorist groups. These weapons include chemical and nuclear weapons. These weapons cause much destruction of property and people not involved in war. This is not however the objective of wars but circumstances makes it difficult to obey war rules (LOCKWOOD, 2009).
In most of the cases, there are no people to watch what is happening in the war zone. There is no video coverage in these areas and it is difficult to determine the soldiers involved in breaking of war rules. Soldiers therefore violate these rules with the assumption that there are no people to report that they have violated these rules.
Some countries are led by dictators. These leaders give direction to the soldiers. These leaders may dictate the weapons that are to be used even though they are not acceptable in war rules. They are to do what these leaders demand them to do. Failure to follow these instructions can lead to dangerous consequences. In fear of these consequences, soldiers may end up breaking rules of the war. When these soldiers break these rules; these dictators do not take any displinary actions against them.
Some countries are not members of United Nations. These countries therefore do not recognize any united nations’ officials during the war. Soldiers from these countries do not observe war rules because they are aware that they cannot be persecuted in their country or in international criminal court. They therefore use any weapon that is available to them (LOCKWOOD, 2009).
Those who oppose war laws argue that these laws only exist in the minds of politicians and united nation officials. For the soldiers, it is difficult to observe these laws. It means that people who do not actually participate in the war are the ones who majorly support war laws. These people do not know the conditions at the war fields and hence cannot make decisions for the people who are at the actual scenes. The argument here is that regardless of the fact that war laws do not exist, they should not be put in place because the people supporting their imposition do not participate in the war.
Regardless of all these oppositions, there is the strong support of rules during wars. There are rules of war even though many soldiers do not obey them. Some of these rules are written down and known by everybody. However, there are rules that people should obey even though they are not common or written down.
There is a group of people who go to war scenes to help the people fighting. Armies from both sides require these people. Red Cross officials and preachers are there to benefit the fighting soldiers regardless of their origin. These people are usually unarmed. These people also supply food to the civilians who are not able to find the required food due to the conditions surrounding them. Considering that, this group of people is not a threat to the soldiers; any soldier who attacks them should be identified and punished. If evaluation concludes that attack were done to an innocent unarmed individual, there is the need to punish soldiers who engage in such acts. It is expected that soldiers should protect this group of people since they are of help to them instead of killing them (MCCULLOUGH, 2007).
Soldiers should also not kill people with a white flag. This is because this is an indication that the soldiers from the other side have surrendered. It also shows the other side is ready to accept negotiations. As long as such an individual is not armed, there is no need of killing them. There is no need of fighting with people who are ready to stop fighting. Any soldier who continues fighting with people who have already surrendered should be punished. The aim of war is to resolve conflict and not to kill everyone in the country where there are fights. These people need each other after war and any chances that are likely to stop wars should be accepted. However, soldiers have the right to respond incase such an individual attempts to attack him/her (BOOT, 2002).
Soldiers do not have to take innocent individuals as hostages. They are however allowed to hold a leader of the other military group to get important information that can help end the war. However, innocent individuals held as hostages have no such information. Soldiers have no reason to hold and punish innocent individuals. These people could be of importance after the war and they should not be mistreated. Torture is an unacceptable.
Rules of war apply in that leaders who violate these rules are either punished by their government or by Hague. It is the responsibility of the government to punish all the soldiers who kill rape or torture innocent civilians. In circumstances when the governments fail to respond, people can be prosecuted at the international criminal court. This is as long as a country is a member of United Nations. It is due to these rules that soldiers respect Red Cross officials and other innocent civilians (MCCULLOUGH, 2007).
It is important to recognize that wars are not the same as genocides. They are not aimed at killing all the people in the war torn countries. They also do not aim at destroying everything that is found in the region occupied by the enemies. In this regard, countries in war are required to avoid using dangerous weapons that cause mass destruction. Use of weapons such as nuclear bombs is against the rules of war. This is because these weapons kill many innocent people and destroy a lot of property.
Soldiers have to realize that countries are interdependent. Wars are not intended to last forever. After the war, the two countries may start trading with each other or even assisting each other. However, if soldiers kill everyone they find, it becomes difficult for these countries to relate well even after the end of the war. When soldiers engage in total destruction of property, it means that the two countries will not be able to even trade with each other after destruction of property that could have been used in trade. Therefore, both countries suffer due to the actions of soldiers. This is why some soldiers find it important to obey war laws and use acceptable weapons.
Some wars are meant to protect the civilians who are suffering due to the current government. These aim at ensuring that the lives of the citizens are better. In this regard, soldiers cannot go killing civilians whom they aimed at protecting. There would be no need of going to war if soldiers are likely to kill innocent civilians.
It is true that war rules are very important. The major aim of these rules is to protect innocent individuals who are neutral regarding the war. The rules also protect people who are harmless such as injured individuals or those who are willing to end the war. These rules were put in place so that wars can be brought to an end when it is possible. They also make soldiers understand that wars are not genocide where individuals have to destroy everything that they come across.
With these observations, it can be concluded that rules of war are very important. Soldiers should use reasonable weapons in their activities unless it is too necessary to use dangerous weapons. However, war rules are never observed. Soldiers use any weapon that is close to them regardless of their effect. Sometimes, it becomes difficult to obey war rules especially when dealing with terrorists. Countries aim at winning in the war and hence use any weapon that they wish. Specifically, some countries use wars as opportunities to test their newly made weapons. With the aim of ensuring their protection, soldiers use any weapon that they have to kill their enemies. In conclusion, rules of war are in most of the cases not observed regardless of their importance. Soldiers use any weapon that they have at their disposal regardless of its effects. Governments have never taken the initiative of punishing such soldiers. This is not a reasonable act.
References.
O'CONNELL, M. E. (2012). What is war?: an investigation in the wake of 9/11. Leiden, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
WRIGHT, Q., & WRIGHT, L. L. (1983). A study of war. Chicago, University of Chicago press.
BOOT, M. (2002). Genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes: nullum crimen sine lege and the subject matter jurisdiction of the International Criminal Court. Antwerpen [u.a.], Intersentia.
MCCULLOUGH, J. (2007). The ultimate guide to U.S. Army survival skills, tactics, and techniques. New York, Skyhorse Pub.
NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL (U.S.). (2001). Alternative technologies to replace antipersonnel landmines. Washington D.C., National Academy Press. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&scope=site&db=nlebk&db=nlabk&AN=86865.
LOCKWOOD, J. A. (2009). Six-legged soldiers: using insects as weapons of war. Oxford, Oxford University Press.
