Pevehouse 7.4-7.5 International Law (PDF)

**Pevehouse 7.4 and 7.5** **7.4 Law and Sovereignty** The remainder of this chapter discusses particular areas of international law, from the most firmly rooted and widely respected to newer and less-established areas. In each area, the influence of law and norms runs counter to the unimpeded exer...

**Pevehouse 7.4 and 7.5** **7.4 Law and Sovereignty** The remainder of this chapter discusses particular areas of international law, from the most firmly rooted and widely respected to newer and less-established areas. In each area, the influence of law and norms runs counter to the unimpeded exercise of state sovereignty. This struggle becomes more intense as one moves from long-standing traditions of diplomatic law to recent norms governing human rights. **Laws of Diplomacy** The foundation of international law is the respect for diplomats\' rights, with detailed and universally applied standards of behavior. Diplomacy is essential for all state relations, except in cases of all-out war. For the past five centuries, harming an emissary from another state to influence that state has been considered unjustifiable. Although historically, it was common to harm messengers or use officials as hostages or bargaining chips, such actions are now universally condemned, though they still occasionally occur. The status of embassies and ambassadors as official state representatives is defined through diplomatic recognition. Diplomats present their credentials to each other\'s governments and once accredited, enjoy specific rights and protections in the host country. They have the right to occupy an embassy, where the host country\'s laws cannot be enforced without the embassy\'s consent. Consequently, embassies sometimes shelter dissidents seeking refuge from their own governments. **diplomatic recognition**: The process by which the status of embassies and that of an ambassador as an official state representative are explicitly defined. In 1979, A flagrant violation of the sanctity of embassies occurred after Islamic revolutionaries took power, Iranian students seized the U.S. embassy and held U.S. diplomats hostage for over a year. Although the Iranian government did not directly commit the act, it condoned it and refused to remove the students. Host countries are generally expected to use force against their own citizens if necessary to protect a foreign embassy. Diplomats enjoy immunity even outside embassy grounds, making them beyond the reach of the host country\'s national courts. Their right to travel varies by country, with some restricting movement to one city and others allowing free travel. If diplomats commit crimes, they are shielded from arrest, and the host country can only revoke their accreditation and expel them. However, stronger countries can pressure weaker ones to lift immunity for prosecution. For instance, in 1997, the U.S. and France prosecuted diplomats from Georgia and Zaire for reckless driving that resulted in children\'s deaths. **diplomatic immunity**: A privilege under which diplomats\' activities fall outside the jurisdiction of the host country\'s national courts. As the host country to the UN, the U.S. extends diplomatic immunity to diplomats accredited to the UN. This immunity allows delegates to avoid consequences for infractions like parking tickets, leading to an estimated \$16 million in unpaid tickets in New York City. The issue has become politically sensitive, prompting the State Department to reserve the right to revoke driver\'s licenses, license plates, and even reduce foreign aid based on outstanding tickets. Similarly, in London, Sudanese diplomats accumulated over 800 tickets, amounting to more than \$100,000 in fines. Due to diplomatic immunity, espionage is often conducted through the diplomatic corps within embassies. Spies are typically assigned low-level embassy positions like cultural attaché, press liaison or military attaché. If caught spying, they cannot be prosecuted but are expelled instead. Diplomatic norms dictate politeness in such expulsions, citing \"activities not consistent with diplomatic status.\" Spies without diplomatic cover, such as businesspeople or tourists, can be arrested and prosecuted. In 2010, the U.S. arrested ten Russian spies living as ordinary citizens, but before prosecution, the U.S. and Russia agreed to a spy exchange. A diplomatic pouch is a package sent between an embassy and its home country. Historically small and occasional, these shipments now occur frequently worldwide. Diplomatic pouches enjoy home country territoriality, meaning they cannot be opened, searched, or confiscated by the host country. While the contents remain secret, it\'s assumed that illicit goods like guns and drugs may sometimes be transported in these pouches. Breaking diplomatic relations involves withdrawing one\'s diplomats from a state and expelling that state\'s diplomats from one\'s own country. This action signals displeasure with another government and a refusal to conduct business as usual. Countries may withdraw recognition when a revolutionary government takes power. Similarly, when small states recognize Taiwan diplomatically, China withdraws recognition of them. When two countries lack diplomatic relations, they often conduct business through a third country that represents their interests via its own embassy, known as an interests section. This arrangement allows diplomacy to continue despite the formal lack of relations. For example, during their period of mutual nonrecognition, U.S. interests in Cuba were represented by the Swiss embassy, and Cuban interests in the U.S. were represented by the Swiss embassy. These interest sections were in the former U.S. and Cuban embassies and staffed with U.S. and Cuban diplomats. Diplomatic relationships can become entangled in sanctions. In 2016, as part of sanctions against Russia for meddling in the U.S. presidential election, the U.S. closed two Russian diplomatic compounds in Maryland and New York. In response, Russia expelled 755 U.S. diplomats in 2017. States often show lower levels of displeasure by recalling their ambassadors home for a period, officially for \"consultations,\" signaling annoyance. In 2021, France briefly recalled its ambassadors to the U.S. and Australia after Australia canceled a French submarine purchase in favor of American submarines. A milder expression of displeasure is a formal complaint, typically made by the complaining government to the other government\'s ambassador in its own capital city. The law of diplomacy is often violated in the context of terrorism. Diplomats are tempting targets for terrorists because they symbolize the state, and terrorist groups, not bound by diplomatic norms or law, are willing to attack them. Such attacks are seen as attacks on the state\'s territory, even if carried out far from home. Many diplomats have been killed in recent decades. Notable incidents include the 1998 al Qaeda bombings of U.S. embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people; the 2004 attack on a U.S. consulate in Saudi Arabia, killing several guards; and the 2012 burning of the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, killing the ambassador. **Just-War Doctrine** After the law of diplomacy, international law regarding war is one of the most developed areas of international law. Laws concerning war are divided into two areas: laws of war (when war is permissible) and laws in war (how wars are fought). International law distinguishes between just wars (legal) and wars of aggression (illegal). This concept originates from centuries-old religious writings about just wars, which were once enforced by threats of excommunication. Today, the UN Charter, which outlaws international aggression, defines the legality of war. Just-war doctrine has become a strong international norm, forming an important part of the modern intellectual tradition governing war and peace that evolved in Europe, although not all states adhere to it. **just wars**: A category in international law and political theory that defines when wars can be justly started (jus ad bellum) and how they can be justly fought (jus in bello). See also war crimes. The idea of aggression, central to the doctrine of just war, involves violating a state\'s sovereignty and territorial integrity. It refers to a state\'s use of force or an imminent threat against another state\'s territory or sovereignty, unless in response to aggression. Tanks swarming across the border constitute aggression, but so do tanks massing at the border if the state taking this action has threatened to invade its neighbor. The lines are somewhat fuzzy. For a threat to be considered aggression and justify a response, it must clearly involve the use of force, not just hostile policies or general rivalry. According to just-war doctrine, the only permissible use of military force is in response to aggression. This doctrine explicitly prohibits using war to change another state\'s government or policies, or in ethnic and religious conflicts. The UN Charter supports this by making no provision for \"war,\" but rather for \"international police actions\" against aggressors, akin to law enforcement in a national society. Thus, if all states adhered to the law against aggression, international war would not occur. For a war to be morally just, it must not only respond to aggression but also be waged with just intent. A state cannot exploit another\'s aggression to pursue an essentially aggressive war. For example, while the U.S.-led effort to oust Iraq from Kuwait in 1991 was a response to aggression, critics argued that the war\'s justness was compromised by the U.S. interest in securing cheap oil from the Middle East, which is not a permissible reason for waging war. Just-war doctrine has been significantly undermined, more so than have laws of war crimes, by the changing nature of warfare. In civil wars and low-intensity conflicts, belligerents range from militias to national armies, and battlegrounds are often fragmented with no clear front lines (much less borders). This makes it difficult to identify aggressors and balance the merits of peace and justice. **7.5 Human Rights** One of the newest areas of international law concerns human rights-the rights of human beings against certain abuses of their own governments. **human rights**: The rights of all people to be free from abuses such as torture or imprisonment for their political beliefs (political and civil rights) and to enjoy certain minimum economic and social protections (economic and social rights). **Individual Rights Versus Sovereignty** The very idea of human rights flies in the face of the sovereignty and territorial integrity of states. Sovereignty gives states the right to do as they please in their own territory: Nobody can tell them how to treat their own citizens. Thus, reaching a consensus on the most important human rights is challenging. One approach argues that rights are universal, regardless of a person\'s location, ethnicity, or traditions. The other approach, relativism, suggests that local traditions and histories should be respected, even if this limits rights considered important elsewhere. This approach argues that human rights should be interpreted within the cultural and historical context of each society, rather than imposing a universal standard. Governments with poor human rights records often criticize efforts to promote human rights as \"interference in our internal affairs,\" reflecting a relativist stance and putting human rights law on shaky ground. The concept of human rights originates from at least three sources, with religion being a primary one. Most major world religions teach that humans are created in the image of a higher power, deserving dignity and respect. This idea is clearly articulated in the American Declaration of Independence by Thomas Jefferson, stating that all people are \"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.\" Second, political and legal philosophy has explored the concept of natural law and natural rights for centuries. Thinkers like Aristotle, John Locke, Immanuel Kant, and Jean-Jacques Rousseau have argued that natural law grants all humans inherent rights to life, liberty, property, and happiness. In the eighteenth century, political revolutions like the American and French Revolutions put the theory of natural law and natural rights into practice. The United States\' Declaration of Independence and France\'s Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen established laws affirming that humans have inherent rights that cannot be taken away by any state or individual. Criticisms of human rights ideas exist both theoretically and practically. Theoretically, relativists argue that the origins and development of human rights are largely Western, and non-Western societies may prioritize group or family rights over individual ones. Practically, critics, especially from non-Western contexts, highlight that even after the eighteenth-century revolutions in Europe and America, rights were not universal. Women, children, and nonwhites often did not enjoy the same rights as landholding white males, making the concept of universal rights misleading. Due to this controversy, there is no global consensus on essential human rights, leading to their division into two broad types: civil-political and economic-social. Civil-political rights, or negative rights, include free speech, freedom of religion, equal protection under the law, and freedom from arbitrary imprisonment. These rights are typically guaranteed by limiting government power. Economic-social rights, or positive rights, include good living conditions, food, health care, social security, and education. These rights are often promoted by expanding government roles to provide minimal standards for society. No state has a perfect human rights record, and states vary in which rights they respect or violate. The U.S. criticizes China for civil-political rights violations (e.g., free speech, limiting access to certain Internet sites, using prison labor, mistreating certain minority groups (especially Uyghurs), and torturing political dissidents). Conversely, China points out U.S. issues with economic-social rights (e.g., 40 million people living in poverty, the highest percentage of the national population in prison anywhere in the world, and a history of racism and violence). During the Cold War, the U.S. and allies criticized the Soviet Union and China for civil-political rights violations but did not support economic-social rights treaties. Conversely, communist states promoted economic-social rights while ignoring civil-political rights. Despite these issues, progress has been made, such as the global decline of slavery over the past 150 years. At the end of World War II, a significant global shift in human rights occurred. Horrified by Nazi Germany\'s attempt to exterminate the Jewish population and Japanese abuses of Chinese citizens, scholars and practitioners began to suggest limits to state sovereignty. They argued that states could not claim sovereignty if they attempted to massacre their own people. Following World War II and the creation of the United Nations, significant international efforts to codify and enforce human rights began. The next section will examine some of these agreements and institutions. **Human Rights Institutions** In 1948, the UN General Assembly adopted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), considered the core international document on human rights. Although it lacks the force of international law, the UDHR sets forth international norms for government behavior toward citizens and foreigners. It is based on the principle that human rights violations disrupt international order (causing outrage, sparking rebellion, etc.) and the UN Charter\'s commitment to fundamental freedoms. The declaration states that \"all human beings are born free and equal\" regardless of race, sex, language, religion, political affiliation, or birthplace. It promotes norms such as banning torture, guaranteeing religious and political freedom, and ensuring economic well-being. **Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) (1948)**: The core UN document on human rights; although it lacks the force of international law, it sets forth international norms regarding behavior by governments toward their own citizens and foreigners alike. Since the adoption of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), the UN has opened nine treaties for state signatures to further define human rights protections. Unlike the UDHR, these treaties are legally binding contracts signed by states. While international law\'s effectiveness depends on enforcement mechanisms, these nine treaties are crucial in outlining the basic protections for individuals expected by the international community. The International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (CCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (CESCR) are two key treaties that entered into force in 1976. They codify the promises of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) by dividing its list of rights into civil-political and economic-social rights, respectively. Together with the UDHR, these covenants are often referred to as the International Bill of Human Rights. The remaining treaties focus on protecting vulnerable groups. The International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial Discrimination (CERD), enacted in 1969, bans discrimination based on race, ethnicity, religion, or national origin but does not address gender discrimination. The Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), which entered into force in 1981, addresses this gap by banning discrimination against women. The Convention Against Torture (CAT), established in 1987, prohibits dehumanizing, degrading, and inhumane treatment of individuals, even during war. The Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), enacted in 1990, focuses on promoting children\'s health, education, and well-being, with every country except the United States approving it. The International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers and Members of Their Families (CMW), which came into force in 2003, aims to protect the political, labor, and social rights of nearly 100 million migrant workers worldwide. The Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), effective since 2008, promotes dignity, legal equality, and reasonable accommodation for disabled persons in signatory states. The International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance (CPED), active since 2010, protects individuals from forced disappearance, defined as \"deprivation of liberty\" followed by concealment of that deprivation. Optional protocols attached to several UN treaties act as addendums, providing additional protections not included in the original documents. Fewer states sign these protocols due to their controversial nature. Some protocols offer stronger enforcement mechanisms, such as allowing individuals in signatory states to approach UN monitoring bodies without government approval. States not party to the original treaty can still sign these protocols, as seen with the United States, which has not signed the CRC but has signed its two optional protocols. In addition to UN-related human rights treaties, several regional international organizations (IOs) have promoted human rights protection. Nowhere is this truer than in Europe, where the European Union, the Council of Europe, and the European Court of Human Rights work to ensure that all states in the region respect human rights. In Latin America, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights has had some success but is limited by state refusal to abide by its decisions. The African Union (AU) supports the African Commission on Human and Peoples\' Rights, but the commission faces challenges due to a lack of monetary and political support from African states. In the past two decades, developed states have increasingly used international organizations to pressure developing states to improve human rights conditions. Free trade agreements often include provisions that tie trade benefits to the respect for human rights, particularly workers\' rights. These treaties offer a mechanism to punish countries that abuse their citizens by withholding economic benefits. However, some argue that limiting economic benefits can harm a country\'s development, potentially worsening the human rights situation. Today, NGOs are crucial in advocating for basic political rights in authoritarian countries, aiming to stop torture, execution, and imprisonment for political or religious beliefs. Amnesty International is a leading NGO in this struggle, known for its impartiality and global monitoring of human rights abuses, including in the United States. Other groups, like Human Rights Watch, focus more regionally or nationally. NGOs provide information and advocacy for the UN and other regional organizations, acting as a bridge between these bodies and efforts to promote human rights \"on the ground.\" **Amnesty International**: An influential nongovernmental organization (NGO) that operates globally to monitor and try to rectify glaring abuses of political (not economic or social) human rights. Enforcing human rights norms is challenging because it involves interfering in a state\'s internal affairs. Cutting off trade or contact with a government that violates human rights can further harm the citizens by isolating them. However, such measures keep human rights abuses in the global spotlight, drawing more attention to the victims\' plight. The most effective method to address human rights abuses combines publicity and pressure. Publicity involves uncovering and sharing information about abuses, as Amnesty International does, in a process known as \"naming and shaming.\" This aims to embarrass regimes and change their behavior. Publicity also informs travelers and businesses about conditions in offending countries, with the hope that negative attention will deter interactions with these states, adding economic pressure. In recent years, NGOs have increasingly used public pressure to address human rights violations by governments and businesses. Since 2005, the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement has encouraged boycotts of companies doing business in Israel and pressured states, firms, and universities to divest from Israel. The goal is to influence Israel\'s policies toward Palestinians. Critics argue that the movement unfairly targets Israel and that many advocates are anti-Semitic. So far, the movement has had little impact on changing Israel\'s policies. The pressure from other governments, private individuals, and businesses to address human rights violations typically involves nonviolent threats of punishment. However, such actions are rare and often ineffective, as most governments aim to maintain normal relations. Additionally, since few countries have flawless human rights records, they are reluctant to \"shame\" others, fearing their own shortcomings will be exposed. Despite ongoing debates about the definition of human rights and reluctance by many states to pressure others, some norms have emerged in the post-Cold War era. For instance, it is now expected that nearly every democratic country will use election monitors to ensure free and fair elections. States, IGOs, and NGOs collaborate to oversee polling stations and ballot counting to discourage cheating or bias. Additionally, in contentious elections, a declaration of a clean election is hoped to prevent post-election violence. Controversies have arisen over election monitoring. Some dictatorships holding sham elections invite monitors from other dictatorships to falsely claim fairness. In other cases, monitors from democratic countries may hesitate to criticize issues in fragile democracies, fearing that raising concerns could lead to violence. Humanitarian interventions using military force to aid civilian victims of wars and disasters are rare. However, international norms have increasingly prioritized protecting endangered civilians over state sovereignty. In 2005, A major summit of world leaders in 2005 enshrined the concept of the responsibility to protect (R2P), obligating governments to save civilians from genocide or crimes against humanity. Notable interventions in the 1990s occurred in Kurdish areas of Iraq, Somalia, and Kosovo. The UN-authorized NATO campaign in Libya in 2011 also followed the R2P concept. Despite this, Syria did not receive protection during its civil war, which began in 2011, resulting in tens of thousands of deaths by the government and later by Islamic State rebels. **responsibility to protect (R2P)**: Principle adopted by world leaders in 2005 holding governments responsible for protecting civilians from genocide and crimes against humanity perpetrated within a sovereign state. Confronting genocide, mass killings, and crimes against humanity is challenging because these atrocities often occur within broader wars. This complicates military intervention for outside parties, including great powers, as they may need to overthrow a government or fight a rebel group, potentially entangling them in prolonged conflicts. Leaders must consider whether their populations would support intervening to stop genocide if it means risking their own troops in a lengthy war. The U.S. State Department has actively pursued human rights since the late 1970s. An annual U.S. government report assesses human rights in states around the world. In states where abuses are severe or becoming worse, U.S. foreign aid has been withheld. (But in other cases, CIA funding has supported the abusers.) In response to these reports, China produces its own human rights report on the state of U.S. human rights, releasing it on the same day as the U.S. State Department report. **War Crimes and the ICC** Large-scale human rights abuses often occur during war and are considered war crimes. Enforcing international law during wartime is challenging, but norms and treaties are generally followed. After a war, the losing side can be punished for violations, as seen in the Nuremberg trials after World War II. The Nuremberg Tribunal introduced \"crimes against humanity\" to address the Nazi murders of civilians, which did not violate German law but were inhumane acts and persecutions on a vast scale for unjust ends. **war crimes**: Violations of the law governing the conduct of warfare, such as mistreatment of prisoners of war or the unnecessary targeting of civilians. See also just wars. **crimes against humanity**: A category of legal offenses created at the Nuremberg trials after World War II to encompass genocide and other acts committed by the political and military leaders of the Third Reich (Nazi Germany). See also dehumanization and genocide. In the 1990s, the UN Security Council authorized an international war crimes tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, the first since World War II. Similar tribunals were later established for Rwanda and Sierra Leone. The Yugoslavia tribunal, based in The Hague, indicted top Bosnian Serb leaders and other Serbian and Croatian officers, including Slobodan Milosevic in 1999 for his expulsion of Albanians from Kosovo. The tribunal faced funding issues and lacked power to arrest suspects in Serbia and Croatia. After Milosevic lost power, Serbia handed him over in 2001, and he died in custody in 2006. By 2011, no Bosnia war criminals remained at large, and the Rwanda tribunal completed its 71 cases by the end of 2012. A notable prosecution in Bosnia ended in 2017 with a guilty verdict against a former Bosnian Serb general after a lengthy trial lasting over 500 days and included 500 witnesses and 10,000 exhibits. After the civil war in Sierra Leone, the government, in collaboration with the UN, conducted a war crimes tribunal. In 2003, it indicted Liberia\'s sitting head of state, Charles Taylor, for his role in the war\'s brutality. Taylor fled to Nigeria but was captured, handed over to the tribunal in 2006, and convicted in 2012. In 1998, following the UN tribunals for former Yugoslavia and Rwanda, most of the world\'s states signed a treaty to create the International Criminal Court (ICC). The ICC, launched in 2003 in The Hague, with 18 judges from around the world (but not the United States), hearing cases of genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity globally. It started its first trial in 2008, involving a militia leader from Democratic Congo accused of drafting children under 15 and killing civilians. He was convicted in 2012. **International Criminal Court (ICC)**: A permanent tribunal for war crimes and crimes against humanity. The International Criminal Court (ICC) is unique and controversial due to its universal jurisdiction, allowing it to prosecute individuals from any state. Unlike the World Court, which only handles cases between states, the ICC can prosecute individuals for human rights violations. Three mechanisms can trigger an ICC trial: a state can voluntarily turn over an individual, a special prosecutor can initiate a trial if crimes occurred in a signatory state\'s territory (against the wishes of a state), or the UN Security Council can start proceedings against individuals from nonsignatory states. The ICC aims to deter potential violators by prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity. **Public Opinion and International Relations** **U.S. Public Opinion and Human Rights** Over the past 20-plus years, American public opinion has shown two clear trends regarding human rights. First, only about 10 percent of the public believes human rights should not be a priority in American foreign policy. Second, the percentage of people who think human rights should be a \"top priority\" has been steadily increasing over the past decade. This rise may be due to the deadly wars in Ukraine and Syria, as well as the massive flow of refugees from these conflicts and the civil war in Libya. American opinion on international human rights is mixed, especially when it comes to actual policies to promote human rights or end large-scale violations. This is evident in opinions on humanitarian interventions, where the U.S. military is used to stop conflicts causing mass human rights violations. Public opinion varies widely on specific interventions, with no clear trend in the results of five different polls on significant human rights violations. Support for intervention tends to increase when \"genocide\" is mentioned, but overall, support for military intervention in ethnic conflicts is generally low. American public opinion on human rights shows skepticism about intervening in other countries\' ethnic conflicts, likely influenced by experiences in Vietnam, Afghanistan, and Iraq. However, these conflicts often involve severe human rights violations, such as war crimes and genocide. Consequently, it is challenging to garner political support for interventions in the very situations where human rights are most at risk. Americans generally support using sanctions or cutting economic and military aid to states that abuse human rights, showing a willingness to bear the costs of defending human rights globally. However, their support for foreign policies promoting human rights has limits, stopping short of overt military intervention. The United States has refused to ratify the ICC agreement, with President George W. Bush removing the U.S. signature from the treaty. The U.S. has pressured many ICC member states to sign Bilateral Immunity Agreements (BIAs) to protect American soldiers from prosecution. In 2005, Congress cut foreign aid to states that refused to sign a BIA. U.S. leaders are concerned that American soldiers might fall under ICC jurisdiction instead of the American military\'s justice system. In 2017, the ICC prosecutor suggested that American troops may have committed war crimes in Afghanistan, likely preventing the U.S. from joining the court in the near future. War crimes in Darfur, Sudan, deemed grave but not genocide by a UN commission, were referred to the ICC after the U.S. dropped its objections in 2005 (when exemptions for U.S. soldiers serving in peacekeeping operations were restored). The ICC indicted Sudanese President Omar al-Bashir in 2009 for war crimes and crimes against humanity, issuing a warrant for his arrest. This angered the Sudanese government, which expelled humanitarian organizations from Darfur. In 2010, al-Bashir traveled to Chad, which refused to arrest him, citing ICC bias. The ICC struggles to balance holding Sudanese officials accountable while being sensitive to efforts to end the violence in Darfur, making it a difficult case. The difficulty has grown in recent years as more African nations accuse the ICC of bias against African leaders. In 2015, South Africa refused to arrest al-Bashir at a summit, leading to ICC criticism and South Africa\'s announcement to withdraw from the ICC, along with Burundi and Gambia (though South Africa and Gambia later reversed their decisions). African leaders argue that nearly all ICC activity targets their continent and that non-African states should also be investigated. In solidarity, Russia removed its signature from the ICC treaty in 2016. The most important principle in the laws of war is to limit warfare to combatants and protect civilians. Targeting civilians is illegal, but targeting military forces, even if civilians may be killed, is not. However, the force used must be proportional to the military gain, and only the necessary amount of force can be applied. In 2017, Burma\'s government responded to an attack by the Rohingya, a Muslim minority group, by targeting hundreds of Rohingya villages. Thousands of homes were burned, and reports of mass killings emerged. Nearly 600,000 Rohingya fled to Bangladesh. Many countries, including the U.S., labeled Burma\'s actions as \"ethnic cleansing,\" arguing that the army\'s response was non-proportional and exceeded necessary force, constituting war crimes. To distinguish combatants from civilians, soldiers must wear uniforms and insignia, like a national flag patch. This rule is often violated in guerrilla warfare, making it particularly brutal and harmful to civilians. In large-scale conventional wars, it\'s easier to tell civilians from soldiers, though not always perfectly. For example, U.S. special forces in Afghanistan operated out of uniform to befriend local fighters, humanitarian-aid agencies complained, and a Pentagon ordered their return to uniform. In the Iraq War, insurgents frequently targeted civilians and attacked in civilian clothes, from hospitals and schools, and after feigning surrender-violating the laws of war. The rise of private military forces in recent years has challenged the laws of war, as these forces are not bound by international laws that apply to state militaries (only states, not corporations, sign the Geneva Conventions). In Iraq, the U.S. granted waivers to these companies, exempting them from international law and subjecting them only to local law. However, with no formal Iraqi government, domestic law violations went unenforced. High-profile incidents, such as abuses at Abu Ghraib prison and civilian shootings, prompted Congress, the UN, and Iraq to hold private forces accountable. In the 2022 Ukraine war, Russia used the private military company Wagner Group to fight on the front lines after its own troops proved ineffective. In 2023, the Wagner Group was accused of a massacre in Mali. Under the laws of war, soldiers have the right to surrender and become prisoners of war (POWs), giving up their weapons and the right to fight in exchange for protection from being targeted. POWs cannot be killed, mistreated, or forced to disclose more than their name, rank, and serial number. The law of POWs is enforced through practical reciprocity. For example, during World War II, after German forces executed 80 French partisan POWs, the partisans retaliated by executing 80 German POWs. **prisoners of war (POWs)**: Soldiers who have surrendered and who thereby receive special status under the laws of war. The laws of war assign a special role to the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC), which provides practical support like medical care, food, and letters to civilians and POWs. POW exchanges are usually negotiated through the ICRC. Armed forces generally respect the Red Cross\'s neutrality, though guerrilla warfare poses challenges. In the war on terrorism, the U.S. does not classify detained \"enemy combatants\" as POWs but allows the ICRC access to most of them. The U.S. policy of extraordinary rendition, transferring terrorist suspects to other countries for questioning, including those that use torture, is more controversial. **International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC**): A nongovernmental organization (NGO) that provides practical support, such as medical care, food, and letters from home to civilians caught in wars and to prisoners of war (POWs). Exchanges of POWs are usually negotiated through the ICRC. The laws of warfare impose moral responsibility on both individuals and states during wartime. The Nuremberg Tribunal established that participants can be held accountable for war crimes. German officers\' defense of \"just following orders\" was rejected, leading to their punishment and, in some cases, execution for their war crimes. Not all Nuremberg defendants were found guilty. Laws of war limit the use of force against civilians to what is necessary and proportional to military objectives. During World War II, the German army besieged Leningrad (St. Petersburg) for two years, causing civilian starvation. Such sieges are permitted under international law if capturing the city is difficult. Additionally, the lack of direct military force and the debatable use of sufficient force during the siege of Leningrad complicate classifying it as a crime against humanity. **Changing Context** The changing nature of war has undermined the laws of warfare. Conventional wars with defined armed forces and battlegrounds are being replaced by irregular and asymmetrical wars fought by guerrillas and death squads in cities or jungles. This blurs the lines between civilians and soldiers, making war crimes more common. During the Vietnam War, the U.S. faced an elusive enemy, leading to attacks on civilian villages perceived as supporting guerrillas. In one infamous case, a U.S. officer was court-martialed for ordering the massacre of hundreds of unarmed civilians in the village My Lai in 1968 (he was convicted but received a light sentence). In today\'s irregular warfare, often fueled by ethnic and religious conflicts, upholding the laws of war is increasingly challenging. Another factor undermining the laws of war is the rarity of formal declarations of war, which historically have been the exception rather than the rule. This trend persists because such declarations offer little benefit and involve international law obligations. In cases like revolutionary and counterrevolutionary civil wars, declarations are inappropriate as wars are declared against states, not internal groups. In undeclared wars, distinctions between participants and nonparticipants blur, undermining protections. For example, the Bush administration labeled the 2001 terrorist attacks as acts of war, initiating a war on terror without a formal declaration from Congress, like the Korean and Vietnam Wars. **The Evolution of World Order** The most powerful states, especially hegemons, have significantly influenced the development of international law. For example, the principle of free passage on the open seas is now established in international law. Historically, warships would seize other states\' ships and cargoes, making long-distance trade dangerous and less profitable. Over time, trading states saw the benefit of eliminating this practice, leading to the norm of freedom of navigation on the high seas (defined as the principle that ships of any nation can travel through international waters without interference from other states). This concept was one of the first areas of international law developed by Dutch legal scholar Hugo Grotius in the mid-1600s, when the Dutch dominated world trade and benefited from free navigation. Dutch power initially established the international legal concept of freedom of the seas. Later, Great Britain, as the dominant global power, enforced this principle through its powerful navy. As the leading trading state, Britain benefited from the norm of free shipping and trade, using its naval strength to define and enforce maritime rules worldwide. In the twentieth century, the world order relied heavily on the power of the United States and, for a time, the division of power between the U.S. and the Soviet Union. The U.S. nearly took on the role of \"world police force,\" but the world is too large for any single state to police effectively. Instead, states generally follow the rules set by the most powerful state without constant enforcement. They also work through international institutions to influence these rules, with the hegemon ceding some power. Thus, states maintain their sovereignty while vesting some authority in international institutions and laws, generally operating within that framework. Three factors disrupted international norms in the post-Cold War era: the end of the Cold War, shifts in the economic positions of regions and states, and technological changes creating a smaller world. Domestic and local politics now play out globally, leading to unsettled new norms. Changing expectations include human rights, UN peacekeeping, humanitarian interventions, and the roles of Russia, China, and the U.S. as great powers. Despite these changes, core norms and stable institutions continue to shape the international political economy with more stability than international security.