More about International Humanitarian Law (IHL) you can find here.
Origin of International Humanitarian Law (IHL)
Following WWII, in 1949 humanitarian principles for warfare were adopted by the international community that began with conventions held in Geneva, Switzerland starting in 1864. The purpose of IHL is to provide principled treatment of the sick, the injured, those who are non-combatants, and to regulate the means and methods of warfare between groups of people across national boundaries.
The main aspects of IHL
As strange as it sounds, there are generally agreed upon rules for warfare. These international rules are an attempt to balance humanitarian concerns and military necessity. For example, hospitals are not to be attacked unless it serves an unlikely, well defined military purpose. Also, the use of white phosphorus is banned, due to its gruesome and painful effect on the human body (burning down to the bone), as is mustard gas, which was used in the trenches in WWI with horrific effects to the lungs of foot-soldiers. By disallowing certain weapons and by calling for humane treatment of prisoners, human suffering can be alleviated. (It would be better to just ban warfare, but that is another topic.)
Consequences of not upholding IHL
Serious violations of international humanitarian law are called war crimes, and are tried at the International Criminal Court (ICC) in the Hague, Netherlands, which is a body independent of the United Nations. The ICC is the only permanent international court that investigates and prosecutes war crimes, genocide, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression. It is governed by the Rome Statute, which is an international treaty that most, but not all nations (such as the USA and Israel), have signed onto. Individuals in the signatory countries can be held criminally responsible, such as military personnel participating in genocide. Crimes against humanity may be similar to war crimes but can be committed during peace, and by a state against its own nationals.
Is there a missing mechanism for upholding IHL?
The Geneva Conventions have no provision for punishment. Violations can bring trade sanctions or other economic reprisal against the offending government, provided a sufficient number of people are morally outraged and take effective action. Governments that have not signed onto the Rome Statutes can claim the ICC holds no jurisdiction over them and can ignore IHL with no legal consequences. Moreover, if a group involved with violating IHL has sufficient power and control over dissemination of news over “news” outlets and social media, the moral outrage that can lead to boycotts, divestment and economic sanctions can be suppressed and thwarted so that consequences are minimal.
IHL and other treaties are International Law
The treaties that were made with the original inhabitants of this land are legally binding nation-to-nation agreements. Per Article VI, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States of America, these Treaties take precedence and are considered to be the Supreme Law of the Land. It follows that they should be honored and enforced. The USA fails to honor International Law by not honoring the Treaties with who were then called Indians. The Treaties should be honored.
The United States federal government fails to recognize, honor and follow the World Court, also known as the International Court of Justice (ICJ). The USA does not consistently abide by the International Criminal Court (ICC), which prosecutes alleged war criminals. The USA must not behave as a rogue state, and should take a leadership role by consistently upholding ICJ and ICC rulings, despite there being no threatening mechanism of enforcement. How can the international community develop mechanisms of enforcement for Treaties and for IHL?
