The geneva conventions and other treaties that established what we call the international conventions on warfare were not written by he UN, amd the UN has no jurisdiction on them. The geneva convention was held in 1864, about 80 years before the UN was formed.
The ICRC is the jurisdiction in “charge” of defining warcrimes.
In any case, warcrimes are contextual. Bombing a power plant in one instance may be a legitimate target in war, while in another case, where Russias goal was to cause civilians to freeze and suffer, may very well be. However, I am not a lawyer of the international criminal courts.
Again, so fucking what if the UN isn’t directly involved with charging and sentencing war crimes. The UN, the ICJ, and the ICC are all international organizations. When one makes a claim, it’s highly likely that the others will follow suit.
I didn’t think I had to say this, but I’m arguing an ethical position that happens to coincide with international law. I think it’s always wrong to bomb infrastructure. In this war between Ukraine and Russia, it’s a definitive war crime and it would be a violation of international law for Ukraine to strike a power plant in Russia.
The ethical position is that civilian infrastructure like power plants, hospitals, dams, bridges, etc should never be attacked. This is because fake justifications can be made to attack that infrastructure, as we see in Israel’s genocide.
https://www.ohchr.org/en/press-releases/2023/03/war-crimes-indiscriminate-attacks-infrastructure-systematic-and-widespread
The UN disagrees.
The geneva conventions and other treaties that established what we call the international conventions on warfare were not written by he UN, amd the UN has no jurisdiction on them. The geneva convention was held in 1864, about 80 years before the UN was formed.
The ICRC is the jurisdiction in “charge” of defining warcrimes.
In any case, warcrimes are contextual. Bombing a power plant in one instance may be a legitimate target in war, while in another case, where Russias goal was to cause civilians to freeze and suffer, may very well be. However, I am not a lawyer of the international criminal courts.
Again, so fucking what if the UN isn’t directly involved with charging and sentencing war crimes. The UN, the ICJ, and the ICC are all international organizations. When one makes a claim, it’s highly likely that the others will follow suit.
deleted by creator
Neither is Duke. I would call an international convention of nations far more legitimate than any college on this matter.
deleted by creator
Here are the charges. Who would have guessed international conventions influence international courts?
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/international-court-seeks-the-arrest-of-2-russian-officers-over-attacks-on-ukraine-infrastructure
deleted by creator
Lol so fucking what? You’re wrong dude, it’s ok to admit it. There’s no shame in being wrong.
deleted by creator
I didn’t think I had to say this, but I’m arguing an ethical position that happens to coincide with international law. I think it’s always wrong to bomb infrastructure. In this war between Ukraine and Russia, it’s a definitive war crime and it would be a violation of international law for Ukraine to strike a power plant in Russia.
The ethical position is that civilian infrastructure like power plants, hospitals, dams, bridges, etc should never be attacked. This is because fake justifications can be made to attack that infrastructure, as we see in Israel’s genocide.