War Lies: Legal Or Criminal?

The laws of war are a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. While the laws of war do not explicitly prohibit lying to start a war, they do address declarations of war and acceptances of surrender. Additionally, the laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law. These laws aim to mitigate the hardships of war and protect both combatants and non-combatants from unnecessary suffering. While lying to start a war may not break any specific laws, it could potentially violate the principles of distinction, proportionality, and military necessity that govern the legal use of force in an armed conflict.

Accountability for war crimes

International Humanitarian Law (IHL)

Also known as the "law of war" or the "law of armed conflict", IHL is a set of rules that aim to limit the effects of armed conflict for humanitarian reasons. It protects those who are not participating in the fighting, such as civilians, medics, aid workers, and prisoners of war, and imposes limits on the means and methods of warfare. IHL is composed of treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, and customary international law.

War Crimes

War crimes refer to serious violations of IHL. Examples include torture, attacks on civilians or civilian buildings, sexual violence, and the use of certain weapons that cause unnecessary suffering. Individuals who commit or order war crimes can be held accountable and prosecuted.

Investigation and Prosecution

States have the responsibility to investigate and prosecute war crimes committed by their nationals, armed forces, or on their territory. Universal jurisdiction allows any country to prosecute war crimes, and international courts or tribunals, such as the International Criminal Court (ICC), can also handle prosecutions.

Evidence Collection

Evidence collection is crucial for accountability. Civil society organizations and journalists play a vital role in documenting violations through photographs, videos, and testimonies. This evidence can be shared with international or national courts to support prosecutions.

Challenges and Limitations

Enforcing accountability for war crimes can be challenging due to the consensus-based nature of international law and the self-policing by individual states. Additionally, powerful countries with vested interests in conflicts may hinder investigations or prosecutions.

Prevention and Deterrence

Reparations and Compensation

In addition to criminal accountability, reparations and compensation for victims and their families are important aspects of accountability. This can include financial compensation, restitution, or other forms of redress to address the harm caused by war crimes.

The legality of lying to justify war

Lying to justify war is a highly controversial issue that has sparked intense debates among legal scholars, policymakers, and the public. While some argue that lying to initiate a war is inherently unlawful, others claim that it depends on the specific circumstances and intentions involved.

International Law and the Law of War

The law of war, also known as international humanitarian law (IHL), is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war (jus ad bellum) and the conduct of hostilities (jus in bello). It defines crucial concepts such as sovereignty, nationhood, and occupation. While IHL aims to limit the effects of armed conflict and protect those who are not participating in the fighting, it does not explicitly address the legality of lying to justify war.

Historical Context

Throughout history, various civilisations and religions have established rules and codes of conduct for warfare, including the Code of Hammurabi, which aimed to prevent the strong from oppressing the weak. Religious texts, such as the Book of Deuteronomy, also contain guidelines for warfare, emphasising the importance of minimising environmental damage.

Modern Laws of War

The modern law of war has three principal sources: lawmaking treaties, custom, and general principles. Treaties, such as the Geneva Conventions, directly affect the laws of war by binding consenting nations to specific rules. Customary international law, on the other hand, is established by the general practice and acceptance of nations. General principles, such as distinction, proportionality, and necessity, guide the use of armed force and are part of customary international law.

The Right to War

The concept of a "right to war" is complex and involves the jus ad bellum, which pertains to the right to initiate war, and the jus in bello, which pertains to the conduct of war. While the jus ad bellum assumes a declaration of war and a justifiable motive, the jus in bello focuses on the lawful conduct of war, including the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of civilians.

Principles of the Laws of War

Military necessity, distinction, proportionality, humanity, and honour are the five most commonly cited principles governing the legal use of force in armed conflicts. Military necessity, for example, is constrained by the requirement that any attack must be intended to help defeat the enemy and target legitimate military objectives. Proportionality dictates that the harm caused to civilians and civilian property must not be excessive relative to the anticipated military advantage.

Enforcing the Rules of War

Enforcing the rules of war can be challenging, especially when powerful nations with veto power in international organisations have vested interests in specific conflicts. However, violations of the laws of war can result in war crimes charges, and nations that have signed the Geneva Conventions are obligated to investigate and punish those responsible for "grave breaches".

While there is no explicit international law prohibiting lying to justify war, the principles of military necessity, distinction, and proportionality imply that initiating a war based on false pretences could violate the laws of war. Additionally, the concept of jus ad bellum suggests that a declaration of war should be based on legitimate motives, not lies or misinformation. Nevertheless, the complex nature of international relations and the potential for conflicting interests make enforcing legal consequences for lying to justify war difficult.

The role of the media in questioning military claims

The media has always had a special relationship with war, and journalists are trained to look for disagreements and find war irresistible. The role of the media is very closely connected to the issues of war. The media can be a very useful adjunct to the military's armoury, and there are no rules of engagement to follow before using them.

The media can be a force multiplier for the military, and the relationship between the two is changing, propelled by certain momentous developments in all major democracies of the world. The media has an important role in interpreting the military to society and vice versa. The military must take a long hard look at how it interfaces with the media and make the necessary changes to re-establish a relationship in which both can work alongside each other.

The media has the capacity and responsibility to analyse critically not only the government's objectives but also the military strategy being pursued. The media can bring the graphic realities of conflict almost instantaneously into the public's living room, bringing the conduct of conflict under scrutiny. The media can influence national and international public opinion. Large news corporations like CNN and BBC have a global impact and can be found in the offices of senior government and military officials worldwide.

The media can bring the realities of conflict to the public, and in doing so, shape a world as it should not be; a world where war too readily appears an inevitable outgrowth of human nature and an appropriate form of dispute resolution. The media can serve as a vital conduit between those fighting and those more distantly participating in or vicariously experiencing war.

The media and the military often have a mutually antagonistic relationship, with each bound by irreconcilable working practices and codes of honour. However, the military has come to recognise the potentially positive applications of media power in wartime. The media can forge bonds between the home front and the fighting front, increasing civilian commitment to the war while raising the morale of combatants.

The media can also serve as a watchdog in society, highlighting failures more than successes. Exposures of failures are the staple diet for the press, and it cannot afford to spare them. The media can be a powerful means of persuasion, and agreements made on camera are more difficult to break.

However, the media can sometimes lose objectivity in conflict situations, and reporters can become deeply involved in the horrific events they are required to report on. Journalists tend to spend a major portion of their time reporting from only one party's area, and some come under the effect of the quasi-Stockholm Syndrome, oversympathising with the side they are cohabiting with.

The media can be beneficial to a military campaign, provided a military commander is smart enough to forge the appropriate professional relationship and reap its benefits. The key to success in this relationship is understanding the other side and enduring setbacks and frustrations along the way.

The consequences of misinformation for democracy

Misinformation disseminated by governments can have serious consequences for democracy. When governments lie to their citizens about the reasons for going to war, they undermine trust in democratic institutions and values. This can lead to a breakdown of social cohesion and increased political polarisation, as citizens become disillusioned with their political leaders and systems of government.

In a democratic society, citizens have the right to accurate and transparent information from their government, especially on matters of national security and foreign policy. When governments provide false or misleading information, they violate the trust of their citizens and undermine the very principles of democracy. This can have far-reaching consequences, including increased public cynicism and distrust of political institutions, reduced participation in democratic processes such as voting and civic engagement, and a decline in support for democratic values such as freedom of speech and respect for minority rights.

Furthermore, misinformation about foreign threats or domestic crises can be used to justify the expansion of executive power and the restriction of civil liberties. Throughout history, governments have often used misinformation to stoke fears and rally support for policies that curtail the rights and freedoms of their citizens. This dynamic was evident in the lead-up to the Vietnam War and the Iraq War, when false information about foreign threats was used to justify military interventions that ultimately resulted in significant loss of life and long-term social and political instability.

The spread of misinformation by governments can also have a corrosive effect on the media and journalistic institutions, which play a crucial role in holding power to account in a democracy. When government officials make false statements or provide misleading information, journalists have a duty to scrutinise and verify those claims. However, this can be challenging, especially when access to independent information is restricted or when government officials actively work to discredit or suppress unfavourable reporting. In such situations, journalists may face pressure to uncritically accept and disseminate government narratives, undermining their role as watchdogs of power.

Moreover, the spread of misinformation can also impact the functioning of democratic institutions themselves. When government officials provide false or misleading information to legislative or judicial bodies, it can hinder their ability to make informed decisions and carry out their constitutional duties effectively. This can lead to a breakdown of checks and balances and further concentrate power in the executive branch, undermining the separation of powers that is fundamental to democratic governance.

In conclusion, misinformation disseminated by governments can have far-reaching consequences for democracy. It undermines trust in democratic institutions, erodes social cohesion, enables the expansion of executive power, and hinders the ability of journalists and democratic institutions to hold power to account. To safeguard democratic values and principles, it is essential that governments are transparent and accountable in their actions, and that citizens have access to accurate and reliable information.

The legality of prosecuting lies

Lying to instigate war is not explicitly illegal. However, there are laws that prohibit certain actions that may be carried out as a result of these lies. For instance, the law of war, a component of international law, regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. It defines sovereignty, nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law. It also addresses declarations of war, acceptance of surrender, the treatment of prisoners of war, and the prohibition of certain weapons.

The law of war is considered distinct from other bodies of law, such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent to a conflict, which may provide additional legal limits to the conduct or justification of war. The modern law of war is derived from three principal sources: lawmaking treaties, custom, and general principles.

While there is no explicit international law prohibiting lying to instigate war, there are laws that address the dissemination of misinformation or false statements. For example, in the United States, making false statements to government investigators or engaging in fraudulent charitable fundraising are considered crimes. Additionally, individuals who spread misinformation or lies that incite public panic or cause direct and actual damage to property or public health and safety may be prosecuted.

Furthermore, the International Criminal Court (ICC) and domestic courts can play a role in prosecuting war crimes, which include serious violations of international humanitarian law. These violations include deliberately targeting civilians, torture, and using weapons that cause indiscriminate harm. However, the challenge lies in proving that the lies told were intentional or reckless falsehoods rather than honest mistakes.

To conclude, while there is no explicit international law prohibiting lying to instigate war, there are laws that address the consequences of such actions. The prosecution of these crimes falls under the jurisdiction of domestic courts and international bodies like the ICC. The complexity of this issue underscores the importance of journalistic skepticism and demanding solid evidence from governments to ensure that the public can make informed evaluations of the case for war.

Frequently asked questions