【Lecture Hall】
Author: Liang Jie (Associate Professor, Department of Military Judicial Work, School of Political Science, National Defense University)
Man is different from animals, and human warfare is different from the barbaric instinct of animals, which must be constrained by reason. This "rationality" refers to the need to adhere to the bottom line of mankind and the conscience of human nature even in a cruel and violent war, among which the most reflective of human civilization and human warmth is the humanitarian protection of war victims.
On September 15, during the comprehensive exercise of the "Common Destiny-2021" international peacekeeping real-force exercise, the Chinese infantry detachment that carried out short-distance patrol tasks sent officers and soldiers to maintain order in the surrounding areas. Xinhua News Agency
Near the "Blue Line" on the border between southern Lebanon and Israel, chinese deminers of the international peacekeeping force maintain the passage. Xinhua News Agency
The protection of war victims is a product of the development of human civilization
"War victims" are those who did not participate in the war or who have withdrawn from it. It includes desperate and helpless civilians in the fires of war, as well as wounded and sick people who have been killed on the battlefield, and prisoners of war who have surrendered their weapons. These war victims are vulnerable groups on the battlefield, and attacking them will not bring military benefits and will violate the principle of operations that saves troops. But their protection is not innate, but is gradually established with the development of human civilization.
In ancient times, war victims were disposed of at will. In the early days of human society, war was similar to the struggle of the animal kingdom, and it was more manifested as bloodthirsty wildness and blind destruction. When a city falls, the entire population may face a bloody slaughter, especially when different races and ethnic groups fight each other, and wars often turn into ethnic cleansing. During the Crusades at the end of the eleventh century, Pope Urban II incited: "Go and wipe out those evil races." In ancient Rome, commander Sulla, after winning a battle, ordered the javelin shooting of more than 8,000 prisoners of war. But even in such a barbaric and cruel environment, even if war is more manifested as a primitive attack of animal nature, human beings, out of instinct, will still show the cherishing of life, compassion for the suffering of the same kind, and the basic judgment of right and wrong, good and evil. Of course, these only reflect people's simple humanitarian feelings, weak restraint, and do not form a common practice.
In modern times, the concept of protecting war victims has gradually taken shape. Man is a rational animal who constantly explores the value and meaning of his activities. For war, human beings are constantly wondering: Why fight? In modern times, European Enlightenment thinkers began to understand war from the perspective of the relationship between politics and military, realizing that "war is a continuation of politics" and that in order to achieve political goals, it is only necessary to defeat the armed forces of the enemy without the need for barbaric ethnic cleansing. Clausewitz explains: "If civilized peoples are found not to destroy cities and villages, it is because they have used their intellect more in war and learned more effective methods than rough instinctive venting." In fact, this idea, which originated in modern Europe, has been reflected in China's ancient traditional military culture, and the most incisive summary is what the Tang Dynasty poet Du Fu said in "Before the Plug": "If you can control the invasion of the mausoleum, you will kill and injure more." ”
How are prisoners of war disposed of? In the middle of the 18th century, the French Enlightenment thinker Montesquieu pointed out in "On the Spirit of the Law" that prisoners of war should only be guarded and prevented from entering the war again, and they should not be mercilessly slaughtered. As for the reasons why it is impossible to slaughter, Rousseau, also an Enlightenment thinker, expounded from the relationship between the state and the individual, and he pointed out in the Social Contract that war does not reflect the relationship between individuals and individuals, but the relationship between states and states; individuals in war do not become enemies by chance in their own name, but as soldiers. In hostilities, people have the right to kill the defenders of the enemy state, as long as they still have weapons in their hands; but once they lay down their arms and surrender, and are no longer instruments of the enemy country, they return to ordinary individuals, and others have no right to kill them at will.
As for the wounded and sick on the battlefield, for a long historical period, they were ignored and left to fend for themselves. In the eyes of the people, not deliberately abusing and slaughtering the wounded and sick is the greatest mercy to them. It was not until the second half of the 19th century that a Swiss businessman named Henri Dunant, after witnessing the tragic situation of the wounded and sick in the battle, came up with a great idea, that is, to establish a wounded rescue committee in peacetime to quickly rescue the wounded and reduce deaths in the war. In October 1863, representatives of 14 countries, including Britain, France, Germany and Switzerland, held an international conference in Geneva and decided to establish a committee for the rescue of wounded soldiers. In January 2017, President Xi Jinping delivered a speech entitled "Jointly Building a Community with a Shared Future for Mankind" delivered at the United Nations Headquarters in Geneva: "In 1862, Mr. Henry Dunan asked in "Memories of Shafielillo": Can a humanitarian organization be established? Can a humanitarian convention be developed? The 'Dunan's question' was soon answered, and the following year the ICRC came into being. After more than 150 years of development, the Red Cross has become a spirit and a banner. ”
In modern times, the system of international law protecting war victims has been formed and improved. It is precisely under the strong impetus of the International Committee of the Red Cross and the profound reflection of mankind on the great catastrophe caused by the two world wars that the norms of international law for the protection of war victims have been formed and improved.
In the Second World War, the belligerents ignored the established ethics of warfare, and the war was quickly reduced to unbridled slaughter and destruction. Japanese scholar Keiichi Eguchi said of the Japanese invasion of China, "They are a group of wild beasts, vicious dogs, and robbers with crazy diseases." On the eve of the Allied victory, Churchill, confronted with the ruins of the city, could not help but ask himself, "Are we beasts?" Are we going too far? ”
After the war, the international community comprehensively reflected on the ethical issues in war, realizing that cruel wars can distort human nature, make people lose their minds and even become crazy, and that relying solely on ethical norms and moral cultivation is not enough to put an end to the atrocities that destroy human nature. The international community has decided to strengthen the coercion of the law, clarify the rights and obligations of the belligerents and their responsibilities for violating the law, and through the Nuremberg Trials and the Tokyo Trials, effectively punish the aggressors who started the war and the lawbreakers who killed innocents indiscriminately.
Under the impetus of the International Committee of the Red Cross, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 were introduced. The four conventions provide for the fuller protection of the wounded and sick in land battles, the wounded and sick in naval battles, the shipwrecks, prisoners of war and civilians in war, respectively. In particular, it is worth mentioning that the Geneva Conventions are universal international conventions in the true sense of the word. Currently, all countries of the world are parties to it. In 1977, the international community formulated two additional protocols that not only enriched and developed the provisions for the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, but also provided legal protection for victims of non-international armed conflicts. At this point, the legal rules for the protection of war victims have been formed and improved.
On October 15, the Sino-Russian "Maritime Joint-2021" military exercise was conducted in the sea and airspace near Peter the Great Bay in Russia. This is the Chinese carrier-based helicopter landing on the deck of the Nanchang ship. Xinhua News Agency
Humanitarian protection rules reflect a balance between humanitarian needs and military necessities
The formation of the rules of humanitarian protection embodies the transition of human beings from ignorance to civilization, and limits the brutality of war through reason. But the purpose of war is to achieve military victory, and the legal rules for the protection of war victims are not blindly pursuing humanitarian feelings, but their cherishing of life and adherence to human nature are based on rationality and are the result of a balance between humanitarian needs and military necessities.
The most important protection for civilians and civilian objects is "no direct attack". However, once civilians take a direct part in hostilities and commit acts against the enemy, they lose their protected status. Direct participation in hostilities, most commonly by taking up arms to attack the other party on its own initiative, but not limited to the use of weapons, constitutes "direct participation in hostilities" as long as the purpose or nature of the act is to deliberately cause damage to enemy personnel, equipment or the weakening of military capabilities. It can be seen that the humanitarian protection of civilians in the face of war is not absolute, presupposed on their non-direct participation in hostilities. The relativity of protection is also reflected in the obligation of belligerents to "refrain from actively attacking civilians" rather than "not to cause any civilian casualties". In the face of brutal war, we must acknowledge that when "military necessity" and "humanitarian need" are in conflict, what the attacking party has to do is to balance the relationship between the two, while maintaining military interests while minimizing civilian casualties. For example, in urban combat, where buildings are dense and civilians are highly mobile, attacking military targets is likely to cause civilian casualties. The attacking party should issue a warning when circumstances permit so that civilians can seize the last chance to evacuate. For example, when Israel attacked Hamas, due to the high population density of the Gaza Strip, the Israel Defense Forces adopted the tactic of "knocking on the roof", firing a missile without explosives at the target before the formal attack, warning the surrounding civilians through a loud noise. In the case of a formal attack, the attacking party should take the reasonable expectations of a rational commander as the standard and apply the principle of proportionality.
The wounded and sick on the battlefield and shipwrecks have lost their combat effectiveness, and the most pressing humanitarian needs include being searched, respected and treated in a timely manner. The satisfaction of these needs must also take into account the achievement of military interests. The rules of humanitarian protection require belligerents to take all possible measures to search for and collect the wounded and sick and shipwrecked, to protect them and to provide them with medical care. A violation of the rules of humane protection does not constitute a violation of the rules of humanitarian protection if the fighting is fierce, the enemy's artillery fire is tightly sealed and other situations are so critical that the rescue of the wounded and sick cannot be carried out, so that the wounded and sick cannot be rescued from the shipwreck; The protection of medical activities is the proper meaning and core content of the protection of the wounded and sick and shipwrecks. The premise of protection is also that the personnel concerned do not carry out or the relevant facilities are not used to carry out acts of harm to the enemy outside of humanitarian duties, such as the participation of medical personnel in combat, ambulances being used to transport combatants or weapons and equipment hidden in hospitals. When the performance of medical personnel in the performance of their duties conflicts with the military interests of the armed forces, a balance needs to be struck between the two.
Prisoners of war who surrender their weapons, although under the authority of the capturing Party, are equal in personality with the capturer and are not the spoils of war of the latter; The rules of war governing prisoners of war should, on the one hand, give maximum humane treatment to prisoners of war and, on the other hand, guarantee public order and discipline in the camps of the State of detention. Since prisoners of war no longer participated in the war, they should enjoy the most basic rights as ordinary people. The rules of humanitarian protection shall, to the extent possible, meet the physical, security, emotional and belonging needs of prisoners of war, as well as the need for respect, such as requiring interns to provide prisoners with food and clothing for their health; At the same time, prisoners of war shall be bound by the laws, rules and orders in force of the armed forces of the Detaining Power, which may impose disciplinary or criminal sanctions on prisoners of war for violations of laws, rules or orders. In short, the humanitarian protection of prisoners of war is to achieve as much harmony and unity as possible between the humanitarian needs of prisoners of war and the military interests of the detaining party.
Humanitarian protection rules have significant political and military value
The rules of humanitarian protection are efforts to mitigate the scourge of war as much as possible at a time when human society cannot completely eliminate war.
At present, the concept of humanitarianism is universally accepted by the world, and humanitarian issues have become major issues in domestic and international politics. As a continuation of politics, as a tool for achieving political objectives, war has to attach great importance to the humanitarian issues of war. In war, States and the international community as a whole use the only legal yardstick for judging humanitarian issues, and nothing else, but the rules of humanitarian protection. In this way, the rules of humanitarian protection have important political value. Respect and observance of the rules of humanitarian protection is directly related to the realization of the political objectives of the belligerents in waging war. In the Iraq War, the U.S. military violated humanitarian protection rules by attacking and shooting civilians, raping women, and abusing prisoners of war, which triggered a strong response from the international community, and people could not help but ask: "When did the POW camp become hell?" Is the U.S. military a good human rights defender, or a cruel devil killer? It can be seen that if we want to gain and maintain political superiority in war, we cannot ignore the rules of humanitarian protection; if we want to achieve the political goals of war, we must face up to the rules of humanitarian protection.
The rule of humanitarian protection is the product of a balance between "humanitarian needs" and "military necessities", and its pursuit of "humanity" is based on and premised on "military necessity". Otherwise, as a custom, it cannot be formed in the practice of war; as a treaty, it cannot be universally recognized by governments. In terms of the content of the rules, the rules of humanitarian protection protect the victims of war and restrict or even prohibit certain means and methods of warfare, which not only does not hinder the "military necessity" of combat, but guides the norms of the use of force to the right track to meet the "military necessity". "The only legitimate goal that States should do their utmost to achieve in war is to weaken the military power of the enemy." The protection of those who have not participated in or withdrawn from combat is protected by the rules of humanitarian protection can ensure that combat operations do not deviate from the purpose and essence of war, ensure that operations comply with operational guidelines for saving troop strength, and avoid unnecessary waste of military resources.
The rules of humanitarian protection are an important part of the laws of war and are legally binding on all parties to the war. Belligerents can make full use of this legal binding force to restrict and restrain the enemy so that they dare not cross the line, so as to squeeze their space for military activities, deprive them of freedom of military action, and achieve the purpose of restricting and attacking the other side. In October 2015, during U.S. military operations in Afghanistan, U.S. helicopter gunships bombed a hospital in the northern Afghan city of Kunduz, killing 10 patients and 12 health care workers. After the incident was exposed, the international community strongly condemned it, and people from all over the world took to the streets to protest, angrily denouncing the indiscriminate bombing of the US military as a war crime; under the tremendous pressure of public opinion, the US military apologized, and then President Obama issued a statement expressing "deepest condolences" to the deceased on this "tragic event". Afterwards, the U.S. military stressed that it would limit air attacks, promising to avoid direct bombing from the air even if it found that the opposing armed personnel were hidden in civilian objects such as hospitals, and would send ground troops to carry out arrests to minimize civilian casualties. It can be seen that this incident not only burdened the United States with heavy public opinion pressure, but also caused the US military's space for action to be squeezed.
A military scientist once said: "There is a commonly used military term that everyone misunderstands, and this term is called 'failure'. What is failure? It refers to a state of loss of desire to fight. In modern warfare, the purpose of combat is no longer limited to the material level of attacking cities and "destroying the enemy's living forces", but is developing towards the spiritual level of attacking the heart and conquering the will. The essence of attacking the heart and winning the will is to proceed from the spiritual level of war, take people's will, belief, thinking, psychology, etc. as the object of combat, and through cognitive attack and defense confrontation, embody the operational thinking of "using the way of soldiers, attacking the heart as the top, attacking the city as the bottom; fighting the heart as the top, and fighting the soldiers as the bottom." In the modern society where the concept of humanity is deeply rooted in the hearts of the people, abiding by the rules of humanitarian protection has become a weapon to conquer the hearts and minds of the military and the people. All warring parties have tried every possible means to show that their combat behavior complies with the rules of humanitarian protection, accusing the other side of indiscriminately killing innocents and abusing prisoners. This is to psychologically overwhelm the other side, dissolve the desire of the other side's military and people to fight, stimulate the enthusiasm of the military and people of our own side, and win the sympathy of the people of the world. In the process of carrying out war, the guides and commanders of war often change the perception of the other side and cooperate with combat operations by applying various prohibitions and protective provisions of humanitarian protection rules, such as announcing the targets of attack and protecting targets, informing the enemy of ways and methods of protection, leniency and timely release of prisoners of war, etc. During the War to Resist US Aggression and Aid Korea, our soldiers treated prisoners of war with humanity, not only giving preferential treatment to material life, but also respecting them in terms of personality, and at the same time strengthening education and ideological reform, effectively disintegrating the enemy army. U.S. military experts believe that "one-third of the U.S. prisoners of war who were rehabilitated by the volunteers" had doubts about the American system." ”
Guangming Daily ( 09/11/2021)
Source: Guangming Network - Guangming Daily