Should there be such a thing as a war crime?
There should be no such a thing as a war crime. First, it is best to question
what the purpose of defining an action as a crime is. Is it to act as a
deterrent? Or to show that this action is deemed unacceptable in society?
If these are some of the purposes of crime then it is therefore clear that
classifying an action as a war crime is redundant. Any such attempt to
fulfil such purposes of crime is not made, and so, there should be no such
a thing as a war crime.
On the account of deterrence, classifying an action as a ‘war crime’ does
not deter individuals intent on winning a war from committing atrocities in
order to achieve their aims. Also, the means of prosecuting suspected war
criminals is usually very difficult because most suspects will have
attempted to evade prosecution through hiding. This means there is little
deterrence made from classifying certain actions as war crimes. For
example, at the Nuremberg Trials, after the Second World War and
Holocaust, there was an absence of some very notable figures, meaning
they could not be prosecuted and face the consequences of their
horrendous actions. It is therefore submitted that because there is a lack
of deterrence, partly due to the nature of war and the attitude of many
militaries during war to ‘win at all costs’, and also due to the seemingly
unjust nature of being unable to prosecute those responsible for such
crimes, then the efficacy of classifying an action as a war crime is
redundant.
However, the above argument raises substantial issues that demonstrate
why there should be such a thing as a war crime. If a military is left
unchecked, there is a potential for horrendous actions to be committed
and could allow dictatorships to be founded. Referring to the ‘win at all
costs’ attitude demonstrates precisely the reason war crimes should exist
as the military is not responsible enough to be relied on without the
enforcement of war crimes. Yet, this point fails to realise that, as stated
above, even where war crimes are enforced, still, the military cannot be
relied on to not commit the crimes. Therefore showing the pointless
nature of defining an action as a war crime.
An alternative proposition that further supports why there should be no
such thing as a war crime is the fact that war crimes may be necessary for
the progress of a stagnant war which has already cost many lives. For
example, although the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
devastating and cost the lives of innocent civilians, it did cause Japan to
surrender, meaning the war’s end was a more realistic prospect.
This argument is not to condone such devastating atrocities that are
committed by the military in times of war. It is simply to raise the
pertinent issue that classifying an action as a war crime does not
sufficiently stop it from happening. Perhaps a more suitable approach
would be to remove the ‘war’ from ‘war crime’ and instead enforce them
as crimes. The idea that something is a war crime suggests that there is a
There should be no such a thing as a war crime. First, it is best to question
what the purpose of defining an action as a crime is. Is it to act as a
deterrent? Or to show that this action is deemed unacceptable in society?
If these are some of the purposes of crime then it is therefore clear that
classifying an action as a war crime is redundant. Any such attempt to
fulfil such purposes of crime is not made, and so, there should be no such
a thing as a war crime.
On the account of deterrence, classifying an action as a ‘war crime’ does
not deter individuals intent on winning a war from committing atrocities in
order to achieve their aims. Also, the means of prosecuting suspected war
criminals is usually very difficult because most suspects will have
attempted to evade prosecution through hiding. This means there is little
deterrence made from classifying certain actions as war crimes. For
example, at the Nuremberg Trials, after the Second World War and
Holocaust, there was an absence of some very notable figures, meaning
they could not be prosecuted and face the consequences of their
horrendous actions. It is therefore submitted that because there is a lack
of deterrence, partly due to the nature of war and the attitude of many
militaries during war to ‘win at all costs’, and also due to the seemingly
unjust nature of being unable to prosecute those responsible for such
crimes, then the efficacy of classifying an action as a war crime is
redundant.
However, the above argument raises substantial issues that demonstrate
why there should be such a thing as a war crime. If a military is left
unchecked, there is a potential for horrendous actions to be committed
and could allow dictatorships to be founded. Referring to the ‘win at all
costs’ attitude demonstrates precisely the reason war crimes should exist
as the military is not responsible enough to be relied on without the
enforcement of war crimes. Yet, this point fails to realise that, as stated
above, even where war crimes are enforced, still, the military cannot be
relied on to not commit the crimes. Therefore showing the pointless
nature of defining an action as a war crime.
An alternative proposition that further supports why there should be no
such thing as a war crime is the fact that war crimes may be necessary for
the progress of a stagnant war which has already cost many lives. For
example, although the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were
devastating and cost the lives of innocent civilians, it did cause Japan to
surrender, meaning the war’s end was a more realistic prospect.
This argument is not to condone such devastating atrocities that are
committed by the military in times of war. It is simply to raise the
pertinent issue that classifying an action as a war crime does not
sufficiently stop it from happening. Perhaps a more suitable approach
would be to remove the ‘war’ from ‘war crime’ and instead enforce them
as crimes. The idea that something is a war crime suggests that there is a
