War crime

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  War crime is a term that carries the weight of humanity's worst moments in conflict, and its legal meaning has been fought over, codified, and contested for centuries. What separates a legitimate act of war from a crime? Who gets to decide, and who actually faces justice? These are the questions that have shaped international law from a medieval tribunal in 1474 all the way to the International Criminal Court that opened its doors on the 1st of July 2002. The subject pulls together threads of military strategy, diplomacy, survivor testimony, and raw political power. And at its heart sits an uncomfortable truth: the rules of war have never applied equally to everyone.

• 2. Defining the Line

  ›

  International humanitarian law draws a firm line between acts that are brutal but lawful and acts that cross into criminal territory. A war crime occurs when superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering is inflicted upon an enemy, or when civilians are deliberately targeted rather than incidentally harmed.

  The list of actions that give rise to individual criminal responsibility is long. It includes intentionally killing civilians, torture, taking hostages, pillaging, wartime sexual violence, conscripting children into the military, and ordering mass killings. The granting of no quarter to soldiers who attempt to surrender is also prohibited.

  Not every death in war is criminal. Under the law of armed conflict, civilian casualties can be permissible when a legitimate military target is struck and the harm to civilians is not clearly excessive relative to the military advantage gained. This is the principle of proportionality. Conducting an operation against an ammunition depot or a training camp would not be prohibited simply because a farmer is working in the area nearby.

  Some distinctions are precise. Protocol I, Article 42 of the Geneva Conventions explicitly forbids attacking parachutists who eject from disabled aircraft, while attacking enemy troops deploying by parachute in a combat situation is not a war crime. Wearing enemy uniforms to infiltrate lines is a legitimate ruse, but fighting in combat while so disguised crosses into unlawful perfidy. Article 30 of the 1907 Hague Convention IV forbids punishing enemy spies without a prior trial.

• 3. The Codification of Rules

  ›

  Franz Lieber, a German lawyer, political philosopher, and veteran of the Napoleonic Wars, wrote the document that launched the formal era of war crimes law. President Abraham Lincoln issued it as General Order 100 on the 24th of April 1863, just months after the military executions at Mankato, Minnesota. The Lieber Code defined command responsibility for war crimes and crimes against humanity, and it became military law for the Union Army during the American Civil War.

  The Hague Conventions followed. Negotiated at The Hague, Netherlands, at peace conferences in 1899 and 1907, they were among the first formal international statements of the laws of war. The Geneva Conventions extended this framework across four treaties adopted from 1864 onward, with the fourth and final one added in 1949. Every single member state of the United Nations has ratified those conventions.

  The Additional Protocols adopted in 1977, which contain the most detailed protections for persons and objects in modern warfare, have not been ratified by several states continuously engaged in armed conflicts, including the United States, Israel, India, Pakistan, Iraq, and Iran. This gap shapes how different nations interpret their obligations. The wording of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention was intentionally changed from the 1929 version so that soldiers who fall into enemy power after mass capitulation are protected, not just those seized during active combat.

  In 2008, U.N. Security Council Resolution 1820 stated formally that rape and other forms of sexual violence can constitute war crimes, crimes against humanity, or a constitutive act with respect to genocide.

• 4. The Nuremberg Moment

  ›

  The London Charter, published on the 8th of August 1945, gave the modern concept of war crime its clearest definition. The Nuremberg trials that followed established the Nuremberg Principles, including the foundational idea that international criminal law defines what a war crime is. The Charter also defined crimes against peace and crimes against humanity alongside war crimes, recognizing that the three categories often occur together.

  Article 6(b) of the Charter named murder, ill-treatment or deportation of civilian populations in occupied territory, the killing of hostages, plunder of property, and wanton destruction of cities among the core violations. These were not abstract offenses: the defendants at Nuremberg included Hermann Goring, commander in chief of the Luftwaffe; Wilhelm Keitel, head of the Oberkommando der Wehrmacht; Ernst Kaltenbrunner and Adolf Eichmann from the SS; and Albert Speer, Minister of Armaments and War Production from 1942 to 1945.

  The Tokyo War Crimes Tribunal convened on the 3rd of May 1946. Known formally as the International Military Tribunal for the Far East, it tried the leaders of the Empire of Japan under three categories: Class A for crimes against peace, Class B for war crimes, and Class C for crimes against humanity. Defendants included Prime Minister and General Hideki Tojo and General Iwane Matsui, known for his involvement in the Nanjing Massacre.

  A lesser-known figure shaped a key legal principle at these same trials. German General Lothar Rendulic had ordered extensive destruction of civilian buildings and land in Finnish Lapland while retreating, believing Soviet troops would occupy Finland. He overestimated the threat, but argued that the Hague Convention IV authorized the destruction because it was militarily necessary. He was acquitted. The precedent that bears his name, the Rendulic Rule, holds that a commander must be judged on the information available at the time of the decision, not on facts that came to light afterward.

• 5. Victor's Justice

  ›

  The Allies' destruction of Axis cities during the Second World War raised a question that the Nuremberg and Tokyo tribunals never answered cleanly. The firebombing of Dresden, the Operation Meetinghouse raid on Tokyo described as the most destructive single bombing raid in history, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were all excluded from prosecution. At the time, no international treaty specifically protected a civilian population from attack by aircraft; the aerial campaign therefore fell outside the formal definition of a war crime.

  The same tribunals never prosecuted the Germans for the bombing raids on Warsaw, Rotterdam, and British cities during the Blitz, nor for the indiscriminate attacks on Allied cities using V-1 flying bombs and V-2 rockets. The Japanese did not face prosecution for aerial attacks on crowded Chinese cities either. Critics have labeled this pattern "victor's justice," the charge that the winning side writes the rules of accountability.

  A less-discussed example arose from the postwar treatment of German prisoners. The Allies redesignated some German prisoners of war, who held protected status under the 1929 Geneva Convention, as Disarmed Enemy Forces, a category they claimed was unprotected. Many were then used for forced labor including clearing minefields. By December 1945, six months after the war had ended, French authorities estimated that two thousand German prisoners were still being killed or maimed each month in mine-clearing accidents.

  The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia confronted a more recent version of this complexity. NATO pilots struck the Chinese embassy in Belgrade, a civilian object with no military significance. The committee found that the aircrew bore no responsibility because they were given the wrong target, and that assigning criminal responsibility to senior leaders was inappropriate because they had been misinformed by officials of another agency.

• 6. The First Trial and Later Courts

  ›

  In 1474, a court of the Holy Roman Empire tried Peter von Hagenbach for his command responsibility over the criminal behavior of his soldiers. The tribunal ruled that he, as a knight, was deemed to have a duty to prevent such acts. Von Hagenbach argued that he had only followed superior orders. He was convicted, condemned to death, and beheaded. It was the first recorded war crimes trial in history.

  Nearly five centuries later, the International Criminal Court came into existence on the 1st of July 2002, located at The Hague. The Rome Statute, which established it, defined war crimes in Article 8. The ICC holds jurisdiction over crimes committed on or after that date, but only when they form part of a plan or policy or a large-scale commission of such crimes. Several nations have criticized the court, most notably the United States, China, Russia, and Israel; the United States participates as an observer.

  In 2016, the ICC convicted Congo Vice President Jean-Pierre Bemba Gombo of rape as part of a war crimes conviction. It was the first time the court had convicted someone specifically for sexual violence.

  The Leipzig trials of 1921, held just after the First World War, were an earlier attempt at systematic accountability. A small number of German military personnel were tried by the German Supreme Court for alleged war crimes. The experiment was modest, but it pointed toward the more ambitious frameworks that Nuremberg and Tokyo would later establish.

  Former Bosnian Serb President Radovan Karadzic was arrested in Belgrade on the 18th of July 2008. On the 24th of March 2016, he was found guilty of genocide in Srebrenica, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, on 10 of the 11 charges against him. He was initially sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment, then to life on appeal.

• 7. Heads of State on Trial

  ›

  The prosecution of sitting and former heads of state marks one of the sharpest developments in modern international law. Former Serbian President Slobodan Milosevic was brought to trial on charges of genocide, crimes against humanity, and war crimes across three republics. His legal motion for acquittal was denied in 2004, but he died in custody in 2006 before the trial concluded.

  Former Liberian President Charles G. Taylor was brought to The Hague on war crimes charges. His trial ran from 2007 to March 2011. In April 2012, he was convicted of aiding and abetting crimes against humanity.

  Russian President Vladimir Putin has been charged for his contribution to the illegal abduction of children from Ukraine and their deportation into Russia during the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and his former Defense Minister Yoav Gallant have been accused of using starvation as a method of warfare in Gaza. Netanyahu's response, as quoted in the source, was: "There is no more just war than the one Israel is fighting in Gaza since the 7th of October 2023."

  Omar al-Bashir, former head of state of Sudan, faces three counts of genocide alongside crimes against humanity and other war crimes related to the war in the Darfur region. Former Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi was indicted for ordering the killings of protesters and civilians during the 2011 Libyan civil war; he was killed in October 2011 before he could stand trial. Ali Hassan Abd al-Majid al-Tikriti, known as Chemical Ali, was executed by post-Baathist Iraq for leading the gassing of Kurdish villages during the Iran-Iraq War. He had also served as governor of illegally occupied Kuwait during the First Gulf War.