28th January 2026
As I got shot in the face I shouted out – ‘what about the Geneva Convention?’ My husband looked at me and said ‘I don’t think it applies to water guns’.
I’ve always been curious about the paradox that is the gallantry constructed to limit barbarity in wars and situations of nationstate violence. From the parameters within which we can instigate war, to the limits of the tools employed to wreak destruction, to the necessary humane treatment of the wounded, prisoners of war or bystanders. It puzzles me because in my brain a fight (outside of our socially accepted fighting, competing sports) should have no boundaries. Choosing to lose and the manner in which I do is my prerogative – as is winning. Dirty can be part of the lexicon. Because surely if the goal is victory or to beat the other to a pulp so they don’t dare challenge again….who cares how?
So bear with me. I’ve tried in an elementary way to explain my understanding of what exists to come onto the why we should care.
Firstly The Charter of the United Nations (UN) which underpins the existence of the UN is part of Public International Law governing relations between states. This charter regulates whether a state may lawfully resort to armed force against another state. It prohibits use of force except in two circumstances : self-defence against an armed attack and when authorised by the United Nations Security Council.
International Humanitarian law (IHL) is also a subset of Public International Law. IHL specifically covers the conduct of war. More precisely international armed conflict, not internal conflict and not whether the ‘commencement of an armed conflict was legitimate’ (www.icrg.org). It is comprised of a set of rules, principles enshrined in treaties, law and customs relevant once armed conflict has begun. These have been formulated through the lens of humanity – to limit human suffering and civilian casualties. This is not to suggest prior to the 19th Century, barbarism ran wild. We have plenty of evidence of rules of engagement in ancient times.
Contemporary IHL is made up of the Conventions of The Hague, of Geneva and the unwritten rules explored at The Nuremberg Trials.
The Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 cover the conduct of hostilities, The Geneva Conventions explain who should be protected. The Hague in the Netherlands also hosts institutions that enforce or interpret IHL such as the International Court of Justice (ICJ) and the International Criminal Court (ICC).
In the conduct of hostilities, The Hague Conventions negotiated at peacetime conferences, regulate for example permissible weapons and use, rules on occupation and the abduction of children.
Geneva, Switzerland was and is famous for being a place of scholarly and scientific prowess (as well as fondue!) It was here the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) was founded in 1863. The ICRC is part of what we still know today as the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement which is known as the largest humanitarian network in the world. Specifically the mission of the ICRC is to protect and assist victims of armed conflict and other forms of violence – hence its relevance to our topic. It is a private organisation governed by a committee of upto 25 Swiss members. In 1864, driven by the ICRC, 14 European countries and the USA convened to discuss and agree improving conditions for wounded soldiers on the battlefield regardless of nationality.
It was the signing of this Convention that bestowed upon Geneva the aura of neutrality.
Since that first treaty there have been further revisions including new treaties and an expansion of membership of support in 1949 to 169 countries. The four treaties below came to be known as the Geneva Conventions which the Red Cross website sums up as dealing with:
- Protection of the sick, wounded, medical and religious personnel during conflict
- Care for the wounded, sick and shipwrecked during war at sea
- Treating prisoners of war with humanity
- Protecting all civilians, including those in occupied territory
Wider IHL also ensures Protected Persons (those outside of combat such as doctors) are to be safeguarded in all circumstances, outlaws the use of specific weapons such as landmines or cluster mines and also forbids enlisting into armed conflict those under the age of 18.
What happens if you breach these laws? It partly depends on who has committed what crime. This is a broad approximation but If a state has done so, then via the ICJ it must cease, offer reparations and compel with assurances of non repeat. The influence of the Nuremberg trials has meant individuals can now be accused of a range of contraventions too, including war crimes such as perpetrating atrocities through plundering, the ill treatment, torture or murder of civilians, prisoners of war and hostages. Or individuals can be held responsible for a crime against humanity which encompasses mass deportation, genocide, enslavement, persecution, rape. They are prosecuted and convicted by the ICC with no statute of limitation. Individuals can be held accountable for the actions of their country even if they were obeying orders. We have seen this most notably with the judgements of infamous Nazi leaders.
But the reality is breaches of these laws, the ability to hold to account and enforce justice has been on a declining trend in modern times and shows no signs of reversing. There are a range of factors such as disintegrating political will, complex evidence collection in active war zones to reach adequate standards of proof, lack of a central enforcement mechanism – IHL has a reliance on each state to investigate breaches, use of private armies in proxy wars and fragmenting types of warfare to name a few.
But why should this lack of adherence have import? I know I was flippant at the start, but in some way this should concern. It is not so much about conflict arising – it always will given human nature. Perhaps you could argue the values IHL upholds are not uniformly supported – perhaps – at the margin. But by not losing our humanity and being fair it ensures a country and its citizens can eventually reconcile and recover. Because the path to normality once values are violated is even more fraught. People do not forgive easily. Conceivably therefore, it is less the Conventions and more the morals around which society is constructed that underpins why IHL matters.
So with my rudimentary analysis of the law, I have sent my husband this post. Because my surmise is, even in a water gun fight a war crime can be committed, and he needs to be prepared for the consequences….
Curiosity and the rascal 