For example, people are often confused as to why there are certain things that martial law prohibits that police can still be used against civilians in their own country – for example, the expansion of bullets and tear gas. Well, one of the reasons for this is that the police are supposed to use these things against criminals who do something dangerous at that time, but enemy soldiers are not considered criminals – fighting under the uniform of an enemy army without violating the laws of war is legal, you can be captured and held captive, but then, when the war is over, You must be released. How can something be internationally illegal when you are at war? For example, why can`t Germany kill prisoners of war? What`s stopping them? Yes, I know there are many treaties and conventions that govern conduct in wartime, but is war itself legal and is there a difference between legal warfare and illegal warfare? But the rules of war are really for conventional wars between modern nations, in addition to the prohibitions provided for by special conventions, it is mostly forbidden. use poison or poisoned weapons; The „rules of war“ are only moral expectations between soldiers. Violating the moral code harms both parties and everyone close to them – not to mention setting a bad precedent. Among the most controversial reasons for martial law is the possibility of excluding small states from the use of weapons of mass destruction (i.e. chemical and biological weapons) and leaving power in the hands of the strongest. This is especially relevant when we discuss chemical and biological weapons, as well as nuclear weapons, because they are so severely restricted: the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) on nuclear weapons prohibits all but those recognized (in the treaty) from possessing nuclear weapons. The theory is that small states could demand tribute or concessions with these weapons, or increase the risk of proliferation of rogue actors or rogue states, or use them recklessly. This is one of the reasons why countries prefer India and Pakistan not to have nuclear weapons, why Israel refuses to publicly announce that it has them, etc. This would indicate that small states would not bow to martial law, and it has historical support: think of North and South Vietnam and their violations of prisoner of war laws, North Korea and its nuclear program, and human rights violations in the Lebanese civil war, just to name a few. I would like to add that the idea of „rules of war“ and international law did not arise after the First World War. I think that, apart from the aspect of respect, the incentive for nations to follow these rules is essentially mutually assured destruction.

If one nation uses chemical/nuclear/dirty weapons, then the others will bow to their level. The scale of suffering in both countries would be unprecedented. Martial law is ultimately a matter of self-preservation. These laws were not in force before World War 2 and the only time they were actually observed was during World War 2. There is no consensus on the reasons. The idea is that sometimes we have to do things we don`t like to do – because it would be even worse not to do them. As you can see, Churchill considered this to be an ineffective method of warfare that would not help. And it wasn`t out of morality, nor did he believe that the Germans did it for moral reasons.

As he said, not all countries are parties to the same agreements, and some countries have resources that make it easier to prosecute war crimes. Nor is the United Nations responsible for international law. The voices of the Security Council confer international legitimacy on the use of force, but that is not international law. UN resolutions are not binding on member states and are considered to have the force of law. The primacy of international law results from international conventions (The Hague, Geneva 4 times, etc.) and intergovernmental treaties. All this becomes binding only for the signatory states, which must also ratify these conventions/treaties as law at home. It is entirely voluntary to commit to these principles. I would indeed consider the HRC to be the greatest failure. What do you think? Feel free to correct me. I studied the UN during my two years at the Naval War College and I am by no means an expert.

Since studying the UN, I keep up with the news and have a deeper understanding whenever something happens in the world. I only suggest that you do the same. In addition, the Japanese during World War II, the „never give up“ honor strategy (and suicide bombers), showed that cultural differences can really change the balance of a war.