War Crimes or Just War - The Blurry Line Between Combat and Atrocity

All wars are crimes, though the questions history is typically concerned with are who committed the first, and who the last. War, by its very nature, involves acts of violence, destruction, and killing that would be considered abhorrent crimes in peacetime. It unleashes immense suffering and tests the very foundations of human morality. International society has long strived to impose limits on the conduct of hostilities, seeking to distinguish between the legitimate, albeit brutal, necessities of combat and the descent into unrestrained atrocities known as war crimes. This distinction relies on a complex framework of international law, military ethics, and specific Rules of Engagement (ROE), but the line remains perilously thin, often blurred by the fog of war, intense psychological pressure, and the fundamental chaos of armed conflict. Understanding this somewhat hazy limit of advance requires a hard discussion on the established rules, the realities faced by soldiers, and the factors that can lead individuals and units down the path to atrocity.

The modern effort to regulate warfare is principally enshrined in International Humanitarian Law (IHL), also known as the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC). Embodied primarily in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, along with the Hague Conventions, IHL is not designed to prevent war itself, but rather to mitigate its effects by protecting those not participating in hostilities (civilians, medical personnel, aid workers) and those no longer participating (wounded, sick, prisoners of war). It also restricts the means and methods of warfare.

Distinction - Combatants must distinguish between civilian populations/objects and military objectives. Attacks may only be directed against the latter. Indiscriminate attacks are prohibited.

Proportionality - The anticipated incidental loss of civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects must not be excessive in relation to the concrete and direct military advantage anticipated from an attack on a legitimate military target.

Military Necessity - Actions must be aimed at achieving a legitimate military objective and must not be otherwise prohibited by IHL. This justifies measures necessary to defeat the enemy but not acts of wanton destruction.

Humanity (or Unnecessary Suffering) - IHL prohibits the use of arms, projectiles, or material calculated to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.

These principles, rooted in centuries of practice and ethical reflection often associated with "Just War" theory (specifically jus in bello, or ‘justice in war’), form the basis for defining war crimes. War crimes are serious violations of IHL committed during armed conflict, including grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions such as willful killing, torture, or inhumane treatment of protected persons; intentionally directing attacks against civilians or civilian infrastructure; taking hostages; unlawful deportation or transfer; and sexual violence.

While IHL provides the overarching legal framework, soldiers on the ground rely on Rules of Engagement (ROE) for practical guidance. ROE are directives issued by military authorities that specify the circumstances and limitations under which forces may initiate or continue combat engagement. They translate the abstract principles of IHL and national policy into concrete instructions relevant to a specific operation, geographic area, and threat environment. Clear, well-understood, and legally sound ROE are crucial tools for commanders to ensure disciplined conduct and prevent violations. However, ROE can be complex, subject to interpretation under duress, and may change during an operation, adding another layer of difficulty for frontline troops making split-second, life-or-death decisions.

The environment of sustained combat exerts unimaginable psychological pressure on soldiers. Constant exposure to lethal threats, witnessing death and horrific injuries (including those of comrades), extreme fatigue, separation from support systems, and the moral ambiguities of counterinsurgency or asymmetric warfare can profoundly impact mental state and judgment. This can lead to combat stress reactions, Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD), and "moral injury”, the psychological distress resulting from actions, or failures to act, that violate one's own moral code.

Under such intense strain, individuals may experience heightened aggression, diminished empathy, and dehumanization of the enemy, making it easier to transgress legal and ethical boundaries. Fear can lead to preemptive, excessive force based on perceived threats. Anger and grief over lost comrades can fuel desires for revenge. A breakdown in leadership or unit discipline, often exacerbated by high casualty rates or poor training, can create an environment where misconduct is tolerated or even encouraged. When soldiers feel "pushed too far," lacking adequate support, leadership, or ethical reinforcement, the risk of crossing the line from lawful combatant to perpetrator of atrocities increases dramatically.

The "fog of war"—the inherent uncertainty, confusion, and limited information prevalent in combat—further complicates the distinction between lawful acts and crimes. Tragic mistakes happen; misidentification of targets can lead to civilian casualties, or faulty intelligence might result in striking a protected site. While such mistakes may have devastating consequences, they are not necessarily war crimes unless they result from criminal negligence, recklessness, or a deliberate disregard for the rules—such as failing to take feasible precautions to verify targets or launching an attack expected to cause clearly excessive collateral damage (violating proportionality).

The intent (mens rea) behind an action is often critical in legal determinations of war crimes. Was the killing of civilians intentional? Was the destruction of property militarily necessary, or wanton? Proving intent can be difficult, especially after the fact. Furthermore, the challenge of applying principles like distinction and proportionality is magnified in urban warfare or against adversaries who deliberately blend with civilian populations or use protected sites like hospitals or schools for military purposes. While such enemy tactics are themselves violations of IHL, they do not absolve attacking forces of their own obligations to minimize civilian harm.

Ultimately, maintaining the line between legitimate military operations and war crimes requires constant effort on multiple fronts. It demands rigorous and continuous training in IHL and ROE for all personnel, from commanders to frontline soldiers. It necessitates strong, ethical leadership that models and enforces discipline, accountability, and respect for the law, even under extreme pressure. Clear, unambiguous ROE appropriate to the situation are vital. Crucially, robust systems of investigation and accountability must exist to address alleged violations promptly and fairly, holding perpetrators responsible regardless of rank, thereby deterring future crimes. Providing adequate psychological support and resources for soldiers before, during, and after deployment is also essential to help them manage the immense stresses of combat and mitigate the risk of psychological breakdown leading to misconduct.

The endeavor to regulate warfare and prevent atrocities is an ongoing, imperfect struggle. While the laws of war provide an essential framework, the brutal reality of combat ensures that the line between what some consider acceptable violence and criminal atrocity will always be contested and, tragically, crossed. Recognizing the pressures faced by soldiers while unequivocally condemning and punishing violations of IHL remains a critical challenge for armed forces and the international community alike, essential for preserving a measure of humanity in the midst of inhumanity.