Geneva Gimmick

Is the Geneva Convention worth the paper it's written on?

A Convention, in international relations, is defined as an agreement between states covering particular matters, especially one less formal than a treaty.

The convention imposes ethics and morals on combatants, which is all well and good, until a conflict becomes existential for one party or the other and a breach is a necessity, being the only possible way of avoiding utter destruction. In a fight, you'll do what's needed to win if you're losing, and untying the hand that's tied behind your back might make the difference between winning or destruction.

Then there's the fact large, powerful nations get away with breaches of the Convention all the time. It's impossible to enforce the consequences against the likes of the USA, for example, which has flagrantly flouted the Convention numerous times since it came into operation. Similarly, Russia has breached the Convention. It can therefore be said that it's only for the smaller countries - a bit like taxes, which the average person can't escape, but the rich can avoid due to their power and influence.

The USA, Russia, China, India, Israel and Sudan do not even recognise the ICC, which prosecutes War Crimes. One wonders why?

The bombing of Dresden in WWII is a prima facie breach of the Convention (contrary to popular belief, there was a version before the 1949 one, which the USA, UK and Germany had signed). However, some argue that Dresden was a legitimate, industrial target and civilians were not the target.

Similarly, dropping the atom bomb on Hiroshima can be argued as both a breach and a mechanism for saving even more civilian lives had there been a land invasion of Japan. Interpretation can be very subjective, as in many matters of law. It has been called the Geneva Suggestion, the Geneva To Do List, the Geneva Opinion and the Geneva Recommendations.

Not only is the Convention applicable only to smaller countries, but also to the side that totally beaten into submission.