The situation involving the 'protections' afforded civilians under international humanitarian law isn't straightforward.
Civilians - "non-combatants" in the language of the Geneva Conventions - essentially receive one protection in humanitarian law: they may never be TARGETED. In other words, combatants may never lawfully direct their lethal force at non-combatants.
The question immediately arises then, why are so many civilians killed in armed conflicts? They're killed because the same humanitarian law allows for civilians to be killed as a byproduct of attacks against combatants.
In war, you can't intentionally aim to kill even a single civilian. But you may kill thousands of civilians in your attempt to kill enemy combatants, as long as the deaths of those civilians is "proportionate" to the advantage of killing the combatants.
What is a "proportionate" ratio of civilian to combatant casualties? The Geneva Conventions do not say. The determination of that proportion is left up to what the GC's call a "reasonable commander." It's what that general believes on any given day in the circumstances.
Were China to mount an armed attack against Taiwan, Taiwanese civilians would certainly be placed at greater risk. However greater risk to civilians, by itself, does not justify intervention by third parties. In attacking Taiwan, China could lawfully cause civilian casualties, as long as those civilians weren't directly targeted. Civilian casualties in themselves do not trigger the necessity of a humanitarian intervention unless the civilians were being directly targeted. That is a situation that China would surely avoid.
All that said, in the entire history of armed conflict, there has never been an instance where a nation attacked another to save civilian lives. Nations go to war for strategic geopolitical reasons, not to prevent civilian deaths. In fact, going to war is the surest way to create enormous numbers of civilian casualties, even if you say you're doing it for humanitarian reasons.
That is a different interpretation. The answer lies at the very end of my text. If you do not read to the end, you will simply conclude based on my premises alone. This is the greatest danger of sentences in agglutinative languages.
"Therefore, it is not immediately clear whether there exists a reasonable legal basis for Japan to engage in direct military intervention in such a situation."
It is quite clear that Japan has no standing in this matter.
Japan had better be careful, this is not the China of the late 30s and early 40s. China would kick Japan's ass in an afternoon!
That is a different interpretation. The answer lies at the very end of my text. If you do not read to the end, you will simply conclude based on my premises alone. This is the greatest danger of sentences in agglutinative languages.
"The Chinese know they can not conquer, defeat or destroy Japan. Hence, no confrontation with China, offensive defence of Nippon (any attack would be promptly riposted in the most brutal fashion) and, most crucially, strategic autonomy."
That is a pipe dream. The current China is not the China of the late 30s and early 40s. They would kick Japan's ass in an afternoon.
That is a different interpretation. The answer lies at the very end of my text. If you do not read to the end, you will simply conclude based on my premises alone. This is the greatest danger of sentences in agglutinative languages.
"If the Chinese believed that they could defeat Japan they would not get so hyper- hysterical about Japans so-called remilitarisation. If Japan is weak, why the hysteria?"
I don't see the hyper-hysteria about Japan's remilitarisation; they just don't want to go through the trouble of kicking Japan's ass.
Thanks for your great work!
We've restacked and shared this link on 'The Stacks'
https://askeptic.substack.com/p/the-stacks
The situation involving the 'protections' afforded civilians under international humanitarian law isn't straightforward.
Civilians - "non-combatants" in the language of the Geneva Conventions - essentially receive one protection in humanitarian law: they may never be TARGETED. In other words, combatants may never lawfully direct their lethal force at non-combatants.
The question immediately arises then, why are so many civilians killed in armed conflicts? They're killed because the same humanitarian law allows for civilians to be killed as a byproduct of attacks against combatants.
In war, you can't intentionally aim to kill even a single civilian. But you may kill thousands of civilians in your attempt to kill enemy combatants, as long as the deaths of those civilians is "proportionate" to the advantage of killing the combatants.
What is a "proportionate" ratio of civilian to combatant casualties? The Geneva Conventions do not say. The determination of that proportion is left up to what the GC's call a "reasonable commander." It's what that general believes on any given day in the circumstances.
Were China to mount an armed attack against Taiwan, Taiwanese civilians would certainly be placed at greater risk. However greater risk to civilians, by itself, does not justify intervention by third parties. In attacking Taiwan, China could lawfully cause civilian casualties, as long as those civilians weren't directly targeted. Civilian casualties in themselves do not trigger the necessity of a humanitarian intervention unless the civilians were being directly targeted. That is a situation that China would surely avoid.
All that said, in the entire history of armed conflict, there has never been an instance where a nation attacked another to save civilian lives. Nations go to war for strategic geopolitical reasons, not to prevent civilian deaths. In fact, going to war is the surest way to create enormous numbers of civilian casualties, even if you say you're doing it for humanitarian reasons.
That is a different interpretation. The answer lies at the very end of my text. If you do not read to the end, you will simply conclude based on my premises alone. This is the greatest danger of sentences in agglutinative languages.
"Therefore, it is not immediately clear whether there exists a reasonable legal basis for Japan to engage in direct military intervention in such a situation."
It is quite clear that Japan has no standing in this matter.
Japan had better be careful, this is not the China of the late 30s and early 40s. China would kick Japan's ass in an afternoon!
That is a different interpretation. The answer lies at the very end of my text. If you do not read to the end, you will simply conclude based on my premises alone. This is the greatest danger of sentences in agglutinative languages.
⚡️
What I wrote was a piece pointing out that Japan would lose its grounds for criticising Russia.
If Japan were to deploy troops abroad on this basis, it would mean it could not justify the economic sanctions.
What I wrote was a piece pointing out that Japan would lose its grounds for criticising Russia.
If Japan were to deploy troops abroad on this basis, it would mean it could not justify the economic sanctions.
"The Chinese know they can not conquer, defeat or destroy Japan. Hence, no confrontation with China, offensive defence of Nippon (any attack would be promptly riposted in the most brutal fashion) and, most crucially, strategic autonomy."
That is a pipe dream. The current China is not the China of the late 30s and early 40s. They would kick Japan's ass in an afternoon.
That is a different interpretation. The answer lies at the very end of my text. If you do not read to the end, you will simply conclude based on my premises alone. This is the greatest danger of sentences in agglutinative languages.
"If the Chinese believed that they could defeat Japan they would not get so hyper- hysterical about Japans so-called remilitarisation. If Japan is weak, why the hysteria?"
I don't see the hyper-hysteria about Japan's remilitarisation; they just don't want to go through the trouble of kicking Japan's ass.
Since not a single Japanese person is willing to speak out, it means that someone has to write about it.
China, fearing Japan, is ludicrous.
Japan probably won’t last three days.
That isn’t the point, so please ignore it.