Isn't the concept of 'War Crimes' a bit of an oxymoron?

Answer 1

Not really, because despite the old adage of "All's fair in love and war," [thus implying that nothing could be found criminal in a barbaric conflict], there's been a push to make modern warfare more humane by outlawing certain conduct.
Aspects of war crimes allow for quicker resolution (e.g., permitting surrender instead of just slaughter), forbid ruse tactics (e.g., reduce guerrilla warfare), and minimise costs through mutual detente on specific measures. In addition to international law, rules in effect include private agreements. Notably, signatories to certain governing pacts (see e.g., the Geneva Conventions), agree not to to take certain actions or be subject to sanctions. For example in treatment of captured combatants, as one nation agrees to forbid certain practices (including the broad category of torture), the idea is that similar treatment will be rendered unto its captured soldiers.

(Commentary: For an example of bad policy in the latter, see Bush who wants to "define" what constitutes "outrages against the human dignity of prisoners of war," which is forbidden under Common Article Three of the Geneva Conventions, so as to permit certain tactics...in all likelihood this will result in reciprocal treatment to captured American troops. But, hey, Bush and war crimes should be ol' pals by now.)

Answer 2

An oxymoron usually uses two words that mean the opposite, a contridiction in terms. A common example is "the silence was deafening."

The phrase "war crimes" could be thought of as redundant however.

Answer 3

It is a bit ambiguous seeing that today a British soldier confessed to war crimes. Who exactly should carry the can?

Answer 4

No.

There are many things that are criminal in civilian life that are not criminal when committed during a war. Breaking and entering into enemy buildings. Stealing food. Vandalism. Killing the enemy. Etc.

But there are also some actions that are considered so atrocious, and so repulsive, that even war does not justify committing those actions. Rape. Torture. Killing innocent children. Those are "war crimes" because not even war can justify them.

Answer 5

One might assume so, but wars are conducted according to a set of rules and codes of conduct (e.g. the Geneva Convention, Queens Regs)..
.. while these are open to interpretation, and can be considered, flexible; there are occasions where it can be demonstrated that all acceptable norms and standards have been breached.
...hence ... "war crimes"..

Answer 6

No, because, as horrible as war is, there is fair war practice. When you go after civilians and engage in genocide, you far exceed any force needed to protect yourself or win in a war.

Answer 7

no. aren't you clever? no you're not.

you would think the idea of war would imply all the heinousness itself, but there are some things that simply tear apart the human mind with their brutality.

those are war crimes. we've had 10,000 years of written history with which to be inspired by acts of man and beast and blood and iron. did you stop to think of this concept when you wrote a childish question?

Answer 8

I know what you mean, but there's normal war time brutality and the treatment of prisoners and non-combatants, civilians, innocent bystanders to consider. In war, though, all sides are brutalised.

Answer 9

Ask that question to the millions of Jews slaughtered like livestock during WW2

Answer 10

No,some crimes are so bestial that they cannot be condoned under any circumstances.