0

Generally, you are not allowed to hit someone with a baseball bat, but if you are robbed at gunpoint, in most jurisdictions that ban no longer applies because the other party has already committed a crime against you (pointing a gun at you) and has therefore lost her/his protection against being physically assaulted.

Does that, or a similar principle, apply in war?

E.g., AFAIK purposely bombing hospitals is a war crime, but in case the hospital is used for military purposes, which again, AFAIK, is a war crime in itself, then the hospital becomes a legitimate target. Is the war crime of intentionally bombing a hospital "excused" if the hospital (partially) is part of the other side's military infrastructure?

Alternative scenario: Imagine a hospital where half of the floors are used as an extermination camp (which I think is a war crime) and half of the floors are for regular hospital purposes.

If you can suggest other relevant scenarios, please comment on them too.

The Editor
  • 1,341
  • 2
  • 11
  • 35
d-b
  • 741
  • 5
  • 14

2 Answers2

8

No, you may not commit war crimes on the grounds that your opponent commits war crimes.

Is the war crime of intentionally bombing a hospital "excused" if the hospital (partially) is part of the other sides military infrastructure?

If a hospital is not involved in "acts harmful to the enemy," if it is only involved in humanitarian acts, then it is a war crime to attack it.

If a hospital is involved in "acts harmful to the enemy" then it is not a war crime to attack it.

It is not an "act harmful to the enemy" for the hospital to treat wounded military personnel and have armed guards.

It is an "act harmful to the enemy" to launch missiles or other attacks from the hospital.

Medical units exclusively assigned to medical purposes must be respected and protected in all circumstances. They lose their protection if they are being used, outside their humanitarian function, to commit acts harmful to the enemy.

- International Committee of the Red Cross - International Humanitarian Law Database - Rule 28. Medical Units

Lag
  • 20,104
  • 2
  • 46
  • 76
1

Mostly no, but sometimes sort-of, yes.

The "Law of Reprisal" allows one party to take measures which would normally be "illegal" in order to pressure another party to return to respecting the "rules of war".

An an example, Party-A decides to start using ambulances to transport uninjured combatants to, from & between areas of conflict in an attempt to shield them from attack by Party-B - essentially misusing ambulances as troop transports.
Using ambulances in this way is a war-crime.
It's also normally a war crime to attack an ambulance carrying the injured.
But due to Party-A's misuse of ambulances (a war-crime), Party-B is now justified in attacking Party-A's ambulances without regard for whether or not they're carrying the injured or not (since they have no way of knowing) - until such time as it can be established that Party-A has stopped their initial war-crime misuse of their ambulances.

brhans
  • 318
  • 2
  • 10