Personally, I've always thought that the Geneva Accord was a load of crock... How can you make "rules" for warfare...it's almost counter-intuitive. And what, do they have impartial referees who watch both sides and throw a flag or blow whistles when a foul is committed (yes, I do realize that isn't really what happens, it's just an exaggeration to make a point).
I would also argue that NO game currently on the market...not a single one is even remotely close to imitating any sort of realistic combat scenario much less realistic warfare. (I'm a combat vet from Afghanistan/Iraq and am currently employed by a government contractor working with military intelligence).
Besides, the stuff on CoD/Battlefield series/etc. really happens (killing of prisoners, civilians, torture, et al). It's just not publicized or no one ever finds out... I'm not saying it's "legal" (whatever that means)...but it does happen and no one gets punished for it.
Essentially all that the Geneva Conventions (the Geneva Accords are treaties ending standing conflicts, like the treaty which ended French colonialism in Indochina was a Geneva Accord) do is lay down international standards for the treatment of hors de combat.
Don't kill wounded unless you really have to, don't kill civilians unless you can't help it.
They are often mistaken for the Hague Conventions, which attempted restrict conduct. And failed. And that's a mistake I think you are making.
Personally, I've always thought that the Geneva Accord was a load of crock... How can you make "rules" for warfare...it's almost counter-intuitive. And what, do they have impartial referees who watch both sides and throw a flag or blow whistles when a foul is committed (yes, I do realize that isn't really what happens, it's just an exaggeration to make a point).
I would also argue that NO game currently on the market...not a single one is even remotely close to imitating any sort of realistic combat scenario much less realistic warfare. (I'm a combat vet from Afghanistan/Iraq and am currently employed by a government contractor working with military intelligence).
Besides, the stuff on CoD/Battlefield series/etc. really happens (killing of prisoners, civilians, torture, et al). It's just not publicized or no one ever finds out... I'm not saying it's "legal" (whatever that means)...but it does happen and no one gets punished for it.
Essentially all that the Geneva Conventions (the Geneva Accords are treaties ending standing conflicts, like the treaty which ended French colonialism in Indochina was a Geneva Accord) do is lay down international standards for the treatment of hors de combat.
Don't kill wounded unless you really have to, don't kill civilians unless you can't help it.
They are often mistaken for the Hague Conventions, which attempted restrict conduct. And failed. And that's a mistake I think you are making.
In basic they don't really ram what the conventions and treaties that set up the international laws are so much as they ram the nitty-gritty thou shalts and thou shalt nots that were the result of them. It's almost funny...most front line soldiers and other front line operatives hate JAG officers and UN regulators trying to tell them how to do their job from behind a desk rather than from behind a rifle. Case in point the sniper who could have killed Bin Laden but was called off because of legalities (under Clinton's administration, I believe). I've been in enough situations to know that what is legal according to international law and what makes the most sense and/or is the safest and "right" thing to do are all too often at opposite ends of the spectrum.
No matter what conventions/treaties/what-have-yous are called, I've always thought that the notion of "international laws" is a bit (okay, a lot) ridiculous. If you have a law, it needs enforced. To enforce a law, you need to be held to a higher standard than those under the law. To be held to a higher standard, you need to have someone (or something) higher up in the pecking order than the enforcers and those subject to the law and they have to be respected. If a law is international, who is higher up in the pecking order and commands the amount of respect that is required to effectively enforce said law? And for the record, I don't believe for a minute that any person or organization (much less a political organization like a nation) is able to effectively self-police for any length of time.