LogFAQs > #980306591

Philosophers, like Hobbes, believe war is necessary and is part of nature; other philosophers, like Clausewitz, believes that war only exists as states and politics exists. This leads to the just war doctrine, which states that war is morally justifiable (i.e., in some situations, war is not always the worst option). History has also shown that war is inevitable, with countless that get killed on both sides of a conflict.

Given that, and the belief in utilitarianism, the best way to come out ahead on a terrible tragedy of war is to reduce the total amount of suffering and maximize the total amount of happiness. How do you do that? By limiting what can be done during a war. This is the basis of the rules of war; some forms of rules have been in effect for thousands of years, to ensure civility between the two sides, and to ensure humanity doesn't go scorched earth, since that just hurts both sides.

Practically, who polices these rules of war? States can accuse other states of war crimes and invoke the international courts, most commonly known to be a part of the United Nations. Based on the gravity of the situation, many consequences could be faced by the member state, up to and including ejection from the UN and the lack of diplomacy and help from others (as well as punitive measures, like blockades).

But what if the five permanent members (e.g., US, UK, China, Russia, France) commits war crimes? Well the other member states will just denounce the crimes and everyone will just go about their day/business, since you can't really punish the big five. Part of this unfairness was also what lead to the dissolution of the League of Nations and to the start of WWII... so if the five members go crazy, maybe we'll have another WWIII and a dissolution of the UN.