War crimes are a category of battlefield misconduct, and allegations that one side has committed such offenses can provoke outrage, diplomatic tension, fraught international relations, criminal prosecution, and tactical military failures. But what, exactly, constitutes a war crime? And how can such accusations be leveled and verified? Jeffrey Fields, associate professor of the practice of international relations at USC Dornsife, explains.
The term “war crime” entered common usage in the aftermath of World War II. But prior to the twentieth century, there was no widely accepted conception of what constituted such an offense, and commanders had broad discretion to punish their troops with extra duty, demotions, and reprimands — often circumventing formal legal action altogether.
In modern times, there are a number of organizations that track war crimes and act as the guardian of international humanitarian law. These include the Red Cross, Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International and governmental entities that monitor armed conflicts, such as the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe and the Coalition for a Criminal Court.
Yet, even though such organizations exist and are doing important work, more could be done to prevent war crimes by building prevention into the day-to-day duties of diplomats, intelligence officers and aid and development specialists. For example, they should be trained to be vigilant for warning signs of atrocities and how and when to report them. Then, they should be backed up by a network that analyzes these reports and channels them into accurate pieces of analysis for policymakers.