How many times in recent months have you read news from the series “Ukrainian military shot Russian prisoners of war”?

Many times.

How many times did your blood boil when you read the news about the abuse of our prisoners by the Ukrainian side?

Many times.

A reasonable question arises: who and how should punish those who violate the regime of military captivity?

UN?

Red Cross?

Military tribunal?

Let's figure it out.

1. It must be clearly understood that there are no special, time-honored traditions of humanism in relation to prisoners.

For example, the ancient Assyrians were distinguished by special atrocities: they cut off the limbs of captives, put them on a stake, and skinned them alive.

The "Knights of Christ", they are also crusaders, also differed in a completely non-chivalrous attitude towards the prisoners.

An eyewitness of the Crusades describes the events after the capture of Jerusalem in this way: “So much blood was shed in the ancient temple of Solomon, where 10 thousand Muslims took refuge, that the bodies floated in this stream around the yard next to the severed hands.”

A completely odious example is how Napoleon's troops, after the siege of Jaffa, killed 4,000 soldiers of the garrison, who surrendered on the condition that they save their lives.

Of course, there were other approaches as well.

So, Saladin became famous for allowing the doctors of enemy armies to come and treat wounded compatriots, and then return back to their own.

2. The first attempts to guarantee prisoners of war at least the right to life were made during the Hague Peace Conferences of 1899 and 1907 (largely thanks to the initiatives of the Russian Empire).

The First World War immediately exposed the fundamental flaw in any humanitarian conventions.

The fact is that states take obligations on them, and people shoot prisoners.

No one runs around the front, holding the Geneva Conventions under his arm and periodically making notes in them.

People act on the basis of circumstances, as well as their own conscience and morality.

3. Legally, today there are four possible options for who can punish the ill-treatment and murder of prisoners of war:

- in theory, a state that has assumed international obligations under humanitarian law should itself punish its war criminals (in the case of Ukraine, this is an unlikely option);

- Trial of war criminals at the International Criminal Court (Russia and Ukraine are not parties to it, so this option is not suitable);

- organization of a tribunal through an international institution (a possible option, but it will definitely not be the UN, since Western countries will immediately veto such an initiative);

- the victorious state independently organizes a tribunal over the defeated party (the most desirable option).

The main weakness of international humanitarian law (including in matters of treatment of prisoners) is that it proceeds from the presence of two deterrent factors - it is either morality or fear of punishment.

The problem is that the enemy may not have morality.

And punishment is possible only in case of victory.

The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editors.