Should there be laws of war for civil wars?

[Boojatta]

Should there just be laws of war for wars between different countries? Should there be no laws of war so that the elite around the world will simply accept "might is right" and hope to be themselves members of the club of the mighty?

[Rosemary2205]

1. IMHO it would not matter

the power elite don't much care about the law regardless of where they live, and in most places they MAKE the law as they go along. In the United States we THINK we have a say, but if we do it's not much and only on piddly little things.

[Boojatta]

2. If it doesn't matter, then is the U.N. irrelevant and not worth preserving?

I only mentioned the elite because I suspected that a contributor to this thread might mock the very notion of laws of war as being a naive concept.

[Rosemary2205]

3. I think the UN has a role to play

In my humble opinion the power elite can and do work out some of thier battles at the UN instead of using us for cannon fodder.

[Hosnon]

4. I don't have time to check at the moment but I imagine there are already

something of the sort.

[Boojatta]

5. During civil war in a country, does the country have more than one

representative at the United Nations?

Can the United Nations appoint an interim representative? Would the people of a given country accept that an interim representative appointed by the United Nations is a legitimate representative, for the purpose of negotiations at the U.N., of their country?

In family law, there is such a thing as court-appointed legal representation for a child.

[Hosnon]

7. I don't think so. The important distinction is between governments and nations.

A civil war is a war within one country. That country would still keep its representative in the U.N. However, if the government changes, the representative will likely change (as is the case when a new President is elected in the U.S.).

If the civil war results in a one side declaring a new nation, that new nation would not get a seat in the U.N. unless the international community recognized it. And that recognition would depend on many factors, including international politics.

Even in circumstances where a certain group is not in control of the majority of the country, the U.N. may recognize it. The best example is the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan. The N.A. is the recognized government of that country and sends a representative to the U.N. even though it does not control much of that country.

In sum, if the objective of the conflict is to take over President's Y government of Country A so that General Z is in charge, President Y's representative will be in the U.N. until General Z's supporters take over.

[GeorgeGist]

6. War is the naive concept ...

that peace is wrong.

[Boojatta]

8. What should a government do about violent civil disturbances in the

country that it governs? Should it just surrender? If it does surrender, then what guarantee is there that whatever government replaces it will not itself need to face the question of what to do about violent civil disturbances?

[Boojatta]

9. Is there such thing as a civil war that is, according to international law, legal?

Currently, are all civil wars legal according to international law?

If war itself were simply illegal, then would any territory conquered in violation of international law simply remain in the possession of the conqueror?

[Boojatta]

10. Kick to elicit more replies. e.o.m.

[Boojatta]

11. How about if, during what could be the initial stages of a civil war,

various countries from around the world work together through the United Nations to enforce some kind of rules of war for the civil war?

The current practice seems to be that governments around the world that are interested in a brewing civil war take sides without regard for whether or not the side they support is launching massive human rights violations and regardless of what kind of government that side plans to establish if and when it wins the civil war.