The enchantress in Beauty and the Beast curses everyone in the castle in retaliation for the prince's behavior, which according to the Geneva Conventions is unambiguously a war crime
The defense secretary has repeatedly derided the military lawyers for war crime prosecutions and battlefield rules of engagement.
The unexplained dismissals [of the top military lawyers by Hegseth] prompted widespread concern. “In some ways that’s even more chilling than firing the four stars,” Rosa Brooks, a professor at Georgetown Law, wrote on X. “It’s what you do when you’re planning to break the law: you get rid of any lawyers who might try to slow you down.” [color emphasis added]
This excellent article by Greg Jaffe is worth reading, so this is a gift 🎁 link, that enables reading the entire article without a paywall.
Hegseth doesn't believe in following the Geneva Conventions.
The article describes how Hegseth does not believe that the U.S. military needs to abide by the Geneva Conventions. Instead, he believes in a "warrior ethos" that would allow the American military to do whatever they think necessary to win, including committing war crimes.
According to Jaffe:
In Mr. Hegseth’s Senate confirmation testimony, lawmakers sought to pin him down on what he meant when he referred to the “warrior ethos” and whether he believed U.S. forces should follow the Geneva Conventions and the Uniform Code of Military Justice even when America’s enemies ignore them.
His answers were often evasive. “An America First national security policy is not going to hand its prerogatives over to international bodies that make decisions about how our men and women make decisions on the battlefield,” Mr. Hegseth replied. [color emphasis added]
Jaffe implies that this is the most likely reason why Hegseth decided "to replace the military's judge advocates general — typically three-star military officers." The three who were let go with "zero heads up" were "Lt. Gen. Joseph B. Berger III, Air Force Lt. Gen. Charles Plummer and Rear Adm. Lia M. Reynolds."
War crimes and murder by our troops are okay with Hegseth, if such crimes enable the US to win.
According to the article, in 2019, Hegseth pleaded with Trump to pardon "U.S. troops accused or convicted of war crimes or murder." Trump ended up pardoning "two soldiers and a Navy SEAL"
According to Jaffe:
One of the pardoned soldiers was First Lt. Clint Lorance, who was turned in by his own troops after he ordered them to fire on unarmed Afghans over 100 yards away from his platoon, killing them. The soldier then radioed a false report claiming the bodies had been removed and couldn’t be searched for weapons.
[...]
To Mr. Hegseth, the pardon Lieutenant Lorance received represented justice.
[...]
Senior Army lawyers strongly disagreed with the decision to pardon Lieutenant Lorance, according to Pentagon officials. Among those most upset by the presidential pardon were the troops who served under him and made the difficult decision to accuse him of war crimes and testify at trial.
“I thought of the Army as this altruistic thing,” Lucas Gray, who served under Lieutenant Lorance in Afghanistan, told The Washington Post. “I thought it was perfect and honorable. It pains me to tell you how stupid and naive I was.”
“The Lorance stuff just broke my faith,” he said, adding: “And once you lose your values and your faith, the Army is just another job you hate.”
[color emphasis added]
Is Hegseth our own Werner von Blomberg?
Unfortunately, it appears that Hegseth is now Trump's own General Werner von Blomberg, who as Nazi Germany's Minister of Defense and Minister of War was instrumental in increasing Nazi Germany's military might prior to WWII.
Like Blomberg, Hegseth is a neofascist. Hegseth places his loyalty to Trump over the Constitution.
Like Blomberg, Hegseth is sympathetic to white supremacist beliefs. This is evidenced by Hesgeth's "Deus Vult" tattoo on his "inner" bicep,and his dedication to eliminating DEI and "woke" values in the military.
[See more under the cut.]
We saw this recently played out by Hegseth's support of Trump's dismissals of Gen. Charles Q. Brown, who happens to be only the second Black chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Lisa Franchetti, the first woman "chief of naval operations," and the Air Force's Vice Chief of Staff Gen. James Slife, who in May 2020 wrote a memo stating, according to Military.com:
"We'd be naive to think issues of institutional racism and unconscious bias don't affect us," the memo, viewed by Military.com on an archived webpage, reads. "We can't ignore it. We have to face it. And to face it, we have to talk about it." [color emphasis added]
According to Jaffe, Hegseth believes in a "warrior ethic" [at least for white, heterosexual men] that gives "the overwhelming benefit of the doubt.” for war crimes and murder so that U.S. troops can become “the most ruthless, the most uncompromising, the most overwhelming lethal" human weapons in any battle. [color emphasis added]
This is why despite being completely underqualified for the job, Trump appointed Hegseth as the U.S. Secretary of Defense.
Consequently, Hegseth has begun to run the U.S. military in a way that would undoubtedly turn the stomachs of the Americans who gave their lives fighting fascism in WWII.
Before we begin please note this is DEEPLY UNSERIOUS. But I keep seeing people talking about the Geneva Conventions in support of being anti or pro a character and if you REALLY WANT TO KNOW we can talk about it LMAO
I put a very minimal amount of effort into this so if I’m forgetting something or you’re mad or you want to argue… I don’t care.
My credentials: I have two degrees with a specialization in international law?? Do you care??
Anywho a note before we begin (I had most of this already written from college days LOL you’re welcome??):
War Crimes vs. Crimes Against Humanity vs Genocide vs Crimes of Aggression: In international law, there are distinctions in different kinds of atrocities that are thus bound by different treaties. War Crimes are different from Crimes Against Humanity are different from Genocide are different from Crimes of Aggression. There is frequent overlap, but they are bound by different statutes. Here are some key definitions:
War Crimes: War crimes include torture, mutilation, corporal punishment, hostage taking and acts of terrorism. This category also covers violations of human dignity such as rape and forced prostitution, looting and execution without trial. War crimes, unlike crimes against humanity, are always committed in times of war. These crimes are primarily outlawed by the Geneva Conventions (1949 onwards).
Genocide: This includes all acts committed with the intent to destroy a national, ethnic or religious group. Genocide is defined and criminalized by the Genocide Convention (effective 1951). For genocide, under international law one must prove intent to destroy above all else.
Crimes Against Humanity: Crimes against humanity are acts committed as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against any civilian population, such as murder, deportation, torture and rape. These acts can occur during peace time or during times of war. Unlike war crimes and genocide there are legal gaps in terms of treaties dealing with crimes against humanity. The Nuremberg Trials officially established crimes against humanity as an official legal category. Later, the Rome Statute (1998), which established the International Criminal Court, defined 11 crimes against humanity. However, there is not a single/group of statute(s) like the Genocide Convention or Geneva that just deals with crimes against humanity. However x2, crimes against humanity are generally considered to be part of jus cogens, or a fundamental norm accepted by the international community, and as such constitute a non-derogable rule of international law. The UN General Assembly is currently working on a new convention to prevent and punish crimes against humanity.
The 11 Rome Statute crimes against humanity are: murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation or forcible transfer of population, imprisonment, torture, sexual violence, persecution against an identifiable group, enforced disappearance of persons, the crime of apartheid, and other inhumane acts of a similar character intentionally causing great suffering, or serious injury to body or to mental or physical health
Crimes of Aggression: A crime of aggression or crime against peace is the planning, initiation, or execution of a large-scale and serious act of aggression using state military force. This is the most controversial and, like crimes against humanity, does not have a single convention. The Rome Statute contains an exhaustive list of acts of aggression that can give rise to individual criminal responsibility, which include invasion, military occupation, annexation by the use of force, bombardment, and military blockade of ports. These crimes are typically “leadership crimes” that can only be committed by those in power.
So clearly there’s a LOT going on with crimes for bad things in the world of international law. AS SUCH this post ONLY DEALS WITH WAR CRIMES. If you actually want to know I can do crimes against humanity and genocide or crimes of aggression in ACOTAR later (of which there are many).
Now, onto the Conventions:
The Geneva Conventions as we know them today are a series of four treaties and additional protocols mostly developed/widely recognized from 1949 onwards in the aftermath of WWII. Parts of the Geneva Conventions have existed in various shapes and forms since 1864 but we’re only focusing on the current set of treaties.
What do they do: The Conventions establish minimum protections, standards of humane treatment, and fundamental guarantees of respect to individuals victimized by armed conflicts. This includes treatment of civilians, prisoners of war (POWs), and soldiers who are otherwise rendered hors de combat (French, literally for "outside the fight") or incapable of fighting.
How Intl Law Works: Nations are only bound by international law if they sign and ratify a treaty (and even then who is actually going to enforce it is a whole other can of worms). Obviously this is purely for fun so yes I do know that no one in ACOTAR is bound by these I do in fact touch grass.
For the purposes of this post we’re going to focus on the four main treaties and two protocols that are currently in place:
I. For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field
II. For the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea
III. Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War
IV. Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War
Protocol I: Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts
Protocol II: Relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts
(There is a Third Protocol on the “Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem” aka in which a protective sign of the Red Crystal may be displayed by medical and religious personnel at times of war, instead of the traditional Red Cross or Red Crescent symbols. People displaying any of these protective emblems are performing a humanitarian service and must be protected by all parties to the conflict. But that’s getting too deep.)
So let’s talk ACOTAR. In our main storyline we have a war between Prythian (7 Courts, Human Lands) and Hybern. Afterwards, whatever on earth is happening with Autumn/Koschei/Briallyn and the Night Court/other Courts. Before the main storyline we have references to past wars in which our main characters have fought in. This includes “The War,” which took place 500 years prior involving humans vs. fae, in which the Inner Circle supported the humans.
So let’s break down some key moments and how they might violate these conventions, sticking to the main storyline in the books:
Exhibit A: During Amarantha’s Reign
All of Amarantha’s reign is basically just one large war crime. She is an oppressor committing an act of aggression, for which there is at least one uprising of the oppressed followed by her eventual overthrow.
(It’s important to know that Geneva applies to conflicts that are not declared wars if they have all the characteristics of one so in this case let’s just for shits and giggles consider this a “war” under Geneva). Where to start?
POWs: Under the Third Geneva Convention, POWs need only to give their names, ranks, and serial numbers to their captors. Nations party to the Convention may not use torture to extract information from POWs (womp womp Az). POWs also must be released and returned to their home countries without delay after active hostilities end.
This one is… lmao. Everyone Under the Mountain who is kept hostage, Clare Beddor, Feyre and Lucien’s treatment, I could go on and on and on and on. Rhys himself being compelled to serve her is a violation as well.
Civilians: Under Convention IV, civilians are afforded the same protections from inhumane treatment and attack afforded to sick and wounded soldiers in the first Convention. Further, additional regulations regarding the treatment of civilians were introduced. Specifically, it prohibits attacks on civilian hospitals, medical transports, etc. It also specifies the rights of POWs and saboteurs. Most importantly for this, it discusses how occupiers are to treat an occupied populace. Amarantha is in blatant violation of most of these provisions as they can be linked to ACOTAR and I feel like I do not need to justify that lol
Winter Court Children: The destruction of the Winter Court children’s minds is a perfect example of a violation of at least Convention IV, would almost certainly also qualify as a crime against humanity.
The Summer Court faerie that dies on Tamlin’s kitchen table in ACOTAR is also a perfect example of a violation here. Even if they were a solider that's still a Geneva violation if the intent was torture/to main just because. Also the guy who is beheaded and branded? That sucks and is also a crime
All this to say least shocking of all Amarantha is a war criminal!! Who knew!!
And yes I have to say it… I don’t care if Rhys was pretending, his treatment of Feyre while she is an active prisoner UTM IS WAR CRIME: BEHAVIOR the literal twisting of the arm, the requirement to wear a revealing dress and dance while drugged, the forcing of her to pick lentils from his fireplace, the forced kissing, the general emotional damage… SORRY NOT SORRY. Could he make an argument about ulterior motives sure but on black and white paper we are violating Conventions here.
Exhibit B: Feyre’s Revenge on the Spring Court
This one is interesting. Feyre doesn’t herself cause the destruction of the Spring Court physically, but she does orchestrate it using her daemati powers/ general manipulation. The resulting damage is significant, as there is rebellion and general destabilization, civilians hurt, etc. etc.
Is this a war crime? Hmmm. It depends on how you define her actions.
First, they are at war. This is after Hybern has attacked her sisters, Hybern is there in Spring, she is in active conflict serving as a spy for the Night Court. This makes her eligible to commit a war crime vs. a crime against humanity.
If her actions were to be considered an act of terrorism, which can be a war crime, one would generally consider this definition: the use of violence against non-combatants to achieve political or ideological aims, often with the intent to instill widespread fear or compel a government or international organization to act or abstain from acting.
The real thing I’d consider here is the impact on civilians. Did her actions lead to excessive harm of civilians, damage of infrastructure/property? Was there intent to cause harm? If so, you could potentially argue a violation under Geneva IV and the Protocols.
Is her inciting of a destructive rebellion war criminal worthy? Debatable. It could be a stretch. Is it an act of aggression (she is high lady and in a position of power arguably) and potential manipulation of civilians for political gain? Yes.
Exhibit C: Tarquin’s Treatment of Hybern Soldiers
I love my Summer Court King but this one is perhaps one of the most blatant Geneva violations in the whole series lol. Tarquin’s decision to drown the remaining Hybern soldiers after the battle has ended is about as much of a violation as you can get.
Convention I protects wounded and sick soldiers and medical personnel who are not taking an active part in hostility against a party. It ensures humane treatment without discrimination founded on race, color, sex, religion or faith, birth or wealth, etc. To that end, the Convention prohibits torture, assaults upon personal dignity, and execution without judgment. It also grants the right to proper medical treatment and care. If you want to argue these soldiers are POWs then see Convention III.
Unless Tarquin tried all these people in a constituted court (Article III) he unfortunately attained war criminal status. Killing the soldiers post battle outright as a “show of strength” unfortunately wouldn’t cut it as a defense in the real world (although how many war criminals are we catching really)
Exhibit D: Use of the Cauldron/Disproportionate Power
Article 35(2) of Additional Protocol I provides: “It is prohibited to employ weapons, projectiles and material and methods of warfare of a nature to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering.”
Arguably the Cauldron qualifies here. Anything that can just wipe out a bunch of people at once… yeah.
Putting Nesta and Elain in the Cauldron as punishment for Feyre? Criminal behavior. Destroying the wall? Check.
Any excessive use of force, disproportionate use of force, etc. is generally considered a violation of the laws of war.
Exhibit E: POWs/Hostages in ACOTAR in General
Feel like this goes without saying but anytime a character tortures a hostage or POW for information they are violating Convention III.
So, our favorite spymaster/torturer for the Night Court… War Criminal. Guilty.
Rhys breaking into minds? Guilty.
Breaking into the Autumn Court soldiers’ minds after they are possessed by Briallyn in ACOSF and then killing them… yeah unfortunately that doesn’t fly either whoopsie.
MISC: Crimes Against Humanity and Acts of Aggression
Without making an entire other post (yet) I can’t let it go without highlighting some key events that could qualify as crimes against humanity and/or acts of aggression but not war crimes (because they aren't happening because of an active war):
The clipping of Illyrian female’s wings and the oppression of women in the Court of Nightmares (Yes Rhys you are responsible for this you are the HIGH LORD)
Prevention of citizens from leaving their designated areas in the Night Court (aka who can and can’t enter Velaris, who is trapped in Court of Nightmares, Illyria, etc. This could constitute apartheid as defined under the Rome Statute.)
The stealing of the Book of Breathings from the Summer Court (act of aggression against two parties who were not previously in conflict)
Cassian having a full Anakin Skywalker meltdown and destroying every single person in a village as revenge for his mother
Beron Vanserra treating his Court… Like That. We don’t support dictators here.
Obviously enslavement of humans and all the heinous shit from the OG war.
Probably others but I’m tired. Anyway this was fun I hope you enjoyed learning something about international law. xoxo
We Bombed a School Full of Children. Call It What It Is.
148 girls died in Minab. The school had been separated from the nearby military base for a decade. International law exists for precisely this moment. So why is no one reaching for it?
Sara Shariatmadar was six years old. A second grader. Saturday morning she went to school, as six-year-olds in Iran, do, perhaps with a lunchbox, perhaps dragging her feet, perhaps chattering to a friend. Sara did…
The people who made the Geneva Conventions put up a UQuiz saying, “Have you broken the Geneva Conventions? Find out now!” And everyone who took the quiz got arrested.
