When Do States Follow the Laws of War?

Abstract

T he laws of war seek to regulate conduct during wartime. The record of compliance with these treaties is mixed. I explain compliance as the result of publicly accepted and so legally binding agreements that create incentives for the parties to enforce those agreements through reciprocity. Ratification by a democracy is a signal that it intends to abide by the treaty standard; those that ratify are more likely to comply. Ratification does not effect the behavior of nondemocracies, however. Ratification of the relevant treaty by both warring parties strengthens reciprocity. There is a hierarchy of average compliance across issues which matches the scope for violations by individuals on each issue, with greater scope for such violations corresponding to lower levels of compliance.

Treaty Compliance and Violation

“…Finally, "reputational sanctions", like any other kind of sanction, may be sub-optimal if the community does not find a way to overcome collective action problems in its supply (Guzmán 2008). Since "enforcement" depends largely on reciprocity, this framework is useful for explaining stable trade agreements (Goldstein et al 2007) and some aspects of the laws of war, where militaries risk retaliation in kind (Morrow 2007). It is also suitable for analyzing obligations whose violation might provoke negative market reactions, as is plausible in the area of monetary affairs and investment (Simmons 2000).…”

“…Successful signaling can enhance stable reciprocity (Morrow 2007), but signaling models per se do not explain why certain states are more "committed types" in the first place.…”

“…In James Morrow's rationalist interpretation of the laws of war, the relative precision of treaty arrangements supports reciprocity between warring states by clarifying prescribed and proscribed behaviors and limiting the permitted range of response to violation (Morrow 2007). For these reasons, violating a treaty is often asserted to have more serious reputational consequences than reneging on a political commitment, ceteris paribus.…”

“…An even more ambitious effort to understand the dynamics of the laws of war is James Morrow's study of eight different sub-issue areas, including aerial bombardment, armistice/ceasefire, chemical and biological weapons, treatment of civilians, protection of cultural property, conduct on the high seas, treatment of prisoners of war, and treatment of the wounded (Morrow 2007). Using different data and methods, Morrow does to some extent corroborate the findings of Valentino et al, in that he finds the treatment of civilian populations to be especially problematic in war time.…”

Nudging Armed Groups: How Civilians Transmit Norms of Protection

“…Morrow (2007) finds that international law can have restraining effects on belligerents of international conflicts, so long as agreements are reciprocally ratified. In the realm of civil conflicts, the United States' military increased its restraints on the use of force in Afghanistan to avoid collateral damage that would alienate the population and hostnation government by reducing the use of air strikes and night raids against suspected terrorists and insurgents (Filkins 2009).…”