Documents‎ > ‎

Indigenous Peoples and Cultural Suicide

Defining Indigenous Peoples

There is no official definition of the term "indigenous peoples", so the term is more or less open to interpretation. Yet the modern understanding of the term – according to the UN Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues – is the following:

  • Self-identification as indigenous peoples
  • Historical continuity with pre-colonial societies
  • Strong link to territories and natural resources
  • Distinct social, economical or political systems
  • Distinct language, culture and beliefs
  • Form non-dominant groups of society
  • Resolve to maintain and reproduce their ancestral environments and systems as distinctive peoples

An interesting note is the use of the term "non-dominant groups". It is fuzzily defined: if the UN had meant that indigenous people must be a minority of the population, they would have used that term instead. "Non-dominant groups" should therefore mean non-dominant when it comes to cultural aspects rather than the number of individuals within the indigenous community. More specifically, these groups should be non-dominant when it comes to representatives on a national and official level, particularly in the media, politics and the educational sphere.

Furthermore, a crucial part of being considered part of an indigenous community is self-identification – both on the individual level and in the indigenous community – as well as a resolve to conserve the culture, language and beliefs that characterize the community. This means that politicians, media workers, teachers etc. that do not promote or seek to maintain the values of the indigenous peoples, cannot be considered part of the indigenous community themselves. Thanks to this, cultural conservatives, anti-Marxists and the like can be considered "non-dominant groups" as they are not represented on a national level, and by extension this grants them the right to call themselves indigenous peoples, as long as the other prerequisites are met.

Indigenous peoples are subject to certain rights, more specifically the ones stated in the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples. Notable rights are:

  • Indigenous peoples have the right to be free from any kind of discrimination, especially based on their origin or identity. They have the right to self-determination and may freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development, and they have the right to maintain their distinct political institutions. (Articles 2-5)
  • Indigenous peoples have the right to the land, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned, occupied or otherwise used or acquired. (Article 26)
  • Indigenous peoples have the right to redress, by means that can include restitution or, when this is not possible, just, fair and equitable compensation, for the lands, territories and resources which they have traditionally owned or otherwise occupied or used, and which have been confiscated, taken, occupied, used or damaged without their free, prior and informed consent. (Article 28)
  • Indigenous peoples have the right to maintain, control, protect and develop their cultural heritage, traditional knowledge and traditional cultural expressions. (Article 31)
  • Indigenous peoples have the right to determine their own identity or membership in accordance with their customs and traditions. (Article 33)

Article 8 is especially topical and important, because it focuses on cultural genocide:

  1. 1   Indigenous peoples and individuals have the right not to be subjected to forced assimilation or destruction of their    culture.
  2. 2   States shall provide effective mechanisms for prevention of, and redress for:
    1.    Any action that has the aim or effect of depriving them of their integrity as distinct peoples, or of their cultural   values or ethnic identities.
    2.    Any action which has the aim or effect of dispossessing them of their lands, territories or resources.
    3.    Any form of forced population transfer which has the aim or effect of violating or undermining any of their rights.
    4.    Any form of forced assimilation or integration.
    5.    Any form of propaganda designed to promote or incite racial or ethnic discrimination directed against them.

According to the UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, "genocide" is defined as any act meant to destroy in whole or in part members of a national, ethnic, religious or racial group by killing, causing serious mental or bodily harm to the group, deliberately inflicting upon the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part, imposing measures intending to prevent births within the group and forcibly transferring children from the group to another. (Article 2)

The definition of an ethnic group, according to Genocide Watch, is "a set of individuals whose identity is defined by common cultural traditions, language or heritage". In other words, indigenous peoples count as ethnic groups, and are therefore at risk of being victims to the crime of genocide.


The eight stages of genocide

Genocide always happens gradually, and Genocide Watch has identified eight stages, which I will now summarize:

  1. Classification – the adoption of an "us versus them" mindset
  2. Symbolization – making use of symbols (often degrading) to distinguish between the undesirable group and the rest of the population
  3. Dehumanization – referring to the undesirable group in the pejorative, comparing the group with vermin, or in other ways denying their humanity
  4. Organization – starting to organize the genocide, for example by forming militias or training the military for acts of genocide
  5. Polarization – broadcasting hate propaganda, segregating the undesirable group from the rest of the population etc.
  6. Preparation – sorting out the victims of the genocide from the rest of the population
  7. Extermination – the killing of members of the undesirable group
  8. Denial – the perpetrators try to hide all evidence of the genocide ever taking place

These stages do not have to happen in that exact order. In fact, they often overlap – the first three, for example, can occur simultaneously as the stages are closely related to each other.

To further clarify the meaning of the term "genocide", I will include a quotation from Raphael Lempkin – the person who first invented the term. His definition was the following:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves. The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.

If we are to make use of the original definition of genocide, it is clear that the crime is currently being committed in most – if not all – of Europe, and to some extent in non-European Western nations.

The European culture, history, religion, and identity is being attacked and disintegrated at this very moment as politicians, journalists, teachers, and other people in positions of power are attempting to replace the European cultural and ethnic identities with the anti-Nationalist ideology known as Cultural Marxism and Multiculturalism.

Classification

Anti-Marxists are the targets of a long-term propaganda effort that seeks to create an "us versus them" mindset. In essence the Cultural Marxists have created a situation where opposition to their ideology is no longer allowed. This is achieved by the creation of victim groups who play a central role in the political model known as Multiculturalism. Any criticism of Cultural Marxism is seen as criticism of Multiculturalism, which in turn is seen as criticism or endangerment of victim groups.

As these victim groups are seen as vulnerable, any perceived criticism of these victim groups (known as hate speech) results in repercussions. Repercussions increase in severity depending on the type and scale of the criticism: someone may get fired from their job, receive death threats, be given a prison sentence, or be attacked by far-left radicals. Subsequently no significant opposition to Cultural Marxism is allowed to manifest, a system known as Political Correctness, and the least amount of tolerance is allowed for those questioning racial equality and the lack of racial rights of the native European population.

Symbolization

Cultural Marxism does not use symbols to degrade opponents, it however forbids native Europeans to use symbols that symbolize their national identity, where as no such restrictions apply to minority groups.

Dehumanization

Dehumanization is pervasive under Cultural Marxism. Dehumanization is targeted at the native European people as a whole, and to a much greater extent to anyone who opposes this dehumanization process. This process focuses on portraying Europeans, and particularly European men, as the villains in history lessons.

Anti-Marxists of various ideological groups are commonly called neo-Nazi or racist regardless of their actual opinions. In the media crimes by anti-Marxists are reported on more frequently. Anti-Marxists rarely receive a fair trial. Injustices against anti-Marxists, such as being fired for political beliefs, are generally reported on in the press in a smug tone.

Organization

Mass immigration has drastically changed the European demographic landscape. Mass immigration continues despite opposition by the majority of the native European people.

The illegal arms trade is dominated by Muslim immigrants, who almost exclusively vote for Cultural Marxist political parties. The media highlights cases of illegal arms possession by nationalists, and the police is instructed to focus on opponents of Cultural Marxism.

Organizations that oppose Cultural Marxism either face criminal charges or are intimidated by anti-Fascists. Alternatively, members are questioned by the police, which is a method popular for underage individuals, who are preferably taken in for questioning while at school.

Polarization

Cultural Marxism does not segregate opponents, it however forbids the opposition to effectively self-segregate in order to protect their national and cultural identity. Homeschooling is typically illegal or infeasible, making it impossible to protect children from state propaganda in public schools.

Preparation

Far-left organizations, commonly labeled as anti-Fascist, systematically identify and document people they believe to be opponents of Cultural Marxism. They incite hatred and violence towards these individuals, primarily nationalists, with great success. Despite being obvious criminal organizations they rarely face consequences for acts of violence, intimidation, and disturbance of the peace.

Extermination

The most outspoken and succesful opponents of Cultural Marxism, who are with few and subsequently a minority group, are likely to become the victim of violence, assassination, prosecution, and discrimination.

Statistics indicate that immigrants kill, rape, and attack a disproportional number of native Europeans.

Miscegenation (race mixing) by means of mass indoctrination and political correctness (which makes it impossible to protest) is a more effective form of genocide than forced miscegenation by means of militant rape squads.

Denial

The denial of the ongoing genocide is a considerable effort, aided in part by Political Correctness. Scientific research that contradicts the Cultural Marxist ideology is systematically censored by the media. Scientist who dare to speak out, like Nobel prize winner James Watson, risk severe consequences to their career and personal lives. Statistics about immigrants are generally forbidden from being gathered, or the data is manipulated.

No opposition to Cultural Marxism is allowed on main stream Internet sites, which forbid 'hate speech', which in essence means that the core principles of Cultural Marxism cannot be denied or put in doubt. The population in turn believes that this form of thought control is benevolent and justified because they have been indoctrinated to think about this subject emotionally, rather than rationally. The media in turn primarily promotes Internet sites that strictly enforce Political Correctness. Persistent violators of these speech codes face prosecution.


From Cultural Suicide to Genocide

It is important to note that the governments themselves do not necessarily take a direct part in the extermination process with regard to stage 8 – it is fairly common that they make use of non-affiliated foot soldiers (in this case Islamists and the radical left) as a way of denying responsibility.

It is also important to note that Cultural Marxism does not desire to commit genocide, instead the ideology desires to commit cultural suicide, and the destruction of a people's cultural identity is a well known precursor to genocide. In addition, Cultural Marxism oppresses all opposition to policies that have the destruction of the cultural identity as a direct consequence.

"Our most important task ahead is to deconstruct the majority, and we must deconstruct them so thoroughly that they will never be able to call themselves the majority again." –Thomas Hylland Eriksen (2008)

Cultural Marxism desires to decimate the European indigenous majority as they favor a culturally and racially divided society, better known as Multiculturalism. Subsequently the question becomes: Is the political desire to 'decimate' a national group as morally wrong as the desire to 'annihilate' a national group?

Even if the actual intent is not genocide, these policies will result in a situation where the indigenous European population will be outnumbered in their historical homelands, and will no longer have the means to defend themselves from an actual genocide.

When the native Europeans become a minority they will also become a wealthy minority. Not only will they be a wealthy minority, they will be a wealthy minority with a by then well-established culture of institutionalized demonization of native Europeans. Like the wealthy Jews living in Nazi Germany in 1933 they will find themselves in a volatile situation that is unlikely to end well.

As the situation deteriorates the native Europeans will be forced to flee, as native Europeans did in Mozambique in 1975, Rhodesia in 1980, and South Africa in 1994. Those that remain will find themselves disarmed, hated, preyed upon by criminals for their wealth, and as the political tides turn against them they will also find themselves preyed upon by governments for their wealth. Once all wealth has been stripped their only remaining worth, in a worst-case scenario, will be that of slaves in a concentration camp.


Is Resisting Genocide A Human Right?

There exists an interesting article by David B. Kopel, Paul Gallant and Joanne D. Eisen that examines the right to defend oneself against genocide.

Their conclusion is that non-violent methods such as economical sanctions, weapon embargoes and diplomacy never have produced any results whatsoever, leading to losses of millions of lives that could have been avoided had more effective measures been taken. In fact, weapon embargoes give the perpetrating government a monopoly on violence and only serves to worsen and lengthen the atrocities committed.

They do point out, though, that lives are saved when the victims of an ongoing genocide have been armed and are able to defend themselves, as those who are complicit in the genocide are unprepared for resistance and get taken by surprise. The arming of civilians or resistance members will therefore ascertain that the genocide is halted as soon as possible and that justice is done.

Furthermore, self-defense – especially when it comes to this worst of crimes against humanity – is considered jus cogens; that means that the right to self-defense overrules any laws against for example violent countermeasures. It is permissible to defend oneself against the crime of genocide. ("Is Resisting Genocide A Human Right?")


The difference between terrorism and warfare

If militant actions are taken without first acquiring the status of a lawful combatant, chances are one will be charged for acts of terrorism. This would be undesirable and inadvisable as a common convict has much fewer rights than a Prisoner of War.

On page 6 of the UN fact-sheet 32 (Terrorism and Counter-terrorism), an act of terrorism is defined as "criminal acts, including against civilians, committed with the intent to cause death or serious bodily injury, or taking of hostages, with the purpose to provoke a state of terror in the general public or in a group of persons or particular persons, intimidate a population or compel a Government or an international organisation to do or to abstain from doing any act."

One should take care not to incite terrorism, as that is punishable by law. Glorification of terrorism, however, is not – it falls under the right to freedom of expression. The difference between incitement and glorification is the following:

To count as incitement, there must first be an act of communication (the distribution of a message to the public). Secondly, there must be a subjective intention to incite terrorism, whether or not directly advocating terrorist offences. And finally, there must be an additional objective danger that the individual's conduct will incite terrorism. (pages 42-43 of the UN fact-sheet 32)

Of course, the subjective intention to incite terrorism could act as a loophole. No one but the individual himself can, after all, truly know the subjective intention of his message.

Furthermore, it is debatable whether or not the first prerequisite applies if only a small group is the target of the message. The "public" ought to mean that the message is spread to a substantial amount of people, or out in the streets. To hold a speech inciting to terrorism in a small, closed group such as a non-governmental organisation (NGO) could very well be permissible.

As a small note concerning NGOs: the State may not exert a priori (beforehand) scrutiny into an NGO's objective. The State may not label it as a terrorist organisation before the NGO has been registered and before the organisation has begun exercising its activities. (page 44 of the UN fact-sheet 32)


The International Humanitarian Law

As mentioned earlier, the International Humanitarian Law (IHL) consists of several treaties as well as conventions and their additional protocols, the most fundamental being the Geneva and Hague Conventions.

For practical reasons it is, of course, impossible to provide a detailed analysis of all the documents. They consist of hundreds of articles, but I will nevertheless describe the most important aspects of the IHL. For a deeper and more thorough understanding, I would recommend reading the different documents. A good source for information is the compendium "Law of War Documentary Supplement" (please see "Sources"), as it not only contains all the important documents, but also professional commentaries concerning the interpretation of the many laws and regulations.

Article 3, which is common to all four Geneva Conventions, specifically mentions the provisions that are to be undertaken in any non-international armed conflict, for example civil war. The article states that:

  1. Persons not taking any active part in hostilities (non-combatants, injured, unarmed, people who have surrendered etc.) shall not be treated inhumanely. Namely, they shouldn't be killed or tortured, taken hostages, be denied their dignity (they shouldn't be humiliated or abused in any way, whether physically or mentally), or sentenced and/or executed without a formal trial.
  2. Those who are sick or injured must be collected so they can be given proper medical care.

Article 3 is supplemented by the Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol II, which further clarifies the regulations concerning the treatment of unarmed people during internal conflicts. Article 4.2 states that:

  1. Violence to life, health and physical and mental well-being is prohibited under all circumstances.
  2. No collective punishments may be carried out.
  3. No taking of hostages for any reasons, e.g. in order to gain advantage over the enemy.
  4. Acts of terrorism (acts meant to terrify or in other ways hurt civilians or other non- combatants) are prohibited.
  5. Humiliating and degrading treatment such as rape, forced prostitution or other kinds of indecent assaults is prohibited.
  6. The use or trade of people as slaves is prohibited. (As seen in Article 5.1 e, it is however allowed to make use of ex-combatants taken prisoners as workers. They may, however, not be sold or otherwise traded as slaves, and are to have the benefit of the same working conditions as the civilian population.)
  7. Pillaging the property of non-combatants is prohibited.
  8. Threats to commit any of these acts are prohibited.

Prisoners of War

According to Article 4 A.2 of the Third Geneva Convention (also mentioned in Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention):

  1. The individual in question must belong to a militant organisation that has a clearly defined Commander who is directly responsible for his/her subordinates.
  2. The individual in question must wear a clearly distinguishable insignia belonging to the militant organisation, and which is easy to recognize at a distance.
  3. The members of the militant organisation must wear their arms openly.
  4. The members of the militant organisation must respect the regulations and laws of war, as specified in the International Humanitarian Law.

Also, according to Article 4 A.3, members of regular armed forces who profess their allegiance to an authority (e.g. the organisation mentioned above), will receive Prisoner of War status upon their capture by a hostile Party.

In addition, Article 2 of the Third Geneva Convention states that:

  • For a militant organisation to be subject to the Third Geneva Convention, it needs to be an organised resistance movement operating in- or outside its own territory. Occupied territories, originally belonging to the opposing Party, are also considered territories of the organisation.
  • The militant organisation and the opposing Party (the High Contracting Parties) must both have signed and ratified the Third Geneva Convention for it to be applicable.

A more detailed analysis based on my subjective interpretations, unless otherwise specified:


The individual in question must belong to a militant organisation that has a clearly defined commander who is directly responsible for his/her subordinates.

The militant organisation/organised resistance movement needs to have a clearly defined military leadership. This means that there must be a person with complete authority when it comes to strategic and military decisions: the equivalent of a commander-in-chief. The commander-in-chief is to take full responsibility for the actions of their subordinates. Depending on the scale of the organisation as well as the scale of its militant attacks, it could be advisable to have one or several secondary/tertiary captains. For a small-scale organisation, a commander-in-chief and a few soldiers should suffice.

Please note that an individual is eligible for the Prisoner of War status regardless of whether or not they have engaged in combat/hostilities. In other words, it is not necessary to commit acts of violence to achieve the status of a Prisoner of War. (FM 27-10 paragraph 62 and the 1907 Hague Convention Article 3)


The individual in question must wear a clearly distinguishable insignia belonging to the militant organisation and which is easy to recognize at a distance.

The insignia should be a well-known symbol, preferably in high-contrasting colors and with a simple yet unique design. To make sure the insignia is well-known, it is advisable to make use of it in all official documents, in propaganda etc. The more people are aware of the symbol belonging to the organisation, the more likely it is that the second requirement will be considered fulfilled.

Somewhat related is the fact that members of a militant organisation lose their right to be treated as Prisoners of War should they attempt to conceal their status by dressing in civilian clothes or in the uniform of the opposing Party. Assuming the Party is – as is most likely – the state, this means that dressing in uniforms belonging to state authorities (e.g. police dept, fire dept, military) is prohibited. This is prohibited both when it comes to spying on the enemy and when it comes to concealing their identity as a member of the organisation for the purpose of causing destruction of life and property. However, an individual who has been spying on the opponent will regain their status as a Prisoner of War as soon as they return to their organisation, assuming they weren't caught in the act. (FM 27-10 paragraph 74-75, 78)


The members of the militant organisation must wear their arms openly.

No pretense of being unarmed upon the approach of enemy forces. Also, the arms should be carried openly when around civilians, as well, as to fulfill the next requirement.


The members of the militant organisation must respect the regulations and laws of war, as specified in the International Humanitarian Law.

In short: the International Humanitarian Law is composed of various laws concerning warfare, of which the Geneva Conventions and the 1907 Hague Resolution are considered the foundation. Some fundamental examples:

  • The militant organisation must give a clear warning, such as a declaration of war, to the enemy before commencing hostilities (1907 Hague Resolution Article 1). However, no particular length of time is required to elapse between the declaration of war and the commencement of hostilities. Therefore, surprise attacks – as long has a declaration of war has been issued beforehand – are legally possible. (FM 27-10, paragraph 20b)
  • Under no circumstances should civilians be targeted. One should always make sure that the number of anticipated casualties isn't excessive when compared to the direct military advantage. To the extent that it is possible, civilians should be warned of a militant operation beforehand. (The Geneva Conventions Protocol II, Article 3c and 4)
  • Humane treatment: no taking hostages, no torture, no assault of people who have surrendered peacefully, no degrading treatment and no executions carried out without a just trial. (The Geneva Conventions, common Article 3)

Territories of the organisation can be either owned land or an occupied territory belonging to the opposing party.

According to Article 42 of the Hague Convention of 1907: "Territory is considered occupied when it is actually placed under the authority of the hostile army. The occupation extends only to the territory where such authority has been established and can be exercised." In other words, one or several members of the militant organisation must claim a piece of land, and then stay and make sure the occupied territory is not won back by the opposing Party. This is obviously time-consuming and for a small organisation, it would be next to impossible to keep the opposing Party at bay. Therefore, it would be advisable to simply buy some land and establish some sort of headquarters/central basis of operations there.

I will not comment on my second note of Article 2, other than that the organisation must sign an official document where it states that it ratifies the Geneva Conventions. The opposing Party must also have ratified the Conventions, but as all countries in Europe have ratified it (most, but not all countries have ratified all the additional protocols), this should not be an issue. However, to be on the safe side, one should always check whether or not this applies to one's own country. For an annually updated list of what countries have ratified the Geneva Conventions and the additional protocols, please see the website of the International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/eng/index.jsp


The treatment of prisoners

The following is paraphrased from Article 5 of Additional Protocol II:

When it comes to people taken prisoner because of their part in the armed conflict (including non-combatants who aided the enemy), they shall be provided with food and drinking water to the same extent as the civilian population. They shall also be afforded safeguards with regard to health and hygiene. As mentioned earlier, they must also have humane working conditions if they are made to work. Also, their health – both physically and mentally – as well as their integrity shall not be endangered by any unjustified act or omission. (It is not stated what would be considered an unjust act, but it would be safe to assume that physical and mental punishment is permissible to a certain extent, should a prisoner break regulations.)

Furthermore, as stated in Article 6 of the same document: No one should be sentenced or executed without first being found guilty in an independent and impartial court. No one shall be convicted of an offence unless the individual is penally responsible – in other words, said person may only be convicted of crimes he himself has committed, and not crimes committed by other people such as superiors or other members of the armed group he may belong to or has aided. People who were under the age of 18 at the time of the offence, as well as pregnant women and mothers of young children, must not get sentenced to death.


Concerning wounded, sick and dead

Under all circumstances shall sick and injured people – regardless of whether or not they have taken active part in the hostilities – be treated humanely. They shall receive the medical care they need without any distinction based on ethnicity, religion and so on.

After a hostile engagement, one should – if the circumstances permit it – take care to search for injured and dead people. Corpses must not be defiled and should be decently disposed of. This information is found in Articles 7 and 8 of the Additional Protocol II.


Protection of the civilian population

The civilian population shall, both as a whole and on an individual level, enjoy general protection against the dangers associated with military operations. To this end, civilians may not be targeted, and acts or threats of acts that have the primary purpose of spreading terror among the civilians are prohibited. (If terror is the secondary purpose or an unfortunate side-effect, it should not break these regulations.) Civilians must also not be indirectly targeted by, for example, burning down crops or slaughtering livestock. If there is a risk for severe losses among the civilian population, it is forbidden to attack nuclear power plants, dams and the like, even if these can be considered military objectives. (What would be severe losses seems to be open to interpretation. Presumingly, it has to be seen in context with the military gain.) For more information, please see Articles 13-18 of Additional Protocol II.

The Geneva Conventions Protocols II-IV cover the issue of the prohibited or restricted use of certain weapons against or near civilians:
It is stated that booby traps (any device or material which is designed, constructed or adapted to kill or injure and which functions unexpectedly when a person disturbs or approaches it) are forbidden to use against civilians regardless of the circumstances. This includes mines (any munition placed on and near a surface area and which is designed to explode by the contact or proximity of a person or vehicle) and other devices (devices that are placed manually and designed to kill or injure and which are actuated either by remote control or automatically after a lapse of time). This includes the usage of these devices against military objectives if there is an expectation of incidental loss among the civilian population that is excessive in relation to the anticipated concrete and direct military advantage (once again: "excessive losses" seems to be open to interpretation). The use of these devices in areas populated by civilians is generally prohibited, but exceptions can be made if a) they are placed on or near a military objective belonging to or under the control of an adverse party, or b) measures are taken to protect civilians against their effect (posting of warning signs, issue of warnings, posting of sentries etc.).

Incendiary weapons (any weapon or munition which is primarily designed to set fire to objects or cause burn injury to persons through the action of flame, heat or combination thereof, produced by a chemical reaction of a substance delivered on the target) may not be used against civilians, nor within a concentration of civilians even if a military objective is located nearby, unless the military objective is clearly separated from the civilians and all possible measures are taken to avoid or limit incidental loss of civilian lives. It is furthermore prohibited to make forests or other kinds of plant cover the object of attack by incendiary weapons, unless these natural elements are used to cover, conceal or camouflage combatants or other military objectives.

Lastly, on the use of weapons specifically designed with the sole combat function or a secondary combat function to cause permanent blindness. Blinding as an incidental effect of the legitimate military employment of laser systems is not covered by this prohibition.


The allowed nature of hostilities

According to the 1907 Hague Convention Articles 22-28, "the right of belligerents to adopt any means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited":

Great care should be taken to avoid the use of poison or poisoned weapons, to kill an enemy who has surrendered, and to employ arms or projectiles that cause unnecessary suffering (I assume they mean that the killing of an enemy should be as swift and painless as possible).

Bombardment of undefended towns, villages, dwellings or buildings is prohibited, and – with the exception of assaults – the commanding officer must warn the authorities before commencing a bombardment. Pillaging is always forbidden regardless of the circumstances.

Ruses of war are generally permissible. According to the 1958 UK Military Manual, the definition of a ruse of war is as follows: "Ruses of war are the measures taken to obtain advantage of the enemy by mystifying or misleading him. They are permissible provided they are free from any suspicion of treachery or perfidy and do not violate any express or tacit agreement."



Sources

  1. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols
    http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/vwTreaties1949.xsp (2013-05-21)

  2. Definition of occupation
    http://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/contemporary-challenges-for-ihl/occupation/overview-occupation.htm (2013-05-22)

  3. On the status of Prisoners of War
    http://www.uwgb.edu/dutchs/PSEUDOSC/POW.HTM (2013-05-21)

  4. Law of War Documentary Supplement (a compendium of different conventions and other regulations on warfare)
    http://www.loc.gov/rr/frd/Military_Law/pdf/law-of-war-documentary-supplement_2009.pdf (2013-05-22)

  5. The 1958 UK Military Manual, about Rule 57 (ruses of war)
    http://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_gb_rule57 (2013-06-06)

  6. UN fact-sheet 32 – Terrorism and Counter-terrorism
    http://www.ohchr.org/Documents/Publications/Factsheet32EN.pdf (2013-06-15)

  7. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
    http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr (2013-06-21)

  8. UN fact-sheet on indigenous peoples
    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/5session_factsheet1.pdf (2013-06-24)

  9. UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples
    http://www.un.org/esa/socdev/unpfii/documents/DRIPS_en.pdf (2013-06-24)

  10. Genocide Watch – The Eight Stages of Genocide
    http://www.genocidewatch.org/aboutgenocide/8stagesofgenocide.html (2013-06-24)

  11. UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide
    http://www.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/INTRO/357?OpenDocument (2013-06-24)

  12. Genocide Watch - Definition of genocide
    http://www.genocidewatch.org/genocide/whatisit.html (2013-06-25)

  13. "Is Resisting Genocide A Human Right?" by Kopel, Gallant and Eisen
    https://sites.google.com/site/europeanindigenousrights/documents/is-resisting-genocide-a-human-right (2013-06-25)