Important Notice: Our web hosting provider recently started charging us for additional visits, which was unexpected. In response, we're seeking donations. Depending on the situation, we may explore different monetization options for our Community and Expert Contributors. It's crucial to provide more returns for their expertise and offer more Expert Validated Answers or AI Validated Answers. Learn more about our hosting issue here.

Should the accused have been considered the legitimate belligerents of a sovereign nation rather than common criminals?

0
Posted

Should the accused have been considered the legitimate belligerents of a sovereign nation rather than common criminals?

0

The use of force by individuals in a declared war between sovereign nations is generally not subject to the same treatment as would similar acts of assault or murder committed by individuals under different circumstances. Captured enemy soldiers are treated as legitimate belligerents and held as prisoners of war until hostilities cease and they are released. This special treatment does not, of course, cover all acts of violence committed by the enemy. Torture, rape, and the killing of unarmed civilians, for example, are considered violations of the laws of war and subject to punishment. Moreover, individuals who are foreign citizens and kill or plunder without authorization by their sovereign are also considered subject to punishment. Were the Dakota a sovereign people capable of declaring war on the United States? The Dakota community clearly thought itself to be sovereign. It had its own governing structure and dealt with the United States through its own designated leaders. Although

Related Questions

What is your question?

*Sadly, we had to bring back ads too. Hopefully more targeted.

Experts123