Gallia- wrote:Or do you mean something more abstract? Like no clear span of control from footsoldier to supreme commander?
Yes. If a unit it out of contact, initiates an attack on their own authority and blows up a school bus full of children who is legally responsible for this?
The men in the unit can say they were just doing precisely what they had been trained to do in that situation. They can plausibly argue there was no intent to violate the laws of war since they had no access to intelligence that indicated there was a school bus full of refugee children in the area when the decision was made to launch the attack and the attack was executed in the way they had been trained to act in that situation.
The superior commander can say he wasn't actually in touch with the unit. He can plausibly argue since he never gave the order to attack or attack in that way he is not responsible for what occurred.
And they are both right to an extent. To coordinate without constant communication decisions must be to some degree self-executing, they must be autonomous. Battle drills and school solutions are one way to make decision making autonomous. But when autonomy enters the decision-making process there is a real possibility that decisions will be made which violate the laws of war, possibly severely, without anyone involved having
mens rea. This is not reconcilable with a requirement a military force be rigorously accountable to the laws of war. Either it must be accepted "things happen" or there must be more restrictions on autonomous action.
To date well the US military has not descended to the absurdity of some European countries in prosecuting their own soldiers when push comes to shove the US has always moved towards more oversight and restriction on troops actions in combat and weapons which cannot be precisely controlled have been deprecated.