What about the “Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices” that somebody linked above? Not sure if it’s the same as the “1996 Geneva Amendments” you mention, but both Ukraine and Russia are listed as signatories, and the language does seem to me to cover this exact situation:
Article 7
Prohibitions on the Use of booby-traps and other devices
Without prejudice to the rules of international applicable in armed conflict relating
to treachery and perfidy, it is prohibited in all circumstances to use booby-traps and other
devices which are any way attached to or associated with:
(a) internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals;
…
(d) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical
transportation;
It says “medical supplies”, without reference to humanitarian aid, and clearly stressing in “any way associated with”. A “red cross” is also a recognized emblem. I can appreciate how “humanitarian aid” can be narrowly defined as medical supplies under direct control and chain-of-custody of the Red Cross Organization and doesn’t apply to random medkits. But I can’t see how this language above would not apply.
Or is it the case that this would be a crime, committed during war, but not a war crime? How does that work? Does it have to be a violation of a specific Geneva Convention® version to count as a war crime, and not just any UN war-related convention?
I responded above I hope that provides enough. Though I didn’t speak to article a).
It may sound like a legal cop-out but some countries make a distinction between “The Red Cross” and “a red Cross”. It’s a weird one. Probably requires more scrutiny.
And as to your question of “Would this be a crime committed in war?” Or “A war crime?” That’s where lots of legalese comes in. It may be that one nation sees it as a crime where one doesn’t. Or the UN finds it a war crime but another organisation doesn’t or is a partial signatory or conscious observer and so on.
This is then something I understand is moved into the restitution phase post war where both nations sit at the table and dole out various legal requirements, PW transfers and the likes. Like a two sided lawsuit but instead of just money it’s money and human lives.
What about the “Protocol on Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices” that somebody linked above? Not sure if it’s the same as the “1996 Geneva Amendments” you mention, but both Ukraine and Russia are listed as signatories, and the language does seem to me to cover this exact situation:
It says “medical supplies”, without reference to humanitarian aid, and clearly stressing in “any way associated with”. A “red cross” is also a recognized emblem. I can appreciate how “humanitarian aid” can be narrowly defined as medical supplies under direct control and chain-of-custody of the Red Cross Organization and doesn’t apply to random medkits. But I can’t see how this language above would not apply.
Or is it the case that this would be a crime, committed during war, but not a war crime? How does that work? Does it have to be a violation of a specific Geneva Convention® version to count as a war crime, and not just any UN war-related convention?
I responded above I hope that provides enough. Though I didn’t speak to article a).
It may sound like a legal cop-out but some countries make a distinction between “The Red Cross” and “a red Cross”. It’s a weird one. Probably requires more scrutiny.
And as to your question of “Would this be a crime committed in war?” Or “A war crime?” That’s where lots of legalese comes in. It may be that one nation sees it as a crime where one doesn’t. Or the UN finds it a war crime but another organisation doesn’t or is a partial signatory or conscious observer and so on.
This is then something I understand is moved into the restitution phase post war where both nations sit at the table and dole out various legal requirements, PW transfers and the likes. Like a two sided lawsuit but instead of just money it’s money and human lives.
Which is nice.