Geneva Turns 60 Years Old

12345
RSS Feeds
August 12, 2009
3:18
The 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions has highlighted the flagrant disregard for the treaty and raised questions about its applicability to modern warfare.
YOU NEED FLASH TO VIEW THIS VIDEO
No Photoltrdze
August 15, 2009
05:23 PM
I find it disheartening that beyond even the Geneva Convention...we still perpetuate the most archaic form of diplomacy...warfare! Does it not seem extremely contradictory to even question the outcomes of war and the humanity of that...when war itself is the lack of all humanity????
No PhotoKathryn Hadley
August 14, 2009
05:43 AM
The nature of warfare has significantly changed over the past 60 years, which implies that the Geneva Conventions may need to be revised. But is there any point in revising them if they are violated pretty consistently? Guatanomo Bay prison, Darfur, the invasion of Georgia... To me the key question is when have the coventions not been violated in the conflicts of the past 60 years? But how is it possible to enforce them?
Here is a brief history of the Geneva Coventions, which may help to understand the challenges of today - http://historytodaymagazine.blogspot.com/2009/08/60th-anniversary-of-geneva-conventions.html
Sarah CanaveseSarah Canavese
August 13, 2009
06:54 PM
I find it really interesting to see what people are saying about the Geneva Convention. We, and I use this term loosely, are a group of people worldwide who SHOULD be more humanitarian. But I also agree with what others are saying. War is war, and there is nothing that we can do to stop it from happening. (Of course in my world, the one I prefer to live in, there is no war and everyone hugs!)
What we need to do is really look at what the convention says. Would it be more productive for us now to get a new laws put into it, or should it just stay the same? Cause we ARE better than insurgents, we have choices, and we CHOOSE to be better than that. So, maybe what we need is to revamp the convention and make it a little harsher, so that some of the horrendous things happening now, might now in the future.
IndigoIndigo
August 13, 2009
04:36 PM
I don't really understand the Geneva Convention. If someone breaks, it, what do you do? Any discipline would be hypocritical. I see the Geneva Convention in the same light as the idealistic criminalization of war. It's a nice idea, but really has little basis in reality. As for keeping citizens out of war, I think that is unrealistic as well. Minutemen were crucial in the Revolutionary War and I think we need to bring them back to boost our national security. Overall, it's the Geneva Convention that's deeply unhelpful. We need to prepare for the worst when facing the worst humanity has to offer. And they won't play by our rules.
Jessi StaffordJessi Stafford
August 13, 2009
04:12 PM
Absolutely the conventions should be regulated more heavily, but if these rebel groups in smaller countries want to disregard humanitarian doctrine (as they are) no amount of contractual verbage is going to dissuade them. These groups aren't going to cease destruction of civil structures just because the "rules" say so. A heavy hand should come in the form of tangible defense of civil rights.
No PhotoStella
August 13, 2009
04:09 PM
I think that the basis of the convention is great. But with any revisions, we need to be aware of what those draw backs are. I think it could be devastating to see something as simple as wording to be what allows some to skate by the consequences of the Geneva Convention.
EDITOR'S PICK|MOST POPULAR|MOST RECENT|MOST COMMENTED|HIGHEST RATED

SMART VIDEO SNAPSHOTS

2:37
November 18, 2009
2:36
November 16, 2009
2:48
November 16, 2009

Newsy