Perfidy

Last updated
The use of the Trojan Horse by the Greeks in the Trojan War has been described by modern sources as an ancient example of perfidy. Giovanni Domenico Tiepolo - The Procession of the Trojan Horse in Troy - WGA22382.jpg
The use of the Trojan Horse by the Greeks in the Trojan War has been described by modern sources as an ancient example of perfidy.

In the context of war, perfidy is a form of deceptive tactic where one side pretends to act in good faith, such as signaling a truce (e.g., raising a white flag), but does so with the deliberate intention of breaking that promise. The goal is to trick the enemy into lowering their guard, such stepping out of cover to accept a supposed surrender, only to exploit their vulnerability.

Contents

Perfidy constitutes a breach of the laws of war and so is a war crime, as it degrades the protections and mutual restraints developed in the interest of all parties, combatants and civilians.

Geneva Conventions

Perfidy is specifically prohibited under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 , which states:

Article 37. – Prohibition of perfidy

  1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
    1. The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
    2. The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
    3. The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
    4. The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
  2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts that are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

Article 38. – Recognized emblems

  1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
  2. It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization.

Article 39. – Emblems of nationality

  1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
  2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
  3. Nothing in this Article or in Article 37, paragraph 1(d), shall affect the existing generally recognized rules of international law applicable to espionage or to the use of flags in the conduct of armed conflict at sea.

History

Disapproval of perfidy was part of the customary laws of war long before the prohibition of perfidy was included in Protocol I. For example, in the 1907 Hague Convention IV – The Laws and Customs of War on Land, Article 23 includes:

In addition to the prohibitions provided by special Conventions, it is especially forbidden ... (b) To kill or wound treacherously individuals belonging to the hostile nation or army; ... (f) To make improper use of a flag of truce, of the national flag, or of the military insignia and military uniform of the enemy, as well as the distinctive badges of the Geneva Convention; ...

The Kilmichael Ambush (1921), part of the Irish War of Independence, was the scene of a notorious act of alleged perfidy. 36 members of the Irish Republican Army ambushed a truck carrying 18 Auxiliary Division officers. IRA leader Tom Barry claimed in his memoirs, Guerrilla Days in Ireland , that some of the Auxiliaries shouted, "We surrender, we surrender;" when IRA men stood up from their positions, they were fired upon by other Auxiliaries. This led Barry to not believe the Auxiliaries when, later in the battle, they attempted to surrender: all 18 were shot and left for dead. One Auxiliary escaped but was later captured and killed; another, Frederick Henry Forde, survived with severe injuries and was rescued by British forces. However, some historians have claimed that Barry invented the story of the false surrender in order to justify the killing of the entire unit. [3] [4] [5]

During the Pacific Theatre of World War II, the Imperial Japanese Armed Forces were reported to often disguise their installations and transportation with protective signs such as the red cross, booby-trap their dead and wounded and to fake surrenders or injuries to lure Allied troops into a trap then surprise-attack them. One example of supposed perfidy was the "Goettge Patrol" during the early days of the Guadalcanal Campaign in 1942. Confusion regarding a possible surrender of Japanese troops came about due to a sighting of what the Americans believed to be a "white flag" along with faulty intelligence from a captured, drunken Japanese officer. This resulted in more than 20 US combat deaths from the Japanese soldiers the Americans assumed would surrender. It has been asserted that the incident, along with many other perfidious actions of the Japanese throughout the Pacific War, led to an Allied tendency to shoot dead or wounded Japanese soldiers, those who were attempting to surrender and not to take POWs as readily as they might other enemy soldiers. [6] [7] [8]

At the Dachau Trials, the issue of whether the donning of enemy uniforms to approach the enemy without drawing fire was within the laws of war was established under international humanitarian law at the trial in 1947 of the planner and commander of Operation Greif, Otto Skorzeny. He was found not guilty by a US military tribunal of a crime by ordering his men into action in US uniforms. He had passed on to his men the warning of German legal experts that if they fought in US uniforms, they would be breaking the laws of war. During the trial, a number of arguments were advanced to substantiate this position and that the German and US militaries seem to be in agreement on it. In its judgement, the tribunal noted that the case did not require that the tribunal make findings other than those of guilty or not guilty and so no safe conclusion could be drawn from the acquittal of all accused. [9] The tribunal also emphasized the difference between using enemy uniforms in espionage versus combat. [10]

Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in 2022, Russian soldiers have been accused of perfidy on numerous occasions, including the Makiivka surrender incident. [11]

Israeli forces have been accused of perfidy during the Israel-Hamas war by among others former executive director of Human Rights Watch Kenneth Roth and Dr. Aurel Sari, an associate professor of public international law at the University of Exeter and a fellow at the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe. [12]

See also

Related Research Articles

<span class="mw-page-title-main">War crime</span> Individual act constituting a violation of the laws of war

A war crime is a violation of the laws of war that gives rise to individual criminal responsibility for actions by combatants in action, such as intentionally killing civilians or intentionally killing prisoners of war, torture, taking hostages, unnecessarily destroying civilian property, deception by perfidy, wartime sexual violence, pillaging, and for any individual that is part of the command structure who orders any attempt to committing mass killings including genocide or ethnic cleansing, the granting of no quarter despite surrender, the conscription of children in the military and flouting the legal distinctions of proportionality and military necessity.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Unlawful combatant</span> Person who engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war

An unlawful combatant, illegal combatant or unprivileged combatant/belligerent is a person who directly engages in armed conflict in violation of the laws of war and therefore is claimed not to be protected by the Geneva Conventions. The International Committee of the Red Cross points out that the terms "unlawful combatant", "illegal combatant" or "unprivileged combatant/belligerent" are not defined in any international agreements. While the concept of an unlawful combatant is included in the Third Geneva Convention, the phrase itself does not appear in the document. Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to prisoner of war status. There are other international treaties that deny lawful combatant status for mercenaries and children.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Law of war</span> International regulations of warfare

The law of war is a component of international law that regulates the conditions for initiating war and the conduct of hostilities. Laws of war define sovereignty and nationhood, states and territories, occupation, and other critical terms of law.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Combatant</span> Person who takes a direct part in the hostilities of an armed conflict

Combatant is the legal status of a person entitled to directly participate in hostilities during an armed conflict, and may be intentionally targeted by an adverse party for their participation in the armed conflict. Combatants are not afforded immunity from being directly targeted in situations of armed conflict and can be attacked regardless of the specific circumstances simply due to their status, so as to deprive their side of their support.

An unconditional surrender is a surrender in which no guarantees, reassurances, or promises are given to the surrendering party. It is often demanded with the threat of complete destruction, extermination or annihilation.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">White flag</span> Symbol with different meanings throughout history and depending on the locale

White flags have had different meanings throughout history and depending on the locale.

The French ruse de guerre, sometimes literally translated as ruse of war, is a non-uniform term; generally what is understood by "ruse of war" can be separated into two groups. The first classifies the phrase purely as an act of military deception against one's opponent; the second emphasizes acts against one's opponent by creative, clever, unorthodox means, sometimes involving force multipliers or superior knowledge. The term stratagem, from Ancient Greek strategema, is also used in this sense.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Striking the colors</span> To haul down a flag to indicate surrender

Striking the colors—meaning lowering the flag that signifies a ship's or garrison's allegiance—is a universally recognized indication of surrender, particularly for ships at sea. For a ship, surrender is dated from the time the ensign is struck.

International humanitarian law (IHL), also referred to as the laws of armed conflict, is the law that regulates the conduct of war. It is a branch of international law that seeks to limit the effects of armed conflict by protecting persons who are not participating in hostilities and by restricting and regulating the means and methods of warfare available to combatants.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Summary execution</span> Execution without trial

In civil and military jurisprudence, summary execution is the putting to death of a person accused of a crime without the benefit of a free and fair trial. The term results from the legal concept of summary justice to punish a summary offense, as in the case of a drumhead court-martial, but the term usually denotes the summary execution of a sentence of death. Under international law, it is a combatant's refusal to accept an opponent's lawful surrender and the combatant's provision of no quarter, by killing the surrendering opponents.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protocol I</span> 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Convention

Protocol I is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian victims of international war, including "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes". In practice, Additional Protocol I updated and reaffirmed the international laws of war stipulated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to accommodate developments of warfare since the Second World War (1937–1945).

<span class="mw-page-title-main">False flag</span> Covert operation designed to deceive

A false flag operation is an act committed with the intent of disguising the actual source of responsibility and pinning blame on another party. The term "false flag" originated in the 16th century as an expression meaning an intentional misrepresentation of someone's allegiance. The term was originally used to describe a ruse in naval warfare whereby a vessel flew the flag of a neutral or enemy country in order to hide its true identity. The tactic was initially used by pirates and privateers to deceive other ships into allowing them to move closer before attacking them. It later was deemed an acceptable practice during naval warfare according to international maritime laws, provided the attacking vessel displayed its true flag before commencing an attack.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Surrender (military)</span> Giving up control over territory or resources to another power

Surrender, in military terms, is the relinquishment of control over territory, combatants, fortifications, ships or armament to another power. A surrender may be accomplished peacefully or it may be the result of defeat in battle. A sovereign state may surrender following defeat in a war, usually by signing a peace treaty or capitulation agreement. A battlefield surrender, either by individuals or when ordered by officers, normally results in those surrendering becoming prisoners of war.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protocol III</span> 2005 treaty

Protocol III is a 2005 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. Under the protocol, the protective sign of the Red Crystal may be displayed by medical and religious personnel at times of war, instead of the traditional Red Cross or Red Crescent symbols. People displaying any of these protective emblems are performing a humanitarian service and must be protected by all parties to the conflict.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Kilmichael ambush</span> IRA ambush of 1920 during the Irish War of Independence

The Kilmichael ambush was an attack carried out on 28 November 1920 by the Irish Republican Army (IRA) near the village of Kilmichael, County Cork, during the Irish War of Independence. Thirty-six local IRA volunteers commanded by Tom Barry killed sixteen members of the Royal Irish Constabulary's Auxiliary Division. The Kilmichael ambush was politically as well as militarily significant. It occurred one week after Bloody Sunday and marked an escalation in the IRA's campaign.

Protective signs are legally protected symbols to be used during an armed conflict to mark persons and objects under the protection of various treaties of international humanitarian law. While their essential meaning can be summarized as "don't shoot" or "don't attack", the exact conditions implied vary depending on the respective sign and the circumstances of its use. The form, shape and color of these signs are defined by the rules of international humanitarian law. Usually, they are easy to draw in order to make even an improvised use as easy as possible, and they were chosen to be as concise, recognizable and visible as possible under all circumstances.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Panzer Brigade 150</span> Military unit

Panzer Brigade 150 or SS Panzer Brigade 150 was a formation of the German Army during World War II that was formed to take part in the Ardennes offensive. It was unusual in that it was formed from all parts of the German Armed Forces; the 2,500 men in the brigade were formed from 1,000 from the Heer, 500 from the Waffen SS, 800 from the Luftwaffe and 200 from the Kriegsmarine. It was tasked with the capture of the bridges at Amay, Engis and Huy. The Brigade is known for including English-speaking members wearing American Army uniforms to cause disruption and disinformation behind the American lines. The Brigade was also issued captured Allied equipment and had two Sherman tanks and German vehicles were modified to resemble Allied armoured vehicles.

The Clonmult ambush took place on 20 February 1921, during the Irish War of Independence.

Operation Greif was a special operation commanded by Waffen-SS commando Otto Skorzeny during the Battle of the Bulge in World War II. The operation was the brainchild of Adolf Hitler, and its purpose was to capture one or more of the bridges over the Meuse river before they could be destroyed. German soldiers, wearing captured British and U.S. Army uniforms and using captured Allied vehicles, were to cause confusion in the rear of the Allied lines. A lack of vehicles, uniforms and equipment limited the operation and it never achieved its original aim of securing the Meuse bridges. Skorzeny's post-war trial set a precedent clarifying article 4 of the Geneva Convention: as the German soldiers removed the Allied uniforms before engaging in combat, they were not to be considered francs-tireurs.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Protected persons</span> Legal term in international humanitarian law

Protected persons is a legal term under international humanitarian law and refers to persons who are under specific protection of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, their 1977 Additional Protocols, and customary international humanitarian law during an armed conflict.

References

  1. ↑ Teillet, Laurence (2024-10-30). "Fourth Annual Symposium on Pop Culture and International Law: "Ruthlessness Is Mercy Upon Ourselves"? Odysseus' War Crimes in EPIC: The Musical". Opinio Juris . Retrieved 2024-12-25.
  2. ↑ Solis, Gary D., ed. (2010), "Ruses and Perfidy", The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, pp. 420–435, ISBN   978-1-107-75961-9 , retrieved 2024-12-25
  3. ↑ "New evidence challenges claim Tom Barry invented story of false surrender at Kilmichael". The Irish Times.
  4. ↑ "Kilmichael Ambush 28 November 1920 | Irish News Archives". www.irishnewsarchive.com.
  5. ↑ Maxwell, Nick (October 28, 2020). "The Kilmichael ambush and the outer limits of Irish historical revisionism".
  6. ↑ Ulrich Straus, The Anguish Of Surrender: Japanese POWs of World War II (excerpts) Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2003 ISBN   978-0-295-98336-3, p. 116
  7. ↑ Galen Roger Perras (2003). Stepping Stones to Nowhere: The Aleutian Islands, Alaska, and American Military Strategy, 1867–1945. University of British Columbia Press. p. 232.
  8. ↑ Kenneth Rose (2007). Myth and the Greatest Generation: A Social History of Americans in World War II. Routledge. p. 264.
  9. ↑ Source: Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals. United Nations War Crimes Commission. Vol. IX, 1949: Trial of Otto Skorzeny and others General Military Government Court of the U.S. zone of Germany 18 August to 9 September 1947
  10. ↑ Koessler, Maxmillan (1959). "International Law on Use of Enemy Uniforms As a Stratagem and the Acquittal in the Skorzeny Case". Missouri Law Review.
  11. ↑ "Videos Suggest Captive Russian Soldiers Were Killed at Close Range". The New York Times. 20 November 2022. Archived from the original on 26 November 2022.
  12. ↑ Schwarz, Jon (2024-01-31). "Here Are the Laws Plausibly Broken by Israel in Its Raid on a West Bank Hospital". The Intercept. Retrieved 2024-08-13.
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.