What are War Crimes?

Ben Roberts-Smith was once a recipient of the Victoria Cross for Australia, lionized as a hero for his military achievements in Afghanistan. However, the tide turned completely the moment he was arrested at Sydney Airport on Tuesday morning after a flight from Brisbane. He currently stands accused of committing war crimes during his service and could potentially face life imprisonment.

At a time of high tension between the United States and Iran, this major scandal involving a renowned Australian soldier raises a critical question: what exactly are war crimes?

The Fall of Roberts-Smith

Roberts-Smith joined the Australian Army in 1996 at the age of eighteen. From then until his discharge in 2013, he participated in various military operations spanning Iraq, Fiji, and Afghanistan. These honors made him one of Australia’s most highly decorated soldiers, once regarded as a national hero with accolades including the Victoria Cross, the Medal for Gallantry, and the Commendation for Distinguished Service.

However, prior to this year’s trial, Roberts-Smith had been under scrutiny since 2017 regarding reports that he had killed a teenager suspected of spotting his patrol. In 2018, The Age, The Sydney Morning Herald, and The Canberra Times published a series of articles alleging his involvement in war crimes, including the murder of civilians and ordering subordinates to execute captives. These allegations included kicking a handcuffed man off a cliff before ordering a soldier to shoot him, as well as ordering the execution of an elderly man and a disabled man—Roberts-Smith allegedly even permitted other soldiers to use the disabled man’s prosthetic leg as a celebratory drinking vessel. Despite Roberts-Smith’s attempts to sue for defamation, the court found substantial evidence supporting the truth of these claims.

While Roberts-Smith attempted to use the defamation suit to overturn the accusations, his claims were dismissed. The subsequent prosecution and trial will now determine if he will be sentenced to life imprisonment.

The Terrors of War and Related Crimes

It is shocking to many that a national hero from a democratic, civilized country like Australia could commit such atrocities against unarmed civilians. Yet, the reality is that war crimes are not a new occurrence.

The general definition of war crimes involves willful killing, torture, taking hostages, and the intentional targeting of civilians during armed conflicts. Based on the actions described above, Roberts-Smith has regrettably violated several of these rules, such as harming elderly, captive, or disabled civilians, and is thus being judged by the court.

As uncomfortable as it is to admit, nearly every nation—whether communist or capitalist, Eastern or Western—has been linked to war crimes at some point. Some cases, such as the Nanjing Massacre conducted under Lieutenant General Hisao Tani, General Iwane Matsui, and Prince Asaka, are so overt that the perpetrators were historically condemned and punished. However, when nations use excuses like “not targeting settlements directly” or justify bombings by citing the “tyranny” of another nation, we often fail to apply the label of war crimes to similar atrocities.

The Current Political Climate

Today, similar disasters are repeating in the contemporary age. The difference is that nations now employ various tactics to avoid being caught in the direct manner Roberts-Smith was. As most definitions of war crimes were established in the 20th century, they are increasingly failing to keep pace with the evolving excuses used by modern politicians.

For instance, U.S. President Donald Trump, in an effort to force Iran to reopen the Strait of Hormuz, not only set deadlines for infrastructure strikes but also threatened to target power plants and bridges nationwide. This “maximum pressure” has resulted in humanitarian disasters, including the interruption of electricity and water. Reports indicate that thousands of civilians have died in airstrikes, including the accidental bombing of non-military targets like schools. Furthermore, long-standing economic sanctions have led to the collapse of the healthcare system, leaving innocent patients and the poor as pawns in a political game. Meanwhile, Trump has repeatedly deflected responsibility, claiming all bombings of innocents were accidental, even as the civilian death toll in Iran continues to rise.

Additionally, Russia’s ongoing military operations in Ukraine have been widely condemned for expanding attacks on population centers and critical infrastructure, separating countless Ukrainians from their families. Similarly, the long-standing conflict between Israel and Palestine—involving the destruction of neighborhoods and the recent passage of a death penalty law—has sparked international concern and anger regarding the actions of the Israeli government and Benjamin Netanyahu, with some labeling them as racist or even genocidal.

Why, then, have these actions not faced the same judicial scrutiny by the United Nations or other governments as crimes committed by individuals? Why does this double standard exist, and why has the definition of war crimes not been updated to ensure governments are held responsible for the bombing of unarmed civilians?

Worst of all, what if one nation eventually monopolizes military power, launching weapons and deploying troops without consequence? Would the laws of war crimes become extinct, leaving innocents permanently in harm’s way? Therefore, we must recognize that if the definition of war crimes fails to evolve alongside modern warfare, we risk entering an era of unchecked aggression where the protection of the innocent becomes a relic of the past.

The “Self” at the Center

Today, the entire globe sits under the shadow of war. Those who initiate conflict—whether it is Putin leading the Russian invasion of Ukraine, Netanyahu enacting the blockade of Gaza to hunt Hamas, or Trump attacking Iran over nuclear disarmament—all believe they have “rational” justifications for war. Yet, in the pursuit of these wars, they fail to consider the fundamental right to life of the people living in those nations. We find that they are much like Roberts-Smith: they commit war crimes unacceptable to the world simply because they focus on their own interests, treating the existence of the “enemy” population as non-existent.

For Putin, the idea of national rejuvenation or state honor blinds him to the large-scale death and suffering of both Russian soldiers and Ukrainians. For Netanyahu, a sense of national pride and the goal of curbing Hamas terrorism leads to discrimination against Palestinians, resulting in many deaths under unjust conditions. For the Iranian government, the focus is on proving their stance to the U.S., even as their own civilians die regularly and remain isolated from the outside world. As for Trump, the goal is to eliminate the threat of Iranian nuclear weapons and declare his distaste for “tyranny,” even if this is achieved at the expense of the Iranian people.

With great power comes great responsibility—a principle that applies to everyone from military personnel to government leaders. Can those in power exercise their authority properly without killing those they perceive as enemies? Looking at the world today, the answer remains deeply worrying.