This would be a good argument if Europeans were actually interested in the actual law, or in the real world. They aren’t.
I live in Brussels, and I know very well that international law clearly states that non-uniformed combatants of any kind have zero protection from anything. They are not protected from summary execution. They are not protected from capture, torture, …
The accords even say that any civilian casualties are acceptable if they resulted from any action against non-uniformed combatants, if it is not easy to make the distinction between combatants and non-combatants based on the uniform the combatants are supposed wearing. (and there has to be some measure of proportional response : no hunting bin laden with atom bombs)
Any nation-state is perfectly at liberty, according to international law, to drop an bombs on any city, as long as the intent is to kill terrorists, and this is considered by his superiors to be a reasonable action.
Furthermore, judgement on these matters can, and should, only take place by the commander in the field, or any of his superiors IN THE FIELD. No external judge has any basis international law to do anything at all after the fact.
But all this, while taught in every European law department by professors who stand thoroughly behind these principles (especially the older ones), but it just doesn’t matter.
The international court nevertheless exists, judges, and everybody can feel smug and superior. That there is no law behind it, that normal procedures of proof are not followed, etc … nobody cares. And everybody has the strong opinion that law is supposed to be whatever they “feel” is right.
There is no recognizable “international law” that is invoked here. It’s just that European leftists have renamed the concept of “my personal feelings” to “the law”. Just like their American version seems to have done.
