Did the benefits of the Geneva Convention outweigh the harms?

Asked by: Jonbonbon
  • Any protection is better than no protection

    Even though most of the agreed terms are unaplicable nowadays, It majorly reduces the fatality rate as well as increases the morale of troops. It is vital but should be improved in the future. It also supports the defense of citizens, Something very important. For sure it is mandatory and vital.

  • Some thoughtful convention is better than none.

    One is bigger than Zero.
    Preventing one form of torture is better than remaining silent about it.
    To suggest that there need to be limits is better than to allow the idea of no limits.
    Where is the proof that the current convention has actually encouraged any form of immoral and inhumane treatment that would not have existed otherwise.

  • It makes countries weak.

    The Geneva convention limits the way governments can defend themselves by limiting the munition and weapons they can use. If a country cant defend itself because of a convention thy may not adhere to the convention and do things that should be outlawed like torture. The Geneva conventions must be more loose.

  • No it did not

    No the Geneva Convention did not outweigh the harm in my opinion because it was an attempt to come to mutual a understanding between enemies during wartime with as far agreeing on certain rules of war that would have set the bar for human rights so to speak by protecting prisoners of war and civilians.

  • War being regulated

    Only those who are moral, infantile, and weak want to impose rules on war. In war, what happens if your opponent doesn't follow the regulations? Your going to send them to jail? I don't think so because you are already at the point where you want to kill each other. Regulations should desired to prevent harm to innocent people. But that is where the regulations should end.

Leave a comment...
(Maximum 900 words)
No comments yet.