13

On April 22nd 2022, the state-owned Rossiya 1 TV channel (which is widely seen as a Kremlin mouthpiece) reported that British prime minister Boris Johnson had "threatened to carry out a nuclear strike against Russia, if needed, without consulting Nato". The British prime minister's press office has denied he ever said such a thing. As far as I can find from press sources, this was not a (wilful) misinterpretation or mistranslation of anything he said, but simply a made-up quote.

This made me wonder, do the laws of war say anything about misinformation or psychological warfare? Is it e.g. a war crime to claim that the political or military leaders of the country you are at war with have ordered their troops to surrender, in order to mislead those troops? Is it a war crime to lie about the actions and declared intentions of your enemy to motivate your own troops? Is there in fact anything that binds a country at war to factual representation of their own and their enemy's actions, declarations, capabilities and intentions?

curiouser
  • 131
  • 4
  • 1
    If a military unit lies and says "we surrender," only to ambushes the enemy when they approach, would you consider that misinformation and/or psychological warfare? – cpast Apr 26 '22 at 01:30
  • @cpast That seems pretty far outside traditional definitions of those terms. – bdb484 Apr 26 '22 at 01:41
  • 2
    @cpast : your example is specifically prohibited. However, the question asks whether it's accepted to lie about the decisions, statements, and morals of your enemy. Which is completely different, and is being done all the time (just for an example from the other side, Putin was often quoted of officially laying claim to all the territory of former Tsarist Russia, although he never said that) – vsz Apr 26 '22 at 11:19
  • 2
    "All warfare is based on deception." -- The Art of War, Sun Tzu – Mason Wheeler Apr 26 '22 at 12:30
  • 1
    It feels somewhat relevant that, while the phrasing/context is provocative (and I'm not claiming that Johnson said it), the UK reserving the right to carry out an independent nuclear strike against Russia is just a restatement of basic nuclear policy. See this article (especially the 'No First Use?' section) for a discussion of why no country would ever (say) commit to only retaliating: https://acoup.blog/2022/03/11/collections-nuclear-deterrence-101/ – dbmag9 Apr 26 '22 at 15:41

1 Answers1

8

You have four questions.

This made me wonder, do the laws of war say anything about misinformation or psychological warfare?

Yes, a little. Mostly in the form of specific prohibitions.

Is it e.g. a war crime to claim that the political or military leaders of the country you are at war with have ordered their troops to surrender, in order to mislead those troops?

No, not as far as I could find.

Is it a war crime to lie about the actions and declared intentions of your enemy to motivate your own troops?

No, as far as I could find.

Is there in fact anything that binds a country at war to factual representation of their own and their enemy's actions, declarations, capabilities and intentions?

Yes, but only in a very limited context; indeed, misinformation is explicitly allowed, under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, Article 37, Section 2, which states that "ruses of war" that do not rely upon the protections of the Convention to succeed, including "he use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation" are explicitly allowed.

Some prohibited ruses include feigning protected status(non-combatant, surrendering, neutral party, United Nations, sick/wounded), feigning neutral status*, or feigning being part of the enemy*. (Source, ibid, Article 39).

*Except when conducted as part of naval combat operations(which have their own traditions, and generally allow pretending to be the enemy for purposes of transit, escape, etc. but require to fly one's true colors before taking offensive actions, as well as honoring surrender), and espionage (which is generally treated as a "crime" rather than an "act of war" under international law, when one is not wearing the uniform of one's own forces).

sharur
  • 8,793
  • 27
  • 34
  • Do you have a citation for: "espionage (which is generally treated as a "crime" rather than an "act of war" under international law, when one is not wearing the uniform of one's own forces)."? –  Apr 26 '22 at 09:23
  • note that the UK is not a declared enemy of Russia (in fact even Ukraine is not), nor is the UK a belligerent in this war, so whilst not explicitly stated in he text of the question it may improve this answer to discuss the case of non-belligerent opposed states – Tristan Apr 26 '22 at 09:55
  • @Rick: I do not, as such, beyond a) the aforementioned citation noting that operating under false colors is not a warcrime in the context of espionage, the disavowal of POW status for captured spies, and various nations criminal espionage statues. – sharur Apr 26 '22 at 10:02
  • @Rick believe this is referenced in The Great Escape, when eg Steve McQueen's character points out his (heavily dyed) uniform when he is captured so that he doesn't get shot as a spy. Not saying this makes it factual, just a fun thing! – Muzer Apr 26 '22 at 11:41
  • Do you really mean “pretending to be the enemy” in your last paragraph? – Dale M Apr 26 '22 at 12:34
  • 1
    @DaleM Why not? During WWII, if you were in Germany and trying to get out without being detained, you might steal a German soldier's uniform. – Barmar Apr 26 '22 at 14:03
  • @Tristan Isn't the declaration pretty irrelevant? – user253751 Apr 26 '22 at 16:20
  • @user253751 sure, actual declarations seem to have gone out of fashion and, for the most part the international seems to agree that this doesn't affect people's obligations. The fact the UK is not a belligerent (whether declared or not) definitely is though – Tristan Apr 27 '22 at 09:17
  • @Rick I found the citation (it's not explict) in Article 39: 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. https://www.ohchr.org/en/instruments-mechanisms/instruments/protocol-additional-geneva-conventions-12-august-1949-and – sharur Jul 24 '22 at 23:20
  • @DaleM: Yes, "pretending to be the enemy". That's how I interpreted Article 39, Section 2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations. – sharur Jul 24 '22 at 23:22
  • There are also some provisions related to information from or purporting to be from POWs. – ohwilleke Jul 25 '22 at 21:16
  • Regarding the third question - how about misinforming your troops that enemy is not "conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war", thus is not eligible to protection of III GC? – abukaj Oct 13 '22 at 20:19