Why the Geneva Conventions matter even when they are broken

The Geneva Conventions are a set of four treaties, first agreed in 1949 and added to by later protocols, that set standards for humane treatment in war. They cover the wounded and sick on land and at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians in the hands of an opposing party.

It is common to hear that rules of war are pointless because they are violated. We think that misses how law works. Laws against theft are broken daily, yet they still shape behaviour, provide a standard to judge conduct and give victims and prosecutors a language to use. The same applies here: the conventions create a baseline, make violations identifiable, and give organisations such as the International Committee of the Red Cross a basis to ask for access to detainees and the wounded.

Limits: enforcement depends largely on states' willingness and on international courts that cannot reach everyone. The rules reduce harm; they do not eliminate it.

A useful question: not "does the law stop all abuses?", but "would conduct be worse without a shared standard?"