I also wonder why the International Community, including Obama, have not gone that route....having let this Civil War drag on for Two Years without any serious effort to bring it to a halt.
There have been plenty of reports of atrocities by both sides in this and no real hand wringing over those.
I wonder why the International Red Cross have not been involved in confirming the treatment of the Wounded and Prisoners and worked to ensure they are being rendered humane treatment?
Is it neither side takes Prisoners and do not treat the other sides Wounded when they take possession of the battlefield thus no need for the Red Cross to do what they normally do in situations like this?
Obama made a big point about the WMD Treaty the Syrians did not sign onto....why not the Geneva Accords on treatment of Prisoners and Wounded?
Which treaties and rules must the parties to a non-international armed conflict respect?
The parties to non-international armed conflicts are at minimum required to comply with Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions and with rules of customary IHL. These rules guarantee humane treatment to each person that finds him- or herself in the power of the enemy and require that persons wounded in the hostilities, including wounded enemy fighters, be collected and cared for without discrimination.
The outbreak of an armed conflict has significant consequences on the legal obligations of those involved in the fighting, especially regarding their use of force. Indeed, IHL permits a far greater degree of force against lawful targets, though within strict limits aimed at protecting civilians, than what is allowed in situations of violence other than armed conflict.
Among the rules that the parties to an armed conflict must respect when conducting hostilities, there is the prohibition of direct attacks against civilians; the prohibition of indiscriminate attacks; the obligation to respect the principle of proportionality in attack; and the obligation to take all feasible precautions in planning and executing military operations so as to avoid as far as possible civilian casualties.
What happens if the parties to a non-international armed conflict do not respect their obligations under IHL?
Each party to an armed conflict is required to respect and ensure respect for IHL by all those acting on its instructions, or under its direction or control. It must be emphasized that each party must respect IHL even of its adversary does not; in other words, the obligation to respect IHL does not depend on reciprocity.
As regards serious violations of IHL occurring in non-international armed conflicts – also known as war crimes – States must criminally prosecute persons suspected of committing such violations. Under certain conditions, alleged war criminals may also be referred to the International Criminal Court.
I should stress that the ICRC, in keeping with its special status under international law and as a neutral and independent humanitarian organization, does not in any way get involved in the investigation and trials of war crimes, this being the sole responsibility of States.
In a non-international armed conflict, are captured enemy fighters considered prisoners of war?
No. The term "prisoner of war" refers to a special status afforded by the Third Geneva Convention to captured enemy soldiers ("combatants") in international armed conflicts only. Prisoners of war cannot be prosecuted for acts that are lawful under IHL (for example, for having attacked enemy forces). In contrast, in a non-international armed conflict, IHL does not prevent the prosecution of captured rebel fighters for the mere fact of having taken up arms, although IHL encourages governments to grant the broadest possible amnesties at the end of an armed conflict, except for persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes.
If armed groups can be party to an armed conflict, doesn’t this give them a form of legitimacy they don’t deserve?
As is recalled in Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions, the mere fact that an armed group – be it labelled "criminal," "freedom fighters," "terrorist" or otherwise – is party to an armed conflict does not give it any particular status under IHL. It does, however, create legal obligations for the armed group, as for any party to an armed conflict – in particular, the obligation to ensure that its members respect IHL at all times.
But the application of IHL does not affect the sovereignty of a State or a government's right to suppress rebellion through armed force and to prosecute insurgents under its own laws.
The sole objective of IHL is to minimize suffering in armed conflict. It regulates only how the fighting takes place, and not why it occurs. In internal armed conflicts in particular, IHL imposes obligations on each side without regard to the legitimacy of those taking part in the fighting, which is governed by other bodies of law.