Introduction
The Five Kage Summit is a pivotal arc within Naruto. During this arc, The Five Kage Summit is convened within the Land of Iron — a historically neutral nation. The five kages, leaders of the major nations, agree to unify their forces to combat the Akatsuki. The Akatsuki, secretly led by Madara Uchiha, has grown from a black ops mercenary group to an organization threatening the stability of the world. After the five nations agree to unite, Sasuke Uchiha, still as a rogue ninja, attacks the five kage with hopes of weakening them. Unfortunately, Sasuke could not weaken the five kage, so the leader of the Akatsuki attempted to have the kage turn over the remaining tailed beasts to complete his plan. The five kage refused to do this, so the leader of the Akatsuki appears to declare war against the nations which starts the Fourth Shinobi World War.
Although this arc sets the stage for the final conflicts within Naruto, there potentially exists some international humanitarian law issues with the summit itself worth exploring. Specifically, this article will do two things: first, it will break down the differences between what international law practitioners call “Geneva Law” and “Hague Law.” It will cover it topically, but a deeper dive from Prof. Kolb at the Lieber Institute at West Point can be found here. Secondly, the article will then apply Hague law and see if the customary international laws of neutrality were violated at the Five Kage Summit.
Differences between Geneva and Hague Law
International humanitarian law attorneys use two different forms of laws, Hague Law and Geneva Law, when dealing with potential issues within the world of armed conflict. Hague law extends from the Hague Conventions in the late 1800s and early 1900s and regulates actions within an armed conflict. Geneva Law extends from the Four Conventions from 1949 and the two Additional Protocols from 1977 and covers how belligerent states in armed conflicts treat individuals removed from armed conflict.
Conceptually, Geneva Law and Hague Law remain separated; unfortunately, there isn’t a clean break between the different realms within modern international treaties and conventions that cover international humanitarian law. They are thrown together in a hodge podge manner leaving the attorney to try and distinguish the two. It is not an easy task. So, how do we tell the difference then between the two types of law? Below are a few approaches that an attorney might use to try and discern the differences.
First, look at the situation at hand. Hague Law is about context and requires us to look at the situation to determine if something is lawful or not. A quick example is determining if something is a legal military object according to Art. 52 and determining if the object has a military use and if destroying it provides a military advantage. We can only determine if it is a lawful target if we have the facts. With Geneva law, there are strict prohibitions that we don’t need context to make a determination that an action is lawful or not e.g. torturing prisoners or attacking hospitals.
Second, we look to the prohibition structure to determine if its negative prohibition or a positive obligation. Hague Law focuses on the way war is waged, so allows a lot of leeway for things to be used to allow warfare to be accomplished. The negative prohibitions come in to say that certain things in warfare can’t be used like expanding bullets or poison on weapons. Otherwise, what isn’t stated is completely fair game. Geneva Law, on the other hand, uses positive obligations to tell us that we must do something like providing food to prisoners and to ensure that prisoners are not publicly humiliated. With this in mind, we will now look to the Five Kage Summit to determine if any issues exist at all.
Neutrality Focus
The Law of Neutrality falls under Hague law as it is rooted in Hague Convention (V) Respecting the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in Case of War on Land (Convention on Neutrality) which was created in 1907 and entered into force in 1910. The text itself is short and is among a collection of conventions that help outline certain prohibitions for state’s during times of armed conflict. The Convention on Neutrality is intentionally specific about what a neutral state is not to permit within its territory and ensures that both neutral state(s) and states’ in conflict respects these prohibitions. Why? First, according to Art. 1 of the Convention on Neutrality, neutral state territory is inviolable which means that the territory is to never be broken or infringed upon. Secondly, broadly interpreted from the Convention on Neutrality, if an alleged neutral state only adhered to these prohibitions for interactions with one state in a conflict and not another, then that state is not neutral. This approach then sets the foundation for understanding the summit.
The Five Kage Summit
The Five Kages agreed to have the summit in the Land of Iron because of its historic neutrality. The Land of Iron has not once participated in any of the Great Ninja Wars and there existed an unwritten rule that the five nations would not engage or meddle with the Land of Iron. Implicitly, this reflects that the Five Nations agree with Art. 1 of the Convention of Neutrality and viewed the Land of Iron’s territory as inviolable. This is crucial because it means that there is no inherent bias towards any of the states who were meeting and that they would be treated all as equals. This allows for us to use the Kage Summit and the states’ actions at the summit to see how states approach honoring neutrality. Below, there will be a few examples from the summit closely examining
The respective nations only sent their leaders and their private guards to the summit which honors Art. 2 which states that belligerent states are forbidden to move troops, war munitions, or supplies through the territory. Although the Leaf Village initially just brought its Kage, a few ninjas belonging to the village, Naruto and Sakura, snuck into the summit which could be argued as a potential violation as they are troops of the state. However, the Leaf leadership could counter this potential issue because they expressly told Naruto and Sakura not to attend the Summit as it would present unnecessary risks due to Naruto containing the strongest tailed beast.
The Land of Iron did not restrict communication of the five nations to their respective members nor put barriers of communication on the participants. If the Land of Iron had restricted or erected barriers, then it would have undermined the goal of unity and would have violated Art. 8 of the treaty. The Land of Iron has to be careful to monitor its treatment to prevent one nation backing out on the basis of alleged preference to one of the other participants. Now, what happens if a fight breaks out?
The Land of Iron’s worst case scenario occurred at the Five Kage Summit. It suffered two separate attacks in a short period of time that prevented quick recovery. The first attack came from Sasuke who sought to take out the raikage. Secondly, arguably the more pivotal, was from Obito who declared the start of the Fourth Great Ninja War after the five Kage refused to agree to his dream of the Infinite Tsukuyomi.
This scenario could have seen the Land of Iron refuse treatment to certain nations based on witnessing their fighting capabilities; however, as a neutral nation who hadn’t fought in previous war, and wasn’t planning to be in this one, provided equal aid to all those who suffered harm from the attacks in accordance to Chapter II of the treaty. Now, some may argue that the Land of Iron failed to protect the individuals in accordance with Art. 1 of Chapter II as they didn’t intern them far from the battle. However, the Land of Iron did the best it could to treat the wounded in accordance to the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Treaty with both battles occurring in quick succession of each other. There wasn’t sufficient time to leave the battlefield nor set up field hospitals. The Land of Iron had to protect itself and all members and did so to the best of its ability.
Conclusion
The Land of Iron reflects the sterling standard for how a neutral state should act in times of armed conflict. The Land of Iron favored no particular state and adhered to both the text and spirit of the Hague Treaty. Although there were some dangerous situations, the Land of Iron did its best to treat all members equally and no violations occurred.
