Solo Leveling: South Korea’s Internationally Lawful Approach to Squashing Ants

By

-

January 2, 2026

Mana_Auras — Sung Jinwoo of Korea v. The Ant King

Introduction

Solo Leveling is the embodiment of all the tropes of a massive multiplayer online role playing game being represented in real life. Here, in Solo Leveling’s world, each country has guilds composed of members ranked based upon their innate skills and these individuals are then classified based on their skills into specific jobs to serve the interests of the guild. The guilds raid “dungeons” that randomly appear around a country in order to obtain valuable resources. The more powerful the composition of its members and the higher amount of resources the guild has, the higher ranked and domestically powerful the guild becomes. These dungeons are ranked based upon difficulty as they contain monsters that can actively kill those that enter. Therefore, each country’s government works in concert with the country’s guilds to safeguard those that enter and to monitor the creatures to ensure they don’t escape and harm civilians.

Solo Leveling focuses on South Korean guilds and dungeons. There are five central guilds that actively compete for both the resources emerging from the dungeons and for the highest ranking people available on the market. At the outset, the guilds engage in conflict independent from the South Korean government yet as time goes on they begin to work in concert to achieve similar goals. In the second season, the most powerful South Korean guilds form what one may call an international coalition with Japan’s most powerful guild – the Draw Sword Guild – to eliminate a common threat with the support of the South Korean government at Jeju Island.

At its surface, this joint operation seems straightforward – South Korea and Japan join forces to fight a common enemy – the Ants. Yet, this operation is constrained by invisible forces, international law, and for it to occur involves a lot of moving pieces to ensure that the constraints are not violated for the sake of victory. The goal of this article is to explain these constraints, albeit in a condensed manner, and their importance and to then apply them to the operation to see if anything was violated. To do this, we need to understand the types of conflicts that exist under international law. We then need to ask what type of conflict is occurring in Solo Leveling’s Jeju Raid and then apply the proper legal framework. Second, we need to know what the South Korean and Japanese guilds are classified as under international law to see how they fit into the framework. Lastly, after knowing the prior, we have to ask did the actions of the guilds violate any international laws when participating in the raid and if so, how do we hold the actors accountable for their actions?

Law that Governs International Conflict

International law is a broad field and it covers things from armed conflicts to economics. When it comes to armed conflicts, there are two subsets of international law that exist – jus ad bellum and jus in bello – each covering distinct aspects of armed conflict. Jus ad bellum refers to the specific conditions when states can engage in armed conflict and use lawful force. These can be found in the United Nations Charter of 1945. Jus in bello regulates how people fight in armed conflicts with the goal of minimizing harm to civilians and suffering to others. We commonly call the latter International Humanitarian Law (IHL) and when conflicts arise it becomes lex specialis meaning it is where we turn to first to see which rules apply to the situation. Therefore, we will use IHL as the framework to guide how we analyze the guilds and their actions in Solo Leveling.

Within IHL, there are two types of armed conflicts: international armed conflict (IACs) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC). IAC involves two separate states fighting each other – think Ukraine vs. Russia. NIAC is when a state(s) are involved in fighting a non-state armed group – think U.S. v. ISIS. The four Geneva Conventions and the two Additional Protocols govern both IACs and NIACs with more rules and protections being afforded to IACs than NIACs. Specifically, the four Geneva Conventions cover IACs and the Additional Protocols cover NIACs. Here, a NIAC is occurring. We have two states engaged in armed conflict – South Korea and Japan – against a non state armed group – literally a group of vey powerful Ants who are occupying Jeju Island. Therefore, the Additional Protocols take center stage in informing on the rules that apply and the protections that must be afforded.

Here there be Mercenaries?

Traditionally, someone might think that to become a mercenary all you need is to be independent from a government and pursue things for money. However, IHL adds a bit more requirements to get this title. Specifically, Article 47 of Additional Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions provides six stringent requirements to be recognized as a mercenary. To be considered a mercenary, the individual(s):

(a) is specially recruited locally or abroad in order to fight in an armed conflict;

(b) does, in fact, take a direct part in the hostilities;

(c) is motivated to take part in the hostilities essentially by the desire for private gain and, in fact, is promised, by or on behalf of a Party to the conflict, material compensation substantially in excess of that promised or paid to combatants of similar ranks and functions in the armed forces of that Party;

(d) is neither a national of a Party to the conflict nor a resident of territory controlled by a Party to the conflict;

(e) is not a member of the armed forces of a Party to the conflict; and

(f) has not been sent by a State which is not a Party to the conflict on official duty as a member of its armed forces.

Although, Article 1 of The International Convention Against the Recruitment, Use, Financing, and Training Mercenaries uses the same basis as Article 47, the crucial difference is it doesn’t require a party to take direct part in hostilities to have this designation. Article 3 of this convention criminalizes individuals themselves who are designated mercenaries and either directly participate in hostilities or commits a concerted offense. Lastly, Article 5 expands this and lays the groundwork that states are prohibited from engaging in any positive involvement with mercenaries.

Generally speaking, all the guilds in Solo Leveling would normally be considered as mercenary organizations. They operate independently from all governments as private entities, they are not parties to IACs/NIACs, they are driven purely by profit, and they operate both inside their respective countries and sometimes others outside of conflicts. Art. 47 makes very clear that if a mercenary is directly participating in hostilities in a conflicts, they are not afforded the protections if captured that are extended to those classified as prisoners of war or civilian. The mercenaries can then be prosecuted at the domestic or international level for war crimes. However, the South Korean and Japanese guilds involvements in the Jeju Island Raid changes things.

While involved with the Jeju Raid, the South Korean Guilds are not mercenaries. The South Korean Guilds meet most of the stringent requirements because they have been locally recruited, they are involved in the NIAC against the insects on Jeju Island, are not part of the Armed forces, they pursued the action based on promises of material gain from South Korea’s government, and they have not been sent by a state who is not a party to the conflict. However, the Guild’s fail because they are composed of South Korean nationals who are residents of a party to the conflict — South Korea. South Korea’s military has independently been fighting the Ants and failing and has turned to the guilds for their capabilities. Therefore, the South Korean Guilds have lost the title of mercenary for this specific threshold.

S Rank Members of Japan’s Draw Sword Guild

The Japanese Guild – Draw Sword Guild – does not meet the stringent threshold to be considered a mercenary organization. At first blush, this guild meets almost all of the requirements laid out in Article 47 e.g. Japan is not a part of the conflict but the guild members are and the guild members were not sent to South Korea as a part of Japan’s official armed forces, the guild is foreign, the members are not nationals of South Korea or live in the disputed territory, and are not part of Japan’s armed forces. What causes the Draw Sword Guild to fail this classification in this instance is that its incentive to participate in the raid was not purely profit or personal gain. It was motivated for self-preservation of its home country. Jeju exists close to Japan and the failure to eliminate the forces could threaten Japan’s future safety and therefore the guild’s own safety. The Draw Sword Guild recognized this at the higher level talks and combined its efforts with that of South Korean guilds to nullify a threat before it threatened the entire region.

If both are not mercenaries then what would they be?

Private Military Security Corporations

The closest analog for the guilds then in this instance would be as private military security corporations (PMSC). States have begun to use these organization’s in IACs and NIACs so the Montreaux Document was created to help articulate the legal obligations for PMSCs. Adopting the Montreaux Document, the International Code of Conduct for Private Security Service Providers (the code) offers a foundational framework in which the International Code of Conduct Association (ICOCA) applies to PMSCs globally. The Montreaux Document highlights that when a state hires a PMSC, the state is obligated to inform the PMSC of its IHL obligations and limitations. The Code builds upon these obligations by detailing how PMSC personnel must work within the state’s respective use of force limits and other international treaty obligations. The Code and the Montreaux Document notes that PMSCs are considered civilians under IHL and get those respective protections until they participate directly in hostilities except when in situations of self-defense. If they participate in hostilities, they lose their protections and can be prosecuted for war crimes both internationally and nationally. Further, if the PMSC violates IHL, then those actions are imputed upon the hiring state.

Both the South Korean guilds and Draw Sword Guild are considered PMSCs for the purpose of the Jeju Raid. Since the South Korean government contracted both the South Korean guilds and the Draw Sword Guild from Japan for the Jeju Raid, South Korea bears all responsibility for any IHL violations. For purposes of this article, it is assumed that South Korea had existing legislation that allowed for PMSCs to be incorporated under its standing military in times of crises thus permitting direct participation in hostilities and affords them the standard IHL protections for prisoners of war. Further, it is assumed that South Korea explained the IHL obligations to the guild members when they met on the South Korean warships prior to the raid launching and that the members are aware of their limitations. Further, each of the guilds belongs to their country’s respective hunter association which holds these guilds to a set standard. These associations when acting in concert are akin to ICOCA thus ensuring international legitimacy when handling certain actions.

Criminals or Protected?

Neither the Draw Sword Guilds or the South Korean guilds would be considered criminals under international law because they do not meet the classification of being a mercenary as explained above. As PMSCs, the Guilds are responsible for adhering to the Code and the Montreaux Document and ensuring their actions do not negatively effect the contracting state – South Korea.

The guilds were involved in a NIAC and thus are required to adhere to the rules of the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions. Here, the Jeju Raid was a combined operation between the Japanese and South Korean governments via their guilds. The South Korean guilds were contracted and became under the control of the South Korean armed forces to be the main assaulting force against the Ants on Jeju Island. The Draw Sword guild was contracted to support the Korean guilds who were going after the Queen Ant but did not become directly a part of the South Korean military. The Draw Sword guild served as both a protective force to nullify any escaping insects from the island and to be an initial distraction to allow the assaulting force to pierce the island’s interior.

The raid resulted in no IHL violations. During the conflict, under the direction of the South Korean government, the guilds as PMSCs directly engaged the Ants and were successful in eliminating the encroaching threat without any IHL violations. If a violation had occurred, then South Korea as the contracting state would be held responsible internationally for IHL violations. Therefore, all parties involved in the raid are safe from any form of international or domestic prosecution.

Conclusion

The joint operation between the South Korean and Japanese guilds was a resounding success in more than one way. Strategically, the operation preserved both South Korea and Japan from future invasions from the Ants saving millions of lives. Legally, South Korea remained free from prosecution as no members involved in the Jeju Raid committed any IHL violations. This was able to be accomplished because South Korea: operated under the correct armed conflict legal framework, used its domestic laws to incorporate domestic PMSCs into its armed forces, properly contracted foreign PMSCs, and forced compliance of the PMSCs to IHL to ensure its international obligations under IHL were maintained. These are not easy things to do, but they are necessary to ensure lives are saved and order is maintained during and after armed conflicts.

Iron Clad Neutrality: Potential Neutrality Violations at the Five Kage Summit

By

Gage Dabin

-

September 22, 2024

0

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.

Harmicists: Understanding the Medical Corps in Naruto

By

Gage Dabin

-

March 10, 2024

0

6199625-3159959732-latest — Tsunade and Sakura during the Fourth Great Ninja War

Introduction

For most of Naruto, we are shown that the great nations are constantly involved in conflict. Naruto details that the nations have seen at least three Great Ninja Wars, equivalent to our World Wars, and in the final arc the great nations are embroiled in the Fourth Great Ninja War. Like any nation that fields an army, regardless of size, there will always be some form of medical presence to treat the wounded and dead. In Naruto, this can be found with the presence of the medical corps.

Overtime, medical personnel have developed to become an integral part of any Army and have garnered certain protections as they typically are not involved in fighting. I would say they are fighting adjacent – meaning they can be or are present in the conflict, but are not directly participating in hostilities (DPH). Naruto has shown us that the ninjas in the medical corps can fight just as well or even better than some of the strongest ninjas in other nations.

Throughout this article, the Village Hidden in the Leaves (Hidden Leaf) medical corps will be the subject of comparison to the U.S. Is the U.S. military medical personnel structured differently from Naruto’s Hidden Leaves’ or are the two similar? Also, how we would classify the Hidden Leafs’ medical corps in a conflict? What kinds of protections would they have? If any? Could their actions even be permissible?

Classifying Conflicts and Conflict Participants

Within an armed conflict there are different subsets of populations that have different protections. First, we have combatants which are typically found in international armed conflicts (IAC). Under Common Article 2 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions (GC) IAC occurs when two sovereign states enter an inter-state conflict with one another. An example of this kind of conflict is Russia and Ukraine. To be classified as a combatant, Art. 4 of GCIII states one must: 1) wear arms openly; 2) wear a fixed symbol; 3) adhere to a chain of command; and, 4) adhere to the principles of armed conflict. They get POW status if captured which means they get all the protections the GCs can provide.

A non-international armed conflict (NIAC) occurs when a sovereign state is involved in an armed conflict with a non-state group. Generally, members in a NIAC are unprivileged belligerents and only Common Article 3 (CA3) and Additional Protocol II (AP II) protections will apply. This means the unprivileged belligerents get a much smaller range of protections.

Now, regardless if we have an IAC or NIAC, there are classes of people that must be protected at all times. These are civilians and non-combatants. All the GCs and APs are very clear that civilians are to be protected at all times and that parties to a conflict must ensure that they mitigate harm to them to the best extent possible. Lastly, we have non-combatants e.g. medical and religious personnel. Traditionally, non-combatants receive many protections and if captured they are to perform their specialties without discrimination to those in the detention area. Knowing the different roles will help.

Background of Medical Personnel

Medical personnel are non-combatants and are heavily protected within the GCs. Specifically, medical personnel, performing exclusively medical actions, must be respected and protected at all times. This absolute protection is lost if they engage harmful acts against the enemy. AP I, Art. 15 expands on this protection and applies it to civilian medical personnel. Now, there is no longer a distinction and all are protected. U.S. Department of Defense (DoD) Law of War Manual, para. 4.10.1 does allow for medical personnel to engage in hostilities if it is for self-defense from an unlawful attack. Further, according to U.S. DoD Law of War Manual, para. 4.9.2.2, the U.S. combatant must be designated as a medical personnel to receive the protections. Simply having the training or performing medical actions does not grant a combatant protection.

Parties to the conflict must endeavor to have their civilian and military medical personnel clearly identified. States need to do this because in conflict it would be difficult to distinguish between medical and non-medical personnel and the harming of medical personnel could put the harming party in hot water. Medical personnel are distinguished through the use what the GCs call the distinctive emblem – a red cross emblazoned on a white background. When military medical, and now civilian, personnel are in use they have to have this symbol displayed on flags, on armbands, and all equipment they are using. Attacking anyone or object that is using this symbol constitutes a war crime and is a non-starter.

During times of conflict parties can mutually come together to create hospital zones. These zones are mutually agreed upon as a site to keep wounded and sick outside of the combat zone and will be protected at all times. When these are created, the International Committee of the Red Cross and those states protecting the wounded and sick can work together to make these locations well known.

The Medical Corps

The Hidden Leafs’ medical corps are similar to how some modern states structure their military medical personnel. The Hidden Leafs’ military medical personnel are subdivided into two types: the medic corps and medical-nin. The medic corps are composed of ninjas who primarily are removed from combat and work and sustain hospital facilities; however, they do have the capacity to enter combat. Like the emblazoned red cross, the Hidden Leafs’ military medical personnel have a distinct emblem, the Konaha Medical Team Symbol (Konaha Symbol) that helps denote their designation to ensure protection. The medical-nin are medics assigned to squads to provide medical support when needed during missions. This is similar to combat medics in the U.S. military who provide aid to teammates on the front lines. For the medical-nin and medic corps, there are four laws the Hidden Leafs ’ binds them to if they want to serve in that capacity and they are:

No medic ninja shall ever stop medical treatment until the lives of their party members have come to an end.
No medic ninja shall ever stand on the front lines.
No medic ninja shall ever die until they are the last of their platoon.
Only those medic ninja who have mastered theStrength of a Hundred Techniqueof the ninja art Creation Rebirth are permitted to discard the above-mentioned laws.

For most of Naruto, these laws are adhered to. Specifically, the second clause holds strong weight which is why the conflict arcs don’t see many military medical personnel at the front lines. Now, the fourth law negates the second clause and reads “only those medic ninja who have mastered the Strength of a Hundred Technique of the ninja art Creation Rebirth are permitted to discard the above-mentioned laws.” This really only applies to Tsunade, the creator of these laws, and her student Sakura. It seems to be a bit different from the U.S. approach. Here, almost all military medical ninjas are designated as medical personnel and cannot engage in hostilities. The U.S. applies a more flexible approach as it deploys combat medics who perform both medic and combatant functions without official designation. Naturally, the lack of medical designation and therefore emblem use allows for the combat medics to be attacked. This is a risk that only Tsunade and Sakura share in Naruto.

Removal from Combat

When conflicts erupt, states have an inherent obligation to remove people from the battlefield who are hors de combat. What does this phrase mean? It means “out of the fight” and covers individuals who cannot fight back because they are wounded, sick, dead, who’ve surrendered or been captured. This is a foundational rule to international humanitarian law and is enforced in IACs and NIACs. States need to focus on fighting those who fight back and must protect those who cannot fight back. Generally, states endeavor to remove those deemed hors de combat from the battlefield to areas where they can be protected and receive medical attention. The Hidden Leaf follows this approach too. The easiest example is in Naruto’s final arc where Sakura oversees a military field hospital where the wounded and dead from Madara’s and Obito’s attacks are deposited. The field hospital is removed from the battlefield and all the military medical personnel perform lifesaving actions on all ninjas regardless of the Village they are from. This ensures the medic corps maintains their quasi-neutral function. Further, Sakura’s field hospital displays the Konaha Symbol much like U.S. military hospitals display the Red Cross to ensure it is immune from attacks. Lastly, when a white Zetsu attacks the field hospital only Sakura prepares to engage while the other medical ninjas adhere to the second law and stand down. Now, if this was the U.S. Field hospital medical personnel may be able to defend themselves as an attack on a hospital is unlawful and they would be performing a self-defense action.

Conclusion

At first blush, it would seem that the Hidden Leaf and the U.S.’ approach to military medical personnel are radically different. However, upon closer inspection, the Hidden Leaf approach to structuring the medical corps and the rules imposed upon those ninjas mirrors the U.S.’ format. Both the Hidden Leaf and the U.S. recognize the inherent imperative to have these personnel protected because of their specialized role that they play. Neither the Hidden Leaf or the U.S. wants to violate the rules that they use to govern their actions, because if they do it negates the purpose of having them in the first place. Therefore, the continued application of the laws and strict adherence allows for the protected roles to remain and encourages other states or villages to mirror their actions without fear that their military medical personnel will be harmed.

Ninjas on the Open Water: Understanding Pirates in Boruto – Next Generations

By

Gage Dabin

-

December 9, 2023

0

Introduction

In Boruto: Next Generations, the most recent concluded story arc sees Boruto Uzamaki traveling to and then dealing with the Land of Water’s largest threat to its sovereignty in recent years: the Funato Clan.

The Funato Clan is a small, but mighty clan that exists within the Land of Water’s territory. In the Land of Water, the Funato clan is treated as a pariah because the clan terrorizes the Land of Water on the open sea. It also has a reputation, that is substantiated, for having its members killed early on in their clan membership if they are perceived as possessing some form of “weakness.” This has led the Land of Water to have captured the Funato Clan’s leader to try and prevent larger conflict. This backfired.

Within Boruto’s time in the Land of Water we see the Funato Clan break out their imprisoned leader, see the Funato Clan recompose their forces and then assault the Land of Water. This leads us to ask a few questions. Is the Funato Clan a group of ninjas that are engaged in piracy? If so, does piracy fall under international law and how should the Land of Water approach their actions? Does the actions taken by Funato extend past simple piracy and escalate into a form of armed conflict? If so, what kind of conflict has formed and what are the constraints? This article will answer this question set.

Piracy

https://www.worldhistory.org/article/1813/the-jolly-roger--other-pirate-flags/ — The Jolly Roger – the most famous pirate flag

We know from the show that the Funato Clan terrorizes their fellow citizens on the open water and has generated substantial fear amongst the citizens of the Land of Water. Before we can apply the label of “pirates” to the Funato Clan, we have to see if their actions check off a few boxes. These boxes are provided in Article 101 of The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). The boxes are as follows:

Any illegal acts of violence or detention, or any act of depredation, committed for private ends by the crew or the passengers of a private ship or a private aircraft, and directed:

a. on the high seas, against another ship or aircraft, or against persons or property on board such ship or aircraft;

b. against a ship, aircraft, persons or property in a place outside the jurisdiction of any State;

Any act of voluntary participation in the operation of a ship or of an aircraft with knowledge of facts making it a pirate ship or aircraft; and,
Any act of inciting or of intentionally facilitating an act described in subparagraph (a) or (b).

I will say that the idea of “private ends” within this UNCLOS definition of piracy is at best murky under international law and there is hot debate about if this should be read broadly or very narrow. This article will take the broader path and go with the idea that it represents private interests which can at times include political actions akin to insurgency.

The Funato Clan meets the piracy requirements laid out in Article 101 pretty easily. First, the Funato Clan regularly has its ships attack Land of Water’s ships, private trading companies’ ships, and has attacked Land of Water’s air vessels. These attacks are for the private gain of the Funato Clan as they seek to harm the Land of Water’s economy and to capture ships containing stored goods. Further, these attacks occur on the high seas outside of the jurisdiction of the Land of Water. Lastly, the Funato Clan members were aware of their actions and voluntarily participated in the actions. They are pirates. But, have they become something more?

Evolution of Status

In Boruto we see the Funato Clan evolve from pirates to something even more dangerous – a non-state terrorist organization. How does this happen?

The Funato Clan initially kept its attacks to ships and planes on the high seas with the mission to collect goods to re-establish its organization and maintain its “fearsome” reputation within the Land of Water. However, this shifted when it began to target the Land of Water’s political leadership, other nation’s military members, and attacked small villages within the Land of Water. Further, the Funato Clan seeks to advance political messages via fear and wants to topple the Land of Water’s government by eliminating the Mizukage (equivalent to a Head of State). Lastly, the Funato Clan holds an island that belongs to the Land of Water and uses that as a base of operations. With the Funato Clan now being a non-state terrorist organization, and recognizing that they have taken direct action against the Land of Water, we have to ask…have they created a form of armed conflict under international law?

https://boruto.fandom.com/wiki/Funato_clan?file=Base_Line.png — The Land of Water’s Naval Fleet

Under international humanitarian law (IHL), there are two forms of armed conflict – international armed conflict (IAC) and non-international armed conflict (NIAC). International armed conflict is where we have two sovereign states fight against each other (imagine Russia fighting Ukraine). NIAC is where a sovereign state fights a non-state actor (imagine the U.S. fighting the Taliban). But, at what level do we consider that a conflict is actually occurring? There is no bright line test that we can use to determine this threshold. Instead, practitioners look at the collection of facts to see if the state government due to the level of intensity has to use its armed forces to combat the non-state terrorist organization. Some of the factors practitioners consider are: number, duration, intensity of armed encounters, number of casualties, the kinds of weapons used in the fights, the types of units used in the fights, etc. Here, the Funato Clan has deployed multiple units against the Land of Water’s Mizukage, its private sector, and against multiple civilian villages.

The Funato Clan has used land forces, special forces (the unit used to break the Funato Clan leader out of his cell in prison), and armed naval vessels. The Funato Clan has killed many civilians and military individuals. Safe to say, that an armed conflict is occurring, specifically, a NIAC as the Funato Clan is a non-state terrorist organization fighting a sovereign state – the Land of Water.

When it comes to armed conflicts under IHL, the four Geneva Conventions and the two accompanying additional protocols come into play. However, NIACs do not get the same level of treatment as IACs and a much smaller portion of the Geneva Conventions apply…namely additional protocol two (APII). Here, APII sets the parameters on how the Land of Water can deal with the Funato Clan in terms of protections, targeting, etc. One of the central concerns is what classification would fall upon the Funato Clan during the NIAC because different classifications either provide certain protections and some negate most protections. The classification of members of non-state actors flips between combatants (they get all protections) and unprivileged belligerents (who get the bare minimum of protections) and the debate continues to rage. To be classified as a combatant there are four elements that the members have to meet: they need to carry arms openly, adhere to a chain of command, wear a symbol openly, and follow IHL rules. I would argue that the Funato Clan does not meet this threshold: namely, they fail the final prong as they have openly attacked civilians which is a direct violation of the Fourth Geneva Convention. Therefore, they are unprivileged belligerents who get minimal protections. The Land of Water must therefore hold the Funato Clan accountable for its violations of IHL. But how?

Accountability Measures

The Land of Water has two vehicles where they can hold the Funato Clan accountable: UNCLOS and the Geneva Conventions. First, universal jurisdiction under UNCLOS gives us the means to hold the Funato Clan accountable for their actions as pirates. Universal jurisdiction is the idea that any state can hold the organization, individual accountable because the action(s) committed violate a jus cogens norm, a norm that all states agree should not happen – here, piracy.

The Geneva Conventions allow us to hold them accountable as a non-state terrorist organization. Here, the Land of Water can directly hold them accountable in their national courts because the Funato Clan violated the Geneva Conventions when it attacked and killed civilians, when they attacked government facilities and leaders. The Funato Clan members as unprivileged belligerents in a NIAC do not get absolved for their actions and can and should be held liable to the fullest extent of the Land of Water’s justice system.

Sealing the Sins of The Father: The Hokage’s Choice

By

Gage Dabin

-

December 13, 2022

0

The Beginning

Naruto Uzamaki, the titular character in Naruto, has a monster sealed within him through a sealing jutsu. This monster is what the show calls a “tailed beast.” The tailed beasts are considered demons and are referred to by the number of tails they have attached to them. Generally, the higher the number of the tails on the beast, the more powerful they are. Naruto has the Nine-Tailed Fox sealed within him which turned him into something called a “jinchuriki.” Naruto is not the sole bearer of this title as there are eight others that shoulder a similar burden. Although initially unable to control the imbued powers of the beast, Naruto has come to create a symbiotic relationship with the beast in order to defend his home – the Hidden Leaf Village (Leaf Village). However, Naruto didn’t choose to have this burden. He was forced to carry it because of his father – the Leaf Village’s Hokage – Minato Uzamaki.

At the time of Naruto’s birth, the Nine Tailed Fox was attacking the Leaf Village capital and was wreaking untold havoc within its limits. After battling the Nine Tailed Fox, and realizing that the Leaf Village was losing the fight, the Minato was faced with a choice: lose the entire Leaf Village or sacrifice his son by containing the beast within his son thus saving the leaf Village. Naruto’s father and mother agreed to make the sacrifice and sealed the Nine Tailed Fox within their son when he was born. In the immediate moment, this was good for the Leaf Village, but questions remain about this choice. This article will not focus on the ethics behind this choice; rather, it will look into the international status of the Hokage and see if Minato as the Hokage committed international law violations through the sealing of the Nine Tailed Fox within a child.

Child Endangerment

International humanitarian law (IHL) is the law that governs parties in international armed conflicts (IAC), think Russia vs. Ukraine, and non-international armed conflicts (NIAC), think US v. ISIS. IHL was built around IACs and provides more than 600 treaty rules to help protect parties that are participating in them. However, there is far fewer, think around 30 treaty rules designed to help people participating in NIACs. Within IHL and these conflicts, people are then classified based on their form of participation or non-participation in the conflict. These classifications include combatants, non-combatants, and civilians and each classification comes with a test. Why? The tests that determine a person’s “class” helps meet a core principle of IHL: the principle of distinction. Under IHL, distinction between classes helps us determine what protections you are afforded or what activities you are barred from doing.

Generally, combatants, think soldiers, are provided with many protections and are barred from less activities. Non-combatants, think religious or medical personnel, receive a decent amount of protections as well but have fewer activities they can participate in within a conflict. Civilians are enshrined as the most protected class and IHL foot stomps the fact that civilians should be protected at all costs. So much so, the fourth Geneva Convention treaty is dedicated to civilian protections. Even further, IHL has laws that are designed to prevent civilians from participating in conflicts. These laws layout that if civilians participate they don’t get the same protections like combatants and non-combatants do. Why? Because conflict is meant to remain within the realm of combatants and civilians are to be kept outside of it. As IHL protects civilians, it looks prospectively through its laws and treaties protecting an asset for the future: children. This can be seen in the United Nation’s Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Within Naruto, we see that the Hokage is a complex role. Not only does it confer head of state protections, which gives certain protections we’ll discuss in the next section but is also confers combatant status. To be a combatant, an individual must: wear a distinctive symbol, carry arms openly, adhere to IHL, and be a part of a party in the conflict. The Hokage here meets these qualifications. As stated, combatants are afforded a ridiculous amount of protections but not amongst these protections is the ability to experiment with or involve children in conflict. The Hokage did both with his son, Naruto. There are four Geneva Conventions and of the four civilians have one devoted entirely to them. It quite clearly lays out what protections they are afforded and what things they are prohibited from doing. Of note, is something called “Common Article 3” (CA3) which getsits moniker because it is found in each of the four Geneva Conventions. It states without needing to clarify that civilians will not have committed against them violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture. Nor will they have outrages upon personal dignity inflicted upon them.

There is also a separate international treaty for the protection of children. Notably, it highlights that children are not to be used in armed conflicts and that all other international laws apply to them. Here, the Hokage violated the Fourth Geneva Convention and X Treaty through the experimentation of the jutsu on his son. Regardless if he had knowledge that it may have worked in other villages, there are eight others that are like Naruto, the child should never have been a consideration. His son was a civilian which is exempt from any form of experimentation, know that experimentation is totally banned to begin with, so that is a nonstarter. Furthermore, the sons age leaves him completely vulnerable and the Hokage took advantage of the child for the sake of the community writ large. By all accounts, the Hokage has violated jus cogens by experimenting upon his son. Jus cogens are “actions” that the international community universally condemns and provides no treaties to protect individuals who violate these norms. This includes things like: torture, genocide, civilian experimentation, and creating child soldiers. Thus, Minato is an international criminal; however, despite this violation, we run into the issue that is his position -“Hokage.”

Power Behind The Title

Within Naruto the world is divided into individual Village’s that are equivalent to states like the United States or Canada. The Hokage is the Village’s leader which is equivalent to the head of state much like the President or Prime Minister. The Hokage’s role includes daily Village administerial duties and ambassadorial duties within the realm of foreign affairs as they work with other Villages on complicated issues. Because of this equivalency we will start our analysis there with what we consider “head of state” immunity.

“Head of State” immunity is a controversial topic within the international law community. This is because the immunity has the ability to excuse leaders who may have violated international laws. The immunity can be divided into two areas: first, immunity ratione materiae is attached to the functions of the official; and secondly, immunity ratione personae relates to the position of the official. The latter immunity protects high ranking government officials based on actions prior to and during their role in the high level of government. You might be wondering why do we protect people who violated laws? Well, these immunities are in place to ensure that the state is able to operate without disruption or direct interference from foreign states. The latter immunity, ratione personae, which is our focus here is not something that is given to every government official; rather, think of it being reserved for the heads of states and other senior officials near that level. The International Court of Justice in Case Concerning the Arrest Warrant of 11 April 2000 (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Belgium) held four factors for when heads of state no longer hold immunity. Of the four, the third is critical and reads: “when the high-ranking State representative does not hold office anymore, other States “may try the former high-ranking officials in respect of acts committed prior or subsequent to his or her period of office, as well as in respect of acts committed during that period of office in a private capacity.” This third factor is not settled law yet but for sake of this argument I treat it as such.

The Hokage gets “head of state” immunity because of the virtue of his position as the leader of the Village. This means that he gets immunity ratione personae for any actions that he takes during his time as Hokage and for actions that may have occurred prior to his ascension to this role. However, this immunity does not exist forever. When the Hokage is done serving, the Hokage becomes vulnerable to an international court’s prosecution, if they have jurisdiction, for actions that he took in a private capacity. It then begs the question. Was the sealing of the nine tailed fox a private or official action and what courts might exist to hold the Hokage accountable?

This could be a private action. The Nine Tailed Fox’s assault was focused only on the Hidden Leaf Village. It did not spillover into another Village nor did foreign actors fight alongside the Nine Tailed Fox. This knocks out the thought that this could be an IAC or a NIAC. It was during the fight that the Hokage chose to seal the Nine Tailed Fox within his own son, Naruto. This is because the Hokage didn’t consult other government officials before doing the sealing jitsu and he was away from the battlefield. Lastly, the Hokage made this choice in agreement with his dying wife to seal the Nine Tailed Fox within his child. If this then qualifies as a private action then there is the possibility that an international court would him accountable because of the actions taken upon a child which is considered a protected class. Even going this far, it wouldn’t be likely because the other central Villages also committed the same actions. Setting this precedent would mean they would be leaving the door wide open to have their leaders targeted and no sane state would want to see that happen. Could it then be an official action?

The sealing of the Nine Tailed Fox is more aligned with an official action. The Nine Tailed Fox was attacking the Hidden Leaf Village and the Hokage had to act to protect the land and people he governed over. Although, the Hokage committed the action within his own family without consultation of other government officials, it was an official action taken within his capacity as the Leaf Village’s Hokage. Because this was taken as an official action it seems that as Hokage he is prevented from criminal prosecution. However, Article 27(1) of the Rome Statute gets rid of the supposed security of immunity rationae personae. This Article basically says regardless of title or position if you committed a violation of international law the Rome Statute can be applied against you. Article 27(1) hasn’t been weaponized yet against heads of state. The second paragraph of the same article then strips away any supposed “immunity” that would prevent the International Criminal Court from bringing the culprit forward. Candidly, it is very difficult nigh near impossible to hold a head of state accountable. I think Article 27(1),(2) hasn’t been successful in use because international courts are wary of it because of the precedent that would be established if they unleashed it. It is like the nuclear option, and we wont see it utilized either in our world nor within the realm of Naruto.

Conclusion

There is no doubt that the Hokage violated IHL when he experimented on his son through the sealing of the Nine Tailed Fox into Naruto. But is the Hokage protected from prosecution from this action based on head of state immunity? Yes and no. Most would be inclined to say yes because the Hokage’s action would fall under official action rather than personal action which would leave vulnerable to accountability. However, the Article 27(1) of the Rome Statute says otherwise. It cuts through this form of immunity and seeks to hold any party accountable for their IHL violations. This means the Hokage could stand trial. The real question at the end of the day though…is any party willing to bring him to court? Likely, no. Why? This is because each Hokage from the other Villages within this world have done the exact same thing as Naruto’s father. If he were to be held accountable, then they would become vulnerable. This is the last thing the Villages want as they are currently rebuilding after the Third Great Ninja War. Therefore, although the Leaf Village’s Hokage should be punished, he will not be for the sake of internal and international stability.

Dungeons and Detention: How Marley Improperly Imprisoned Combatants and Civilians

By

Gage Dabin

-

July 5, 2022

0

Background

One of the hallmarks of some of the most recent episodes of Attack on Titan: The Final Season (AOT) has been the continual conflict between all three active parties: Marleyans, Eldians, and The Jaegerists. The Jaegerists, a new local military faction, found its genesis amongst the Paradis Survey Corps who adhered to Eren Jaeger and his pursuit of “The Rumbling.” He and other volunteers were detained by the Paradis military forces as punishment for insubordination during the assault on Liberio at the beginning of the season. We also see the detention of children. Specifically, Falco and Gabi who are members of Marleyan military who fought against the Paradis forces at Liberio and were subsequently captured. In both of these detention instances we see that international humanitarian law (IHL) has been violated.

You might be wondering how it was violated or why do we have rules on detention? Well, the goal of this article is not to address every single detention issue that arose – there are many; rather, it is to address the most prevalent violations. Secondly, it will aim to explain how the Geneva Conventions would apply and the rationale behind the rules.

Host of Violations

Detention itself is not wrong. Detaining prisoners of war (POWs) and civilians stretches back to the earliest forms of human conflict and is seen as a natural part of armed conflict. However, what has changed overtime is what we do with POWs and civilians once they are captured during an international armed conflict (IAC) and a non-international armed conflict (NIAC). An IAC exists when two states are in conflict with one another and a NIAC exists when a state(s) is in conflict with a non-state armed group. With this distinction comes separate IHL rules for the conflicts. IAC has more protections and the rules for detention are found in the Geneva Conventions (GC) – specifically, Common Article 3 (CA3) and GC III and IV apply. When it comes to NIAC, we have a much smaller set of rules and less protections and have only CA3 and Additional Protocol (AP) II that apply. But, the POW status isn’t something to be lightly given out. When looking to see who gets the protections Art. 4 of GC III helps guide us. It tells us there are four critical criteria to be considered:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

In AOT, we have an existing IAC between Marley and Eldian so those detained will have the respective GCs and CA3 apply and will have the coveted POW status. When it comes to the Jaegerists and their relations to respective states, those detained will fall under the smaller subset of rules for NIACs and will not acquire POW status.

a. Gender Separation

When it comes to POW detainment, GC III sets out the rules for how POWs are to be treated spanning from food to shelter to alerting families back home of their capture. When it comes to quartering POWs, Art. 25 states that in any event that women are POWs alongside male POWs that they are to have separate dormitories. Adding to this is that when it comes to overall treatment, CA3 and Articles 13 and 14 inform the detaining powers that they are to treat the POWs with the utmost core and dignity. Just because someone is a POW does not mean they are seen as lesser humans; rather, they should be treated with more care.

This is one of the clearest examples we have of an IHL violation when it comes to detention. As stated above in Art. 25 we are supposed to have separate quarters for individuals of opposite sex. The commentaries to Art. 25 note that in times of conflict securing separate quarters for opposite sexes can be difficult or infeasible; however, they are required to try to the best of the ability. If anything, if they can’t separate they need to ensure the women are not isolated and that they are provided with personal hygienic items.

In episodes 74 and 75, we are shown the Eldians putting all the prisoners in a single cell regardless of their gender. They were not lacking in rooms within the detention center nor was the detention site in a conflict zone which might prohibit gender separation. Rather, the cells were in the capital of the Eldian empire within the HQ building far removed from conflict. Here, Art. 25 speaks to the Marleyan individuals that were detained like Pieck, Gabi, Falco and the rest of Marleyan forces. For the Jaegerists, the gender separation requirement doesn’t apply because they are not covered by GC III. They do get the basic protections outlined in CA3 like “outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment” cannot be inflicted upon them once in captivity.

Collectively, both the Jaegerists and the POWs may have been subjected to another violation during their tenure in the cramped cell. At one point a Marleyan military member came into the detainment area and brandished a gun towards the prisoners threatening to shoot one or multiple members. Although the threat was short lived, they were killed, the action alone may have violated CA3. Specifically, it could be seen as violation subsection A of CA3 which provides that a violation occurs if there is “violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture.”

The POWs and Jaegerists were not given adequate treatment at the threshold they are expected to have during a time of conflict. The lack of humane treatment, separation, and exposure to violence makes it more difficult for other states to see the need to reciprocate the GCs rules when it comes to when they detain since their own people didn’t have those protections.

b. Children and Detention

Children have no place in war. I mean GC IV and other treaties tells us that they are a protected class. Yet, in AOT, at the very front and center we see two children fully immersed in the horrors of war – Gabi and Falco. That alone is a law of war violation and won’t be covered here but if you’re curious here is another article that covers issues with children being involved in conflict. Instead, the focus here is to determine if there was a violation with Gabi and Falco in episode 70.

Gabi and Falco, ignoring the fact that they are children, qualify as POWs. How? As laid out above from Art. 4 of GC III, we need the individuals to carry arms openly, respond to a chain of command, wear a distinguishing symbol, and participate in actions that follow the rules and customs of the law of war. Gabi and Falco both wear the Marleyan uniform, have the symbol affixed to them, adhered to a chain of command in their respective unit, and for the most part followed the customs of war during armed conflict.

This means that their detention in AOT must meet the higher standards set out in GC III. In episode 70, we are shown that these two are detained together in what looks like a bedroom, a violation of Art. 25 if we’re being picky. Further, the guard enters the room and seems to go after Gabi. We don’t know his true intentions, so it is murky to try and claim a CA3 or Art. 13/14 violation. But, we do know Gabi responded with violent force ultimately killing the guard before she and Falco make their escape. Now, Gabi’s action on its face seems like it should be a violation; however, Art. 91, 92, and 93 of GC III which cover escapes are silent to this. The commentary for Art. 92 tells us that it’s a longstanding practice not to punish a POW for their actions taken during their attempted escape; rather, the only punishment should ascribed to the escape itself and no more. This is drawn from many historical treaties like the he 1874 Brussels Declaration, the 1907 Hague Regulations, agreements adopted during the First World War, and the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War. So, I would say that the death is permissible and not a violation as the guard was a member of the opposing armed forces and is thus targetable. Just because the POW is detained doesn’t nullify their ability to target enemies in an armed conflict and stymieing this, I think would cause greater issues.

Conclusion

Detaining members of opposing forces is a natural element of an armed conflict. We know that how we treat those designated as POWs or with other legal statuses can effect how opposing forces will treat our own in this conflict and in conflicts yet to come. This means it is imperative to not only recognize GC III but to try and follow the articles as set out. Understandably this can be hard given varying circumstances of detention.

The Eldians could have done a much better job in failing to adhere to GC III with their flagrant mistreatment of their POWs and the Jaegerists under their purview. They had the means, the space, and the supplies to easily prevent the violations that were listed and the many that were not focused on. You can see that the failure to provide separate quarters or allowing the threat to multiple lives could lead to harsh reciprocal treatment to their forces by Marleyans if detained. This is exactly what we don’t want. It’s a tit-for-tat that can be avoided. Yet, this kind of maltreatment leaves an open wound that can fester and in the next conflict can make opposing parties more recalcitrant to adhering to the rules and willing to punish their POWs.

Lastly, is dealing with Falco and Gabi. Morally, most of the world finds children soldiers repugnant and directly considers their conscription to be a war crime. I agree, of course. However, here the task was to overlook this and to understand their detention scenario. Legally, Gabi and Falco got the correct treatment afforded to them as POWs and there didn’t seem to be any direct violation outside of separating the kids. Furthermore, Gabi’s killing of the guard is a natural part of armed conflict and he assumed the risk of death by wearing the uniform. She cannot be punished for it nor if she and Falco were recaptured could they have it used them as an aggravating factor that would make the next punishment more severe.

The Eldians, despite their rightful grievances against Eren and Marleyans, shouldn’t have let their emotions supersede the legal obligations they owed to those detained. The failure to adhere will only cause more waves in their relationships and shows to us the importance of maintaining clarity and due respect to others. Detention in armed conflict although common is important. It is a reflection on how we show the world how we perceive our enemies and is a way to provide a form of armed mercy. It is not something Eldia nor Marley nor the Jaegerists strive to achieve. It is something that they must achieve time and time again for the sake of future conflict.

Answering the Uchiha Genocide

By

Gage Dabin

-

March 2, 2022

0

Itachi Uchiha is probably one of the most famous characters in all of Naruto. His actions both in the shadow and in the forefront of Naruto helped shape the direction of the entire Village of the Hidden Leaf (Leaf Village). And frankly, Itachi was a central catalyst in the development of Sasuke Uchiha and his innate Uchiha abilities. So then, who is Itachi to the Hidden Leaf?

Who is Itachi Uchiha and what did he do?

Itachi Uchiha is a member of Uchiha Clan which falls under the umbrella of the Leaf Village and is the older brother of Sasuke Uchiha. This is one of the Five Great Nations within the Naruto universe and plays key roles in the great ninja wars. Itachi is considered a child prodigy and from a young age shows mastery of special Uchiha jutsus that sets milestones that Sasuke Uchiha seeks to break. Because of his abilities, Itachi is recruited into the ANBU Black Ops, a clandestine arm of the Leaf Village, and performs classified missions.

Itachi Uchiha gains his initial infamy for his actions against his own clan. When Itachi was 13 he killed almost every member of the Uchiha Clan including his own parents. Itachi only spared his brother from the massacre and it seemed for awhile that Itachi committed these actions solely to force Sasuke to advance his capabilities through hate. But this isn’t really true.

The massacre was done to prevent internal harm to the Leaf Village. Itachi, when he was a member of the ANBU Black Ops, learned that his clan was planning a coup d’état of the current leadership of the Leaf Village. Why? Because his clan was accused of working with the Nine-Tailed Fox, one of the legendary tailed beasts that wreak untold havoc, during its attack on the village. Having had his youth marred by conflict, Itachi sought to end the cycle of violence by eliminating it before it manifested. After providing intelligence on his clan to Leaf Village leadership, Itachi received the order to commit the massacre from his ANBU Black Ops Commander. The result from this order is that he publicly became a wanted fugitive but privately remained a valuable asset for the Leaf Village. Despite his utility, Itachi must be seen for what he is…a war criminal.

What is genocide?

Itachi committed genocide for what he perceived was the “greater good.” He was wrong.

Genocide is not a term that is loosely thrown around. It carries a heavy weight. When uttered, genocide ushers images and horrors ranging from Nazi Germany to the cleansing of the Tutsis by the Hutus in Rwanda in the 1990s. It encompasses the worst of humanity and rightfully deserves to be criminalized by all. We know what the term tends to invoke but legally how do we approach and classify actions as genocide?

Genocide falls under the umbrella of crimes against humanity in international law and finds its origins in the Nuremburg Trials at the conclusion of World War II. In 1951, the United Nations (UN) ratified the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (Genocide Treaty) thus making it punishable by all states under international law. Under Article 1 of the Genocide Treaty, the crime of genocide has the potential to take place within armed conflict, international/non-international armed conflict, and also within peaceful situations. This is intentionally expansive to ensure that genocide does not go unpunished.

Next, Article 2 of the Genocide Convention establishes that “genocide means any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:

1. Killing members of the group;
2. Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
3. Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
4. Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group; and
5. Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.”

Combining the information above, Article 2 tells us that for genocide to be proved we need to satisfy two elements: one mental and one physical. For the mental element, we need to see if the party committing the action had the intent to cause the stated harm. For the physical element, we have the listed actions from subsection A to E that a party must have committed. If we only satisfy one element, then genocide is not established.

Itachi’s “noble” intentions

Now, that we have both the facts surrounding Itachi’s actions and the law outlined for what genocide is we can approach and see if his actions rise to that level.

The Mental State

As noted above, we have to first consider the mental state of the person committing the actions. We have to see if they had the intent to cause destruction to the target racial, ethnic, racial or religious group either partially or totally.

Itachi Uchiha acted with the requisite intent required by the convention. He was given orders by ANBU Black Ops of the Hidden Leaf to attack his clan, the Uchiha clan, which is a smaller subset of the population. Notably, the Uchiha clan is distinct from the other clans within the Hidden Leaf based on its cultural, jutsu, and bloodline differences.

So, when Itachi attacked his clan he had the knowledge that his mission was to completely eradicate the Uchiha Clan. He also knew that the Uchiha clan was distinct and a subset of the Hidden Leaf. With this knowledge, we can see that the first element is satisfied.

The Physical Action

For the second element, we need to see whether the actor committed any of the harmful actions that are laid in subsections A through E.

Itachi’s attack on his clan satisfies multiple subsections of Article 2 of the Genocide Convention. Notably, subection A is satisfied as Itachi literally killed his entire clan sans his younger brother – Sasuke Uchiha. Subsection C is then satisfied because Itachi deliberately took these actions to eliminate the active threat that was perceived to exist to the Leaf Village.

With the satisfaction of the physical action, Itachi Uchiha’s actions have passed the requisite thresholds and confirms that genocide had been committed against the Uchiha Clan.

Should Itachi Uchiha be punished?

Itachi Uchiha without a doubt should be punished for the genocide that he committed against his own clan. Although a coup d’état was perceived to be in preparation against the Leaf Village’s current leadership, many members of the Uchiha clan should have been protected and only combatants targeted. Itachi deliberately killed everyone without any discretion to whether they were combatants or civilians. The safety of the village was/is paramount to Itachi, as he continues to try and be its ward from the shadows via the Akutsuki, but his actions of genocide cannot be defended under the auspices of “protection.” Despite how he perceived his actions to be for the “greater good of the village” he is still a war criminal and must be held accountable as one.