What are considered war crimes
Executive summary
War crimes are serious violations of the laws and customs of war that create individual criminal responsibility; examples include intentionally killing civilians, torture, taking hostages, pillage, and directing attacks against civilian objects such as hospitals and schools [1] [2]. International bodies including the International Criminal Court prosecute these “core international crimes” alongside national courts, and statutes such as the U.S. War Crimes Act reflect domestic definitions and penalties [3] [4] [5].
1. What the law says: a concise legal definition
A war crime is a grave breach of the laws and customs of war committed in the context of an armed conflict and carrying individual criminal responsibility—this covers acts like murder, torture, pillage, and intentionally directing attacks against civilians or humanitarian workers [1] [2] [6]. International instruments (Geneva Conventions and their protocols) and customary international humanitarian law provide the legal basis for what counts as a war crime; states and international courts interpret and apply those rules [6] [7].
2. Typical acts classified as war crimes
Commonly cited examples include intentionally killing civilians or prisoners of war, torture and inhuman treatment, taking hostages, sexual violence committed in wartime, destruction of civilian property without military necessity, and recruiting or conscripting children into armed forces [1] [2]. Deliberately directing attacks against hospitals, religious and educational buildings, or humanitarian personnel is repeatedly named as a war crime in U.N. and NGO descriptions [2] [8].
3. Nexus to armed conflict — why context matters
A defining feature of war crimes is their connection to an armed conflict: unlike some other atrocity crimes, war crimes by definition occur in the context of international or non-international armed conflict [2] [9]. TRIAL International highlights the required “nexus” — the unlawful act must be committed in pursuit of the conflict’s aims — which distinguishes war crimes from ordinary crimes even when the acts are similarly serious [9].
4. Overlap with other “core international crimes”
War crimes form one category of the “core international crimes” alongside crimes against humanity and genocide. Some acts may fall into more than one category depending on intent and scale—for example, mass murder in war can be prosecuted as a war crime and, if committed with intent to destroy a protected group, as genocide [8] [3]. Sources note that the ICC and national courts consider these categories complementary; the ICC acts as a court of last resort [3].
5. Who can be held responsible
Responsibility is individual: commanders and combatants can be prosecuted for ordering or committing war crimes, and command responsibility can attach to those who knew or should have known and failed to prevent crimes [1] [9]. States are expected to investigate and prosecute or surrender suspects to international tribunals; domestic laws such as the U.S. War Crimes Act create national jurisdiction and penalties for those present in the country [4] [5].
6. Evidence, prosecution and enforcement realities
Institutions such as the ICC investigate and try individuals for war crimes, but the ICC is a court of last resort that complements national systems [3]. Practical enforcement depends on political will, evidence preservation, cooperation between states, and jurisdictional rules—challenges repeatedly cited in reporting and NGO materials [3] [9]. Available sources do not give a comprehensive account of prosecution success rates or political obstacles in every case; they emphasize that multi-jurisdictional cooperation is often required [6] [9].
7. Public definitions vs. legal technicalities
Lay definitions (dictionaries, ethics guides) describe war crimes as crimes committed during war—genocide and maltreatment of prisoners are frequently highlighted—but legal instruments provide the specific elements, contextual nexus, and requisite intent that determine prosecutable offenses [10] [11] [1]. The BBC and Britannica underline historical evolution: the modern concept solidified after World War II and continues to develop through treaties and tribunals [12] [11].
8. Why definitions matter politically
Labeling an act a “war crime” triggers legal obligations for investigation and can carry diplomatic and criminal consequences; governments and courts therefore scrutinize whether an act meets the legal elements [6] [3]. Different actors—states, courts, advocacy groups—may emphasize different elements (e.g., intent, scale, nexus to conflict) to support or resist that label, producing competing interpretations in practice [6] [9].
Limitations: this summary relies solely on the provided sources and does not attempt to catalog every specific enumerated act from all instruments (available sources do not mention exhaustive lists beyond the cited examples) [1] [2] [4]. For case-specific determinations, courts evaluate facts, intent and legal elements on a case-by-case basis [13] [3].