What If The Laws of War Were Never Codified?

The Actual History

The laws of war—formally known as international humanitarian law (IHL)—emerged gradually over centuries as civilizations sought to place limits on armed conflict and reduce unnecessary suffering. While rudimentary codes existed in various cultures throughout history, the modern, codified laws of war began to take shape in the mid-19th century.

The first significant milestone came in 1864 with the original Geneva Convention, which established protections for wounded soldiers and medical personnel on the battlefield. This breakthrough agreement resulted from the advocacy of Swiss businessman Henry Dunant, who was horrified by the suffering he witnessed at the Battle of Solferino in 1859. Dunant's experiences led him to help found the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) in 1863 and to lobby for international standards of care for war wounded.

The late 19th and early 20th centuries saw further developments with the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, which addressed the conduct of warfare, prohibited certain weapons and tactics, and established rules for the treatment of prisoners of war. These agreements represented the first comprehensive attempt to regulate warfare on an international scale.

World War I (1914-1918) revealed the inadequacy of existing protections, as new technologies like poison gas, aerial bombardment, and unrestricted submarine warfare caused unprecedented suffering. In response, the international community strengthened and expanded the Geneva Convention in 1929, enhancing protections for prisoners of war.

The most significant expansion of the laws of war came after World War II, which had witnessed horrific atrocities including the Holocaust, indiscriminate bombing of civilian centers, and mistreatment of prisoners on an industrial scale. In 1949, states adopted the four Geneva Conventions that form the cornerstone of modern IHL:

Protection of wounded and sick armed forces in the field
Protection of wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea
Treatment of prisoners of war
Protection of civilian persons in time of war

These conventions were later supplemented by Additional Protocols in 1977, which strengthened protections for civilians and restricted certain methods of warfare. The 1977 protocols specifically addressed the changing nature of conflict, including civil wars and wars of national liberation.

Other important developments include the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property, the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention, the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons, the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention, the 1997 Ottawa Treaty banning anti-personnel landmines, and the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions.

Today, these laws collectively establish fundamental principles including distinction between civilians and combatants, prohibition of weapons causing unnecessary suffering, humane treatment of all persons not taking part in hostilities, and protection of civilian infrastructure. While violations persist, the codified laws of war have created a framework for accountability, prosecution of war crimes, and a standard against which military conduct can be judged.

The Point of Divergence

What if the laws of war were never codified? In this alternate timeline, we explore a scenario where the international community never developed formal, written agreements restricting conduct during armed conflicts.

Several historical turning points could have prevented the development of codified laws of war:

The most pivotal moment occurs in 1859, when Henry Dunant, traveling on business in Italy, takes a different route and never witnesses the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino. Without experiencing the horrors of thousands of wounded soldiers left to suffer and die without adequate medical care, Dunant never conceives of the Red Cross movement and never advocates for the first Geneva Convention of 1864. Without this crucial first step, the entire cascade of humanitarian law development fails to materialize.

Alternatively, even if Dunant had his Solferino experience, the political climate of Europe might have been less receptive to humanitarian constraints. The 1864 Geneva Convention required the support of key European powers. Had Otto von Bismarck, then Prime Minister of Prussia, actively opposed the convention rather than supporting it, the momentum for international humanitarian law might have been crushed in its infancy.

A third potential divergence point occurs during the American Civil War (1861-1865). In our timeline, President Abraham Lincoln commissioned Francis Lieber to draft the "Lieber Code," instructions for Union forces that became influential in later international law development. Without Lincoln's interest in regulating warfare or had Lieber never created his code, another critical building block for international humanitarian law would have been missing.

Regardless of the exact mechanism, in this alternate timeline, the crucial developments of the 1860s never occur. The International Committee of the Red Cross is never founded. The diplomatic conference that produced the first Geneva Convention in 1864 never convenes. Without this foundation, subsequent developments—the Hague Conventions, expanded Geneva Conventions, and additional protocols—have no precedent to build upon.

Instead, warfare remains governed only by custom, religious teachings, and unilateral military codes that vary between nations and change according to strategic needs rather than humanitarian principles. The lack of codification means there is no clear, universal standard against which to judge military conduct, and no international consensus on what constitutes a war crime.

Immediate Aftermath

The Franco-Prussian War: Unrestrained Brutality

The first major conflict to demonstrate the consequences of this divergence is the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-1871. Without the recently established 1864 Geneva Convention:

Wounded soldiers receive inconsistent care based on the mercy of individual commanders rather than international obligation
Medical personnel operate without protected status, resulting in higher casualty rates among field doctors and nurses
Ambulances and field hospitals become legitimate military targets, causing catastrophic mortality rates among the wounded
The conflict sees widespread execution of captured irregular French fighters (francs-tireurs), with no international standard to protect them

The siege of Paris becomes particularly notorious, as Prussian forces face no clear international restrictions on sieges of civilian populations. The resulting starvation claims thousands more civilian lives than in our timeline, and bombardment of civilian districts is more systematic and extensive.

Colonialism Without Constraints

The "Scramble for Africa" that accelerated in the 1880s unfolds with even fewer restraints on military conduct:

Colonial powers employ increasingly brutal pacification methods against indigenous resistance, with no international forum to condemn excesses
The Belgian Congo under King Leopold II's rule becomes not an exception but a template for colonial administration, with forced labor and systematic brutality normalized across European colonies
The German suppression of the Herero and Nama uprising in Southwest Africa (1904-1908) becomes even more comprehensive in its genocidal intent, with surviving populations reduced far below the already devastating losses in our timeline
Britain's concentration camps during the Second Boer War (1899-1902) face no international criticism or pressure for reform, resulting in higher civilian death rates

The Russo-Japanese War: Presaging Total War

The 1904-1905 Russo-Japanese War, the first major conflict between modern industrial powers since the American Civil War, establishes dangerous precedents:

Treatment of prisoners becomes entirely discretionary, with widespread execution of surrendered enemy forces
Hospital ships are regularly targeted as military objectives
Chemical weapons development accelerates as both sides experiment with poison gases without fear of international condemnation
Civilian populations in Manchuria suffer heightened atrocities as armies feel no obligation to distinguish between combatants and non-combatants

World War I: The Unfettered Catastrophe

When World War I erupts in 1914, the absence of any international humanitarian framework produces immediate and catastrophic consequences:

Weaponry Without Limits

Chemical warfare emerges earlier and more comprehensively than in our timeline, with no Hague Declaration to prohibit poison gas
Rather than facing international criticism, gas attacks are celebrated as innovative tactics
Development of biological weapons accelerates, with deliberate contamination of water supplies and experimental use of disease agents by 1916
Expanding bullets and other prohibited weapons in our timeline become standard issue

Civilian Targeting

Strategic bombing of civilian centers is embraced as legitimate military doctrine from the war's earliest stages
Unrestricted submarine warfare begins immediately rather than gradually, with no international norms constraining attacks on passenger vessels
Food blockades specifically target civilian populations with intentional starvation policies

Treatment of Prisoners

Captured soldiers face arbitrary execution, forced labor in dangerous conditions, or deliberate starvation
No neutral organizations (like the Red Cross in our timeline) exist to visit prison camps or report on conditions
Death rates among prisoners approach 40-50% compared to roughly 5-10% in our timeline

Military Medicine

Medical units operate without protected status, making field hospitals prime military targets
The wounded are routinely left to die on battlefields as evacuation becomes too dangerous
Medical advances stagnate as systematic treatment of the wounded receives lower priority

By the war's end in 1918, the death toll substantially exceeds the already staggering figures of our timeline, with civilian casualties comprising a much higher percentage of the total.

Long-term Impact

Interwar Period: Militarism Ascendant

Without the sobering international efforts to codify humanitarian principles following World War I, the interwar period (1918-1939) takes a dramatically different course:

Political Developments

The League of Nations forms without any humanitarian mandate, focusing exclusively on preventing territorial disputes
No international framework emerges for war crimes trials, leaving military leaders who ordered atrocities unaccountable
Fascism and other totalitarian ideologies gain even stronger footholds as the moral revulsion against warfare's excesses is diminished
Efforts to ban specific weapons (chemical, biological) never materialize, leading to accelerated arms races in these categories

Military Doctrine

Air power theorists like Giulio Douhet and Billy Mitchell find receptive audiences for theories of strategic bombing specifically targeting civilian morale
Military manuals worldwide emphasize maximum force application rather than minimum necessary force
The concept of "total war" becomes the default position for military planning in all major powers
Research into chemical and biological warfare advances rapidly, with major powers establishing large-scale production facilities by the mid-1930s

World War II: Industrialized Annihilation

When World War II erupts in 1939, the absence of humanitarian constraints produces a conflict even more devastating than the one in our timeline:

Weaponry and Tactics

Chemical weapons are deployed from the earliest stages of the conflict, with massive gas attacks accompanying the German Blitzkrieg into Poland
Civilian targeting becomes the primary strategic objective of bombing campaigns rather than an unfortunate byproduct
Japanese biological warfare programs (like Unit 731) operate on an even larger scale, with widespread deployment of plague, anthrax, and other pathogens throughout China
Starvation becomes a primary tactical tool, with deliberate destruction of food supplies across occupied territories

Treatment of Civilians and Prisoners

The Holocaust proceeds with even less international attention or condemnation
Treatment of prisoners reaches new depths of brutality, with survival rates in German and Japanese camps dropping below 25%
Forced labor becomes universal practice, with captured populations worked to death as standard policy
Mass civilian reprisals increase in scale, with entire regions depopulated in response to resistance activities

Nuclear Warfare

When atomic weapons emerge in 1945, no moral or legal framework exists to constrain their use
Following Hiroshima and Nagasaki, additional atomic bombings of Japanese cities continue until surrender
The psychological barrier to nuclear use remains significantly lower in the postwar world

The Cold War Era: Brinkmanship Without Boundaries

The absence of humanitarian law profoundly shapes the post-1945 global order:

Proxy Wars

Conflicts in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, and elsewhere feature unrestricted warfare techniques including deliberate targeting of civilian populations
Chemical and biological weapons see regular deployment in these conflicts, with international response limited to strategic rather than humanitarian concerns
Treatment of prisoners becomes a key psychological warfare tool, with public executions and torture normalized

Nuclear Doctrine

Without legal constraints or taboos on nuclear use, tactical nuclear weapons become integrated into conventional military planning
The Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962 more likely escalates to nuclear exchange as decision-makers operate without humanitarian legal constraints
Nuclear proliferation accelerates as more nations seek these weapons, viewing them as standard military tools rather than weapons of last resort

Human Rights Concepts

Without the foundation of the laws of war, the broader human rights movement that emerged after 1945 in our timeline develops more slowly and with less impact
The United Nations focuses primarily on preventing interstate conflict rather than protecting individual rights
Concepts like "crimes against humanity" and "genocide" develop later or not at all, leaving mass atrocities without specific international condemnation

Contemporary World: Humanitarian Void

By the early 21st century, the absence of codified laws of war has created a fundamentally different global security landscape:

Military Technology

Autonomous weapons systems develop without ethical constraints, creating battlefield environments where human involvement in targeting decisions is minimal
Chemical and biological weapons remain standard elements in military arsenals worldwide
Space-based weapons platforms proliferate without legal restrictions

Conflict Patterns

Internal conflicts feature even higher civilian casualty rates, with government forces employing unrestricted tactics against insurgents
Non-state actors routinely target civilian populations, with no international standard condemning such practices
Environmental warfare (weather modification, ecosystem destruction) emerges as a standard tactic

Global Institutions

International organizations focus on conflict prevention rather than humanitarian protection
Medical neutrality remains a contested concept rather than an established principle
The concept of universal jurisdiction for atrocities never develops, leaving perpetrators largely immune from prosecution outside their own territories

By 2025, warfare remains fundamentally unrestricted, limited only by technological capabilities and strategic calculations rather than humanitarian principles. The cumulative human cost since the 19th century would be measured in hundreds of millions of additional casualties, with the psychological and cultural impact of unrestrained warfare reshaping human civilization in profound and disturbing ways.

Expert Opinions

Dr. Helen Montgomery, Professor of International Humanitarian Law at Oxford University, offers this perspective: "The codification of the laws of war represents one of humanity's most important, if imperfect, achievements. Without the Geneva Conventions and related treaties, modern warfare would likely resemble the worst excesses of World War II as standard practice. What makes this alternate timeline particularly disturbing is that restraint in warfare often evolves from self-interest as much as humanitarian concern—the principle of reciprocity. Without codification creating clear standards, even this minimal protection would be unreliable and inconsistent across conflicts. The absence of the Red Cross movement alone would have resulted in millions of additional deaths over the past century and a half."

General James Harrington (Ret.), former military legal advisor to NATO, provides a military perspective: "Military professionals often misunderstand the purpose of the laws of war, viewing them primarily as restrictions on their freedom of action. In reality, these laws have professionalized modern armed forces by establishing clear rules of engagement, enhancing discipline, and providing a framework for ethical decision-making under extreme pressure. In a timeline without codified humanitarian law, military effectiveness would likely suffer despite—or because of—fewer restrictions. Armed forces would face greater challenges with troop discipline, struggle with moral injury among soldiers, and confront stronger partisan resistance in occupied territories due to excessive brutality. Perhaps counterintuitively, unrestricted warfare generally produces worse strategic outcomes alongside its obvious humanitarian costs."

Dr. Fatima Nouri, Director of the Center for Genocide Studies, notes: "The development of international humanitarian law created the essential vocabulary and conceptual framework through which we understand and respond to mass atrocities. Without codified restrictions on warfare, we wouldn't merely see more atrocities—we would lack the very language to identify them as exceptional or condemnable. Concepts like 'war crimes,' 'crimes against humanity,' and 'genocide' emerged from the legal architecture that begins with the laws of war. In their absence, mass killings and systematic brutality would more likely be viewed as regrettable but normal aspects of conflict rather than punishable violations of universal norms. The psychological impact on humanity of normalizing such behavior across generations would be profound and potentially irreversible."