Technically, I think that's what we have now. But that brings up two points.
First, what do we do when signatories don't abide by it? I mean Hizbullah agreed to the cease fire which effectively calls for there disarmament in Lebanon, yet they already have announced their intention not to abide by it. Even if they signed the Geneva convention, they are unlikely to abide by it. What then?
It's a gentlemen's agreement that has no teeth, and not all signatories are gentlemen. It does shape world opinion of which side is good and bad, so it probably plays a role in military aid, but how many countries are willing to jump into a war on behalf of side A because side B fouled?
Second what are appropriate combat methodologies when confronting non-signatories?
As you point out, the world opinion is still that we should abide by it. The combatants that we have restrained in Guantanamo aren't under the Geneva convention's protection, but we mostly adhere to it anyway, because we are a civilized people.
There are some things we don't want to do in war, like genocide, because of our own beliefs, regardless of whether the other side does them or not. We don't intentionally target non-combatants. We don't use rape and torture as a means of terrorizing the enemy.
But what about torture to extract military information? We usually don't, because we don't want our own people tortured. But against an enemy that will torture our own regardless, should we not use such means as a tool of war? I don't know. It has pros and cons.
Again, the country that won't is considered to be a more peaceful country and more likely to win world support. The very use of such methods, leads to greater acceptance and use of such methods. Do we avoid it completely, so we don't have to draw the line? Those are tough issues that need to be fleshed out.
I'd have to disagree, Danny, we have nothing like that now. I don't know of a single circumstance in which guerilla fighters have ever agreed to abide by sort of rules proposed by a more powerful opponent. That's the very antithesis of guerilla warfare.
First, what do we do when signatories don't abide by it? I mean Hizbullah agreed to the cease fire which effectively calls for there disarmament in Lebanon, yet they already have announced their intention not to abide by it. Even if they signed the Geneva convention, they are unlikely to abide by it. What then?
Hezbollah is not now, has never been, and will never be an honest broker. You must remember, I advocated its' total annihilation, because they advocate Israel's total annihilation. I'm not Jewish, but after 9/11 I definitely chose sides, and I'm quite openly partisan on behalf of Israel.
We have no real precedent, where a signatory to the Geneva convention has openly violated it in a conflict against another signatory. I want to point out what happened to the German and Japanese high command after the post-WW2 war trials, but those predate the Geneva convention, so I can only speculate on the question. And what I'd guess is that there would be "Victor's Justice" with war trials against those who, by violating an agreement they were party to, had committed war crimes.
Second what are appropriate combat methodologies when confronting non-signatories?
It would depend on their conduct of the conflict. Traditionally, armed combatants captured out of uniform were shot as spies. Combatants dressed as civilians were not regarded the same rights as a soldier, they were subject to summary execution if captured.
Under the system I was proposing a non-national combatant group would gain the same protections and obligations as a soldier in a legitimate national armed force. It would secure protections for captured insurgents, and as such, would seem to be a pretty good deal to all those pesky little "liberation" movements out there.
If they chose not to take advantage of the opportunity, they would essentially be declaring it to be a "no rules" conflict. And Israel, for example, could take off the kid gloves and play by the "no rules" rules too. (But first they need to replace Olmert).