Movie: Three Kings...norms v laws; self interest v rules of law.

Three Kings:

Watch the film for evidence of "norms" at work. To what extent is the behavior of the actors interest-based versus rule-based? How do you know the difference? Explain in the context of the supplementary readings.

IHL is frequently inhibited by the more powerful norm of state sovereignty. States do not want their internal affairs affected by an outside force and strive to protect their sovereignty through customary and international law. This nexus between IHL and intervention is depicted in the movie Three Kings. In this film, the US and allies have just signed a ceasefire with Iraq ‘concluding’ the Gulf War. However, in this film, this treaty creates a space where the interplay between the established rules of war and the self-interest of specific US soldiers interact.

It is assumed that the US military is highly organized and ethical (despite the recent events of Abu Ghraib). However, in this film, the self-interests of four US soldiers enable them to utilize a ceasefire to pursue ‘looting.’ Upon finding a ‘butt map,’ the soldiers do not report to their superiors as per the established chain of command as they believe they will be able to gain financially (and illegally). The US soldiers believe that because the ceasefire has been signed they can go into Iraqi territory and do just about whatever they want as long as they do not engage the ‘enemy’ (Iraqi troops) or interfere with the domestic population. During the course of the film, only one Iraqi commander attempts to stop the US soldiers, which provokes hostilities and shots being fired. As long as the US soldiers did not see any human rights violations, they were prepared to break rules in order to pursue self interested financial gain. However, once they witness the severe human rights violations, the soldiers break the rules of the treaty, the norms of non-interference, and attempt to protect the villagers and their financial interest through thievery.

What is interesting while watching the film, is that as long as the US troops did not interfere with the domestic affairs of Iraq, the Iraqis were prepared to ignore the rule breaking of the US soldiers. Ward Thomas writes that ‘state actors are more likely to be governed by the norm (than international law)’ (43). However, even though government policy is not to interfere in the domestic affairs of a state, the soldiers, once they were aware of the human rights violations were unable to comply with non-interference in domestic affairs. Also despite the stronger affect of norms on state actors, the soldiers (ranging from highly trained and organized to uneducated) did not follow rules of the ceasefire once noncombatants were targeted.

Also, at the end of the film, when the Iraqi refugees were almost across the border, and the rule following US soldiers finally found the four ‘looting’ soldiers, the aim became primarily to arrest the rule breaking soldiers, without regard for the safety and welfare of the Iraqi refuges. However, like the rule breaking soldiers, once the issue of gold bullion was mentioned, the gold became a bartering chip for the lives of the Iraqi refugees. The self-interest of the soldiers enforced the breaking of the norm that prohibited interference in domestic affairs. The self interest, rule following, interpretation of the rule, or the selflessness of the soldier affects the on the ground actions, while governments far removed make decisions according to norms and international law.