Human rights groups: No in-game war crimes

[justin0469]

Human rights groups: No in-game war crimes

by Don Reisinger

Here's one that will undoubtedly send some gamers into a craze. A study from two Swiss human rights organizations, Trial and Pro Juventute, has found that some video games depict war and battle actions that in real life would violate international human rights laws.

The study attempted to determine if the acts gamers engage in while they play violent titles would "lead to violations of rules of international law, in particular International Humanitarian Law (IHL), basic norms of International Human Rights Law (IHRL), or International Criminal Law (ICL)."

To find out, Trial and Pro Juventute picked up 20 games, including Call of Duty 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Far Cry 2, and others. It had "young gamers" play the games as three attorneys watched to find actions in games that in real life would violate rules and regulations that govern armed conflict.

The organizations said the study is not intended to "prohibit the games, to make them less violent or to turn them into IHL or IHRL training tools." Instead, the groups want to work with developers to ensure that in the future, their games observe real-life human-rights laws.

After evaluating the 20 games, the group found that in many cases, "shooter" games failed to take into consideration international humanitarian law. ( it's a game! the point is to be someplace and someone else regardless of reality)

"The practically complete absence of rules or sanctions is nevertheless astonishing: civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity, in scenes portraying interrogations it is possible to torture, degrade or treat the prisoner inhumanely without being sanctioned for it and extrajudicial executions are simulated," the groups wrote in a statement. "At least a few games punish the killing of civilians or reward strategies that aim to prevent excessive damage."

Individual game evaluations were just as biting. Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare had one of the more lengthy violation sections. According to the group, the game violates several human-rights laws by allowing games to "attack civilian buildings with no limits in order to get rid of all the enemies present in the town who are on roof tops, open areas of the town, squares featuring statues, etc. Under IHL, the fact that combatants/fighters are present in a town does not make the entire town a military objective."

The group also disliked the beating of the game's villain, Al-Asad. It asserted that the "beating of Al-Asad amounts to torture or at least inhuman treatment, which are prohibited in any context, under any circumstances, whether in peace time or during armed conflict situations. Killing him amounts to an extra-judicial, summary or arbitrary execution as it falls outside the context of any legal framework."

Similar evaluations were given on the other games the groups evaluated.

In the end, Trial and Pro Juventute delivered recommendations. The groups says it wants developers to make it clear to gamers that in any circumstance, human-rights violations cannot be allowed, even in a game setting. It also requested that, going forward, developers adhere to international human rights laws when they depict war or battle in a game.

"It is regrettable that game producers hardly ever use this possibility to creatively incorporate the rules of international law or even representatives of such rules as specific elements in the course of the game," the groups wrote in a statement. "Pro Juventute and Trial call upon the producers of computer and video games to use their strong creativity and innovation for this purpose. It would mean a wasted opportunity if the virtual space transmitted the illusion of impunity for unlimited violence in armed conflicts."

The group also said that it chose video games, rather than film, because of the former's "interactive" nature.

Now it's your turn. Should games depict violence that would be illegal in real life? Do human rights laws extend to video games? Let us know in the comments below.

Seriously???

Edited November 25, 2009 by justin0469

[Meanie]

really???? They really have nothing better to do then worry about a game?

Ok new Idea. Let's make our own game in which we raid, torture and execute anyone and everyone associated with IHL/IHRL. I'd buy that.

[DangBruhY]

What do they think about futuristic/fantasy types of games?

[OsuMj]

It makes me sad that somebody put money towards this study rather than trying to find a cure for cancer or something beneficial to society

[Uncle Punk]

What about the combatants who are not following the rules of engagement? I think they should be chastised also.

[jporter12]

Seriously?!?!?!

Do they REALLY think that every country in the world is going to abide by their "war rules"? I think not.

They took the beating of that leader TOTALLY out of context. Wasn't it a rogue nation or something that did the beating? It's not as if it was the player, or the "good guys" side. Geesh. I think COD4 is more realistic than their ambitions for one big happy world!

[Aerik]

(sigh)

Well-intentioned stupidity is still stupidity. I can understand what they 'mean' by what they're saying, but what they're proposing isn't realistic or beneficial. I'd much prefer to have human rights groups focusing on the real world; at least there they serve a purpose.

And before this thread devolves into some kind of 'stupid hippies vs. stupid bloodthirsty lunatics' argument, I'll say this: I certainly don't agree with every action taken by every human rights group, because they tend to include a lot of 'true believers' and true believers are stupid, no matter what they believe. I do, however, feel that the human rights movement as a whole has been a net positive for the world. Their major function is to shine a big flashlight on some of the awful shit humans do to each other, and remind us of some of the ideals we should be working toward, even if those aims are unrealistic.

[20thGix]

Wait till PETA catches wind of this story. They might try to ban Whack-a-mole due to cruelty of fake animals.

[redbarron77]

war - active hostility or contention; conflict;

I wonder if this "Rights Group" looked at the Bible for IHL/IHRL issues?

[S-13]

All's fair in love and war. I think Aerik said it best though. Human rights groups are great, but they are definitely wasting resources with this one.

[kawi kid]

its like they need laws for people who cant figure out video game world between real world

[smashweights]

just wait til they get their hands on Modern Warfare 2! lolz.

my favorite bit from the article is that they had "young gamers" play the games, rather than doing it themselves and thus exposing the youth of our world to this human rights violating trash.

[shadyone]

Right I can't wait till they get to the civilian shootem up at the airport in MW2. I'm sure they will have a hayday on that one!

[mhallam85]

Oh yea MW2 would fail BIG time for them for the airport level.

[cmh_sprint]

Do a search on Swiss law, they make California look like the deep south.

[jagr]

To find out, Trial and Pro Juventute picked up 20 games, including Call of Duty 4, Metal Gear Solid 4, Far Cry 2, and others. It had "young gamers" play the games as three attorneys watched to find actions in games that in real life would violate rules and regulations that govern armed conflict.

Somebody call the cops, They had chitlins playing "Mature" games.