“A war with us will not solve anything.

– He says: “For Orcs, war decides everything.”“

WarcraftLegendary Pictures, 2016

I don’t know about others, but I loved video games when I was younger. Please, even now I like them, but I don’t have time for them anymore… And one of my favorite games was Warcraft. So I was looking forward to the release of the film of the same name. I have to admit that I also liked the film, although it is not a masterpiece. But it reminded me of the days when I had time to play… Well, the movie shows (in pretty thick strokes, but when it comes to gross creatures, that’s to be expected) how human the orcs are too. It’s like Shrek… And humans can be worse than orcs. In the movie (as well as in the game), orcs are not human (they come from another universe). However, they operate according to the pattern of human society: they are socially organized (in hordes), have long-term goals (to conquer human territory) and rules by which they conduct themselves (a kind of hunter’s code of honor). Otherwise, orcs (at least the soldiers) are much stronger than humans and are in an antagonistic relationship.

I remembered this when I noticed that among Ukrainians it is customary to call Russian soldiers “orcs”.[1]. Here the universal tendency to associate the enemy with a cruel creature is obvious[2]. Ultimately, the enemy must be destroyed[3]. This is more than an understatement[4]. In addition, in order to “lighten” the load on our own troops, it is useful for “ours” to perceive the one on the other side of the front not as (another) person, but as a non-human who can be killed without mercy[5]. There is also a moral component that places human life above the lives of other (non-human) beings. That is why the “fraternization” of the Allied and German troops along the Western Front in the Christmas days of 1914 was an insult to the idea of ​​total war. And so the recent New Year 2022 shelling in Ukraine (from both sides) shows what a “serious” war means. (I preferred the reference to New Year’s Eve because there is no single day of Christmas celebration in either camp.)

But there is another aspect that I would like to dwell on further. Like any regulatory system (including a moral one), the center of law is a person. Simply put, only people can have rights. Therefore, by dehumanizing the enemy, you deprive him of the opportunity to have rights, that is, to be protected by legal norms. When you are involved in an armed conflict, this attitude may seem justified. Ultimately, we ended up at war because we couldn’t agree on a set of rules to apply. And we will get out of the war when we agree on the terms of peace. No, don’t attack me for not knowing anything about this conflict. I have made only a few truisms: any war begins when the parties cannot negotiate to achieve their (divergent) goals; after any war, the next situation ends with a peace agreement that determines how the relationship between the parties involved will continue. From this point of view, “frozen” conflicts are not actually finished wars, but are still ongoing. Even during war there are a number of agreements between the belligerents and other (more or less) involved parties. As a line with Warcraft situation,” – You’ve all turned to Stormwind in the past for either troops or arbitration. If we don’t unite to fight this enemy, we’ll perish. Stormwind needs soldiers, weapons, horses… “Ha! We have our own kingdoms to look after.’

Imagine a “war in miniature” scenario; a boxing match (or any other contact sport). Before a bout, two boxers engage in a ritual in which they dismiss their opponent as an inferior athlete (if not a being). Technical teams build this rivalry to make the fight in the ring as close as possible to a real fight. But then the fight begins and… a set of rules apply. Two fighters have allowed and forbidden moves, the fight is divided into rounds, there is a jury that evaluates the correct points scored by each athlete. Violation of these rules is punishable. For example, when Mike Tyson bit Evander Holyfield on the ear in a famous boxing match in 1997, Tyson was disqualified and lost the match.

The same should be true in war. Anyone who uses means that are considered dishonest must be punished. Who? Judges. Who is this? This is where the difficulties of international practice arise. The simple answer would be that we are talking about major powers that occupy permanent seats in the UN Security Council. But history has shown that these arbitrators are not as impartial as they should be. And yet the international community can play this role. Sometimes it is manipulated (see the case of weapons of mass destruction, which Iraq was accused of possessing before the 2003 war), sometimes it refuses to intervene (the occupation of Crimea in 2014), but usually after careful consideration (whether it and after the fact), the international community has a reaction. Let us not forget that in opposite geographical regions both the European Code of Chivalry and the Japanese Code of Bushido also provided certain rules. Today, they are reflected in a number of international treaties on the status of prisoners of war or civilian victims.

The question is whether these codes should be respected in relation to beings considered non-human. When a fearless and flawless knight fights a dragon, does he follow the code? It seems so. The brave sparrow, fighting with the kite, chooses the “right fight” and both follow his rules. But other forms aristea not so clear. For example, in Buzescu teaches Dimitrie Bolintineanu, Preda and the Tartar seem to fight “fairly” for a while until “when the Tartar pulls out a small axe”, at which point Preda also resorts to a white weapon and hits him with a “stick”. Was it a fair fight, or do we see here a problem that today is called “escalation” of the conflict? Sometimes, even if the fight is fair, the treatment of the loser by the winner can be reprehensible. The famous scene where Achilles refuses to give Priam the dead body of Hector shows how disobedience to the rules is reprehensible even in the case of a great warrior hero. In all these situations, in which the heroes engage in “just a fight”, the idea of ​​justice is implied, that is, the observance of some rules. Even when the opponent is not human…

Crowds of people are sometimes said to live their own lives and, once out of control, become an amoral monster. In a war where the armed forces are deadlocked against an adversary rather than trying to gain territory, this conclusion can have a hellish tone. Therefore, the parallel with a fierce struggle between two heroes is not appropriate for conflicts of this type, in which large military formations participate. Perhaps for this reason, the law of organizations (whether we are talking about public or private law) deals with the power of representation rather than the will to do something. Because multitudes (individuals) cannot have their own will, but they follow the will of persons who act as representatives. And power is always dangerous, because it is prone to corruption. Just like the Medov magician from Warcraft he ends up doing disgusting things because he just can. And when Khadgar’s disciple asks him: “Guardian, what is this kind?”, the answer comes automatically: “Magic unlike any other. Lives on life itself. It pollutes the user by twisting everything it touches. It promises great power, but exacts a terrible price.” The desire to be taken seriously as a great power seems to do the same (sic!)… For “the view born of death must have a price. The price of the lives taken.”

In this landscape of humans and orcs, justice stands still. And because law is a system of interpersonal relations. He does not perceive the relationship between humans and other species[6]. (However, in the universe Warcraft several types seem to have been adopted: “More of our villages have been burnt to-night. One of them is the village of my birth. I can’t imagine the horrors you went through, Haron. But it is not necessary. We have had peace in these lands for many years. Peace between races from all over the world. (…) You have a life here, Garona. With us. Life in freedom. If you want to.) Anything that is not a person will be considered an object with which you cannot enter into a relationship. If I start talking to my car, it means I have a problem, as Stephen King brilliantly demonstrated in Christine. From a lawyer’s point of view, talking to my dog ​​is just as problematic. In other words, animals are still objects, they cannot claim their own rights. It is true that the law does not (yet) have the capacity to qualify a non-human being that acts autonomously and can communicate what it thinks. It may do so when it finally has to decide where AI belongs… For now, it’s still seen as a human-made thing that should be responsible for (autonomous?) AI actions[7].

And here a big dilemma arises. If legal relations exist only between persons (that is, people who are considered as subjects of law), then what kind of relationship can you have with an orc? At most, you can say that you are responsible for what the orc in question does, assuming it happens to be under your control. But if the orc is a draw, then you have nothing to do. You blame the death and accept the losses. It’s like when you’re swimming in the middle of the ocean and a shark attacks you. You have no one to sue for damages caused by the attack. Sure, but I don’t think you have a fixed address where you can summon Poseidon in the process… This is exactly the problem the Ukrainians saw when they asked their citizens to stop saying that “orcs” caused all kinds of damage (human and material), but correctly identify the culprit as the Russian military[8]. This “humanization” has nothing to do with any moral aspect (they are also people), but with the possibility of holding them accountable for their actions. Indeed, a legal report has two sides: on the one hand, it allows the definition of rights, on the other hand, it justifies the establishment of duties for the actors involved. So the desire to dehumanize the enemy must give way to the realization that you cannot deny that you are in a relationship with him. As Lothar Garoni explained: “You think you’re scary. Orc children have pets scarier than you. – We’re not trying to be scared, Garona. We are trying to protect our people, our families. If you help us. I give you my oath. You will have your freedom.” Read the entire article and comment on Contributors.ro