Looking for a POD...rules of war for partisans and the like

I'm trying to come up with a way and reason that either The Hague Treaties of 1907 or the Geneva Conventions of later times could include irregulars in the rules of war. I'm looking for a way to have "terrorists" or "Freedom Fighters" be given the rights of POW's, provided they limit their attacks to legitimate targets, and have a declared agenda. Example: French underground blows up civilian passenger train...criminal act. IRA bombing of a pub...criminal action. IRA shoots military forces...legitimate act of war.
Could such a treaty have been put into effect at any time? And could it make irregular warfare not as hard on the civilian non-combatants?
 
I'm trying to come up with a way and reason that either The Hague Treaties of 1907 or the Geneva Conventions of later times could include irregulars in the rules of war. I'm looking for a way to have "terrorists" or "Freedom Fighters" be given the rights of POW's, provided they limit their attacks to legitimate targets, and have a declared agenda. Example: French underground blows up civilian passenger train...criminal act. IRA bombing of a pub...criminal action. IRA shoots military forces...legitimate act of war.
Could such a treaty have been put into effect at any time? And could it make irregular warfare not as hard on the civilian non-combatants?

There is no possibly way this could ever happen. You would be legalizing violent rebellion.
 
The problems with the scenario is even if rules are instituted ,you have a huge problem getting people to follow them as a Amed Insurrection against an occupying power has a mind all its own.It would provide a dilineation of Terrorists vs Guerilla .But no Army is going to want to have restrictions placed upon it by a piece of paper in dealing with either group.The other real thorn is how do you define Military targets ?,C3I is a legitimate target as is the infrastructure used by the Defense establishment. The real problem is a occupied territory has usualy formally surrendered to the occupying power.
So any further resistance is by definition ILLEGAL and the persons committing the violent acts are not members of any recognised force and therefore criminals.

What rules would do is make total war the rule of the day with maximum Civ casualties a benifit not a PR disaster.On the theory that maximum violence now will reduce resistance later. You might want to remember that we have enough problems getting people to obey the current rules and you want to add more that would seriously hamper a Army from operating in a foriegn land.

Good luck getting 1 Govt. to actually sign it let alone make it into a generally accepted and codified Rules of War.
 
If France wins the Franco-Prussian War then the franc tirreurs are heroes, successful heroes, and ones who are backed retrospectively by a major power which is dominant on the continent. THAT might be all it takes for a treaty, when agreed, to include protection for guerillas fighting an occupying power. It might come with caveats such as it doesn't apply to "savages" etc, or to Muslims, though it would be a right that the great powers would be very interested in seeing enforced within the Ottoman Empire for its Christian minorities

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Lesser goal...

Perhaps if the rules of war could cover irregular forces of a beligerant power. For example, Belgium hadn't surrendered in the Great War, nor had France. So..can we make the rules of war cover resistance fighters in occupied areas that have not surrendered? Leave off revolutionaries and the like. (Though the USA treated its rebels according to the rules of war in the southern rebellion, and Britian treated the Amercan rebels more or less corectly in te American revolution)

Thus: Belgian resistance to German occupation: legal. French resistance in the Second World War: Illegal, since France had surrendered.
 
Perhaps if the rules of war could cover irregular forces of a beligerant power. For example, Belgium hadn't surrendered in the Great War, nor had France. So..can we make the rules of war cover resistance fighters in occupied areas that have not surrendered? Leave off revolutionaries and the like. (Though the USA treated its rebels according to the rules of war in the southern rebellion, and Britian treated the Amercan rebels more or less corectly in te American revolution)

Thus: Belgian resistance to German occupation: legal. French resistance in the Second World War: Illegal, since France had surrendered.

Thats interesting, because it WOULD cover the Franco-Prussian War since Napoleon III never surrendered to the Germans, he was deposed by his own side who then tried to fight on.

The question is, I suppose, what do you do in a situation like Iraq - did anyone formally surrender Saddam's regime, or was it just displaced and replaced by one set up by the occupiers ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Thats interesting, because it WOULD cover the Franco-Prussian War since Napoleon III never surrendered to the Germans, he was deposed by his own side who then tried to fight on.

The question is, I suppose, what do you do in a situation like Iraq - did anyone formally surrender Saddam's regime, or was it just displaced and replaced by one set up by the occupiers ?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

If I was the US, I would say that a (US-backed) popular uprising took place, installing the IGC, therefore the IGC and its democratic sucessor was the legal government of Iraq, and the Saddamists are thus rebelling against their own government.
 
Top