As I scan the horizon for targets, a river of flames cuts through the night sky; dancing streams of red and white light up the city. I see white phosphorous all around us. This stuff is death to all it touches. Our 155 mm artillery shells, alternating between white phosphorous and high explosive, soften up enemy positions in advance of the assault. In a split second, we will leave the safety of our armoured vehicle and start the bloody work of grunts: searching houses and killing villains. We must push forward. We can't let the terrorists fall back and regroup. We've grabbed a foothold in the city and must exploit it by driving as deep as possible into enemy territory. Our instructions are to take out the likely enemy headquarters, a big house down the street. The success of the whole campaign rests upon our shoulders.
Our squad leader turns to us, gives a few quick orders, and moves to the back gate. I throw a grenade toward the municipal building. When it explodes, smoke and dirt swirl around the street. We fire a few 40 mm M203 rounds for good measure. The explosion leaves a makeshift smoke screen. As we progress, one team member is taken down by sniper fire from a building on our left. It looks like a hotel. I call in a drone strike. Almost immediately its lethal load hits the multistorey building, reducing it to rubble. No need to bother about potential occupants or collateral damage; the entire city, manned only by treacherous terrorists, can be destroyed. Any human our team encounters is a target. Anti-personnel land mines are a good way to secure streets and buildings we have cleared. For four hours in a row, we repeatedly enter houses, killing anyone in our line of sight and grabbing their dog tags as trophies. Enemy wounded, as a rule, try to fight back. Those who don't get a double tap anyway, just like all the rest. After all, there is no surrender option. Only enemy leaders are taken alive: you can't beat intelligence out of dead people. Afterwards, headshots from my M4 Bushmaster – with the silencer I got for reaching 100 kills – are good for my game ranking.Footnote 1
Video gamesFootnote 2 offer players the possibility to ‘use’ the latest weapons against enemy combatants on contemporary battlefields. Yet as realistic as they may look and sound, these games often portray lawless armed conflicts in which actions are without consequences. This sends negative messages to players about the existence of, and need to respect, humanitarian norms during real armed conflicts. Why can't players enjoy video games that truly reflect the dilemmas of modern combatants? Can video games be a positive medium of influence to reinforce understanding and respect for the law? Why can't players be rewarded for compliance with the rules governing the use of force as well as the treatment of persons in the hands of the enemy and sanctioned for violating the same?
***
With hundreds of millions of active players (or ‘gamers’) around the world,Footnote 3 the video games industry has become a global phenomenon that transcends social, cultural, geographical, age, and income brackets. While the vast majority of video games do not depict combat situations or indeed any form of violence, those that do represent a highly lucrative, if narrow, segment of the video game market.Footnote 4 From Rio de Janeiro to Ramallah, children and adults – including enlisted soldiers and budding recruits – are enthralled by this form of ‘militainment’ (see figures throughout article).Footnote 5
‘Video games and international humanitarian law (IHL)’ is a relatively new and fragmented field of enquiry, spanning a range of discourses. There is little in the way of IHL-focused literature on the subject. This article is very much an exploratory piece. Its purpose is to highlight the potential impact of these games on players’ perceptions of the normative framework governing the use of force. Our focus is upon first person shooter games depicting combat situations, that is, those games where players fire at enemy targets on contemporary battlefields, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, and other contexts in the Levant.Footnote 6 As depiction of violence per se is not the issue being addressed in this contribution, video games that portray more fictional scenarios including medieval fantasy or futuristic wars in outer space are beyond the scope of this article. In the first section, we begin by highlighting the potential influence of video games on players’ perception about applicable rules in real battlefields. The second section examines the applicability of IHL and international human rights law (IHRL) to contemporary situations portrayed in video games. In the third section, attention turns to challenges posed to humanitarian norms by games that are marketed as providing a ‘real-life’ experience of combat, but actually portray battlefields that are essentially lawless. In the final section, the authors explain the International Committee of the Red Cross's (ICRC) joint initiative with various Red Cross National Societies to work together with the video game industry to encourage innovation for better integration of IHL and IHRL in these games. We note that through this initiative, video games – with their vast reach and capacity for the transfer of knowledge and skills – can become important vectors for the promotion of humanitarian norms.Footnote 7
Influence of video games
Video games and violent behaviour
It is a truism that technology is transforming how wars are fought. In our view, technology is also transforming the way we imagine war. Traditionally, perceptions of war have been shaped by heroic and epic songs, stories, plays, and movies. Today, millions have ready access to increasingly realistic movies and video games crafted with input from ex-military personnel who served on contemporary battlefields.Footnote 8 In some cases, the depiction of armed conflict in video games is so realistic that it is difficult to distinguish real war footage from fantasy (Figures 1 and 2).Footnote 9 When compared to movies, video games have unprecedented novelty. Players are active participants in simulated warfare. Unlike passive spectators of traditional media such as movies, video game players make decisions to use or refrain from using force. In reaction to this development, 59 per cent of respondents to an Australian government survey stated that video games should be classified differently to other media forms, precisely because the player is invited to participate in video game violence, not just watch violence.Footnote 10
In the same survey, 63 per cent of respondents believed that playing violent computer games results in real life violence. While this widespread belief is revealing, it is not conclusively supported by research. The scientific literature is divided on the influence of video games on human behaviour, especially when the question is framed: ‘Can playing video games lead to violent behaviour?’Footnote 11 While there is no compelling evidence to support that proposition, revelations that killers have actually used video games as training tools has kept these issues in the media spotlight.Footnote 12
When it comes to defining the psychological impact of a particular stimulus on an individual, scientific researchers cannot overcome a number of impediments to drawing conclusions that apply to a population as a whole. A range of factors produce differences from one person to another including genetics, the social environment, and the degree of violence within the society of one particular individual. Access to weapons, poverty, and the degree of violence within one's family are believed to be essential factors in the decision to resort to armed violence. Moreover, most scientific research on the causes of violent behaviour is conducted within developed countries where violence is more limited and severely sanctioned. As access to Internet and video games is no longer limited to privileged countries,Footnote 13 scientific research conducted in say Nairobi or in the favelas of Rio de Janeiro could yield very different conclusions from existing, often US-based, research.Footnote 14 In any case, while researchers have not established a causal link between violent games and violent behaviour, they have not excluded such a link.
This is a real photo-image taken during combat in Fallujah. © Anja Niedringhaus/Keystone.
In ArmA II, players fight in realistic looking environments. This and other scenes closely resemble footage recorded during real military operations. © Bohemia Interactive.
In the game Crysis 2, players can attack an ambulance with impunity. No warnings or penalties are triggered by attacks on ambulances. © ICRC, Thierry Gassmann.
Summary execution of a captive in Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II. Players must view this unplayable scene to proceed further in the game. No penalties, warnings, or consequences accompany this scene. © ICRC, Thierry Gassmann.
Video games, training, and skills acquisition
There is little doubt that video games represent an efficient medium for the transfer of knowledge and skills. According to a recent French language survey,Footnote 15 more than 50 per cent of players claimed to play between one and four hours per day and over 90 per cent had played games depicting graphic armed violence. Repetition of actions is essential to the acquisition of automatism. Recognized by military leaders since antiquity, this technique is institutionalized in military training, and commonly known as ‘the drill’. While playing for hours, regularly repeating the same actions and scenarios, video game players focus on the objective to be attained. Methods used are simply a means to achieving the goal. Inevitably, players learn from their own actions as well as from images displayed on the screen.
When performing as expected by the video game scenario or script, players are rewarded symbolically with a bonus, a medal, or improved equipment or weaponry, or by moving to the next stage of the game. Such rewards, combined with hormones produced by the brain, provide a sense of satisfaction and fulfilment for actions performed and skills learned.Footnote 16 Arguably, a player regularly exposed to video game scenes of torture and perhaps compelled by the script to act out tortureFootnote 17 (to proceed to the next stage) and then rewarded for doing so will not necessarily commit acts of torture in real life. However, such a person may find himself or herself more easily inclined to regard torture as an acceptable behaviour. A study, conducted by the American Red Cross, while not mentioning video games, offers important insights into what Americans think about certain conduct frequently depicted in video games, including torture.Footnote 18 Of the youth surveyed, 59 per cent considered the torture of captured enemy soldiers or fighters in order to extract important military information as acceptable (compared to 51 per cent of adults). Only 45 per cent and 40 per cent respectively said this conduct was never acceptable.
The utility of video games and virtual environments for training and skills acquisition has been recognized by armed forces, leading to commercial-military collaboration in the development of games. Collaboration between the video game industry and the military is not new.Footnote 19 Interaction flows in two directions and takes several forms. Commercial war game developers advise the armed forces on how to make their recruitment games more entertaining, while serving or former military personnel add realism to stories and scenes in commercial games.Footnote 20 Meanwhile, footage from real armed conflicts is adapted for use in both battlefield training software and commercial video games. Military interest in video games is not difficult to fathom. According to one study, US military personnel and potential recruits play video games at a higher rate than the general population.Footnote 21 A US Navy review of the effectiveness of instructional games concluded that, for various different tasks and diverse learning groups, some games could provide effective learning in areas such as mathematics, attitudes, electronics, and economics.Footnote 22 Computer simulation programmes have also been developed to assist veterans to reintegrate into societyFootnote 23 and help trauma victims.Footnote 24 Another instance of the use of video games as a medium of influence is provided by the US Army's most powerful recruitment tool: a multiplayerFootnote 25 video game. In America's Army, players engage – together with others connected on the Internet – in imaginary military operations in mostly urban settings that resemble combat conditions in Iraq and Afghanistan. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) researchers argue that this free online game is a more effective recruitment tool than all other forms of US Army advertising combined.Footnote 26 In addition to being a useful vector for communicating information of clear interest to potential recruits (for example, equipment, salaries, and career opportunities), the game is a tool for inculcating military values.Footnote 27
Resorting to video games as a medium of influence is not limited to the US or Western world armed forces. Under Siege (Tahta – al Hisar),Footnote 28 a video game developed and produced in Damascus, Syria, departs from the familiar script of American soldiers as the heroes doing battle in Muslim countries. Set during the Second Intifada and designed for Arab youngsters, Under Siege offers a Middle Eastern view of that conflict. Players get to assume the role of a young Palestinian facing Israeli occupation. Hezbollah's video game Special Forces 2 – Tale of the Truthful Pledge, a follow up to Special Force (2003), adopts a similar approach. The second edition depicts armed conflict between Israel and Hezbollah based on key phases of the 2006 armed conflict.Footnote 29
Another, albeit indirect, form of interaction between the military and the video game ‘sphere’ is to be observed through the new generation of unmanned aerial vehicle (or drone) pilots who bring years of video-gaming experience to their new role of conducting combat operations.Footnote 30 This has sparked debate about whether such experience shapes attitudes and behaviour. The question of whether drone pilots have a ‘PlayStation mentality’ has generated heated debate within military circles. Concerns have been voiced by senior military officials about video games shaping perceptions about what is acceptable behaviour during war, including the perceptions of experienced video gamers recruited to operate armed drones from remote locations far from the battlefield.Footnote 31 This issue deserves further examination by researchers independent of government and military forces.
The then UN Special Rapporteur on Extrajudicial, Summary or Arbitrary Executions Philip Alston, frames the issue in the following way:
Young military personnel raised on a diet of video games now kill real people remotely using joysticks. Far removed from the human consequences of their actions, how will this generation of fighters value the right to life? How will commanders and policymakers keep themselves immune from the deceptively antiseptic nature of drone killings? Will killing be a more attractive option than capture? Will the standards for intelligence-gathering to justify a killing slip? Will the number of acceptable ‘collateral’ civilian deaths increase?Footnote 32
Video games and the factors influencing the behaviour of combatants
On the issue of video games and their potential influence on behaviour, it is instructive to compare the mechanisms that shape the behaviour of combatants in real life and those at play within video games. Through empirical research and a review of the literature, the ICRC has identified various factors that are crucial in conditioning the behaviour of combatants in armed conflicts. The goal of a 2004 studyFootnote 33 was to identify the causes of violations of IHL. It focused mainly on psycho-sociological factors universally present in any group of armed combatants taking part in a war, such as the influence of the group, integration within a hierarchy, and moral disengagement.Footnote 34 Interestingly (or disturbingly), most of these factors may also be identified in video games. With respect to behaviour of combatants, the study found that:
Combatants are subject to group conformity phenomena such as depersonalization, loss of independence and a high degree of conformity. This is a situation that favours the dilution of the individual responsibility of the combatant within the collective responsibility of his combat unit. … Combatants are also subject to a process of shifting individual responsibility from themselves to their superior(s) in the chain of command. While violations of IHL may sometimes stem from orders given by such an authority, they seem more frequently to be connected with a lack of any specific orders not to violate the law or an implicit authorization to behave in a reprehensible manner. … Combatants who have taken part in hostilities and been subjected to humiliation and trauma are led, in the short term, to perpetrate violations of IHL. … The gulf observed between the acknowledgement and application of humanitarian norms derives from a series of mechanisms leading to the moral disengagement of the combatant and to the perpetration of violations of IHL. The moral disengagement of combatants is effected mainly by having recourse (1) to justifications of violations,Footnote 35 and (2) to the dehumanizing of the enemy.Footnote 36
Several parallels may be drawn between the conclusions of this study and video games that portray contemporary battlefields. Out of the five causes of violations identified in the study, at least four are mirrored in video games. Namely, the encouragement to crime that is part of the nature of war, the definition of war aims, reasons of opportunity, and psycho-sociological reasons. It goes without saying that reasons linked to the individual (the fifth identified cause of violations) may not be generalized here.
The study identified encouragement to crimeFootnote 37 as part of the nature of war. In video games it flows from perceptions that battlefields are places devoid of civilians or those hors de combat. Consequently, players are left under the impression that the whole battlefield is an open shooting range where no precautions are to be taken. In the view of the authors, the decision of video game companies to remove civilians from their products fuels the same perception: anything alive is a foe and killing is the only option – there are no limits to the use of force. This impression is reinforced by the example sometimes set by the behaviour of other characters in the video games. For instance, when a squad leader in a video game engages in torture or extrajudicial killing, this provides the signal to players that such behaviour is implicitly authorized.Footnote 38
The definition of war aims (or campaign objectives) of video games tends to justify the results, whatever the methods. As in real armed conflict, the enemy is commonly demonized and dehumanized in video games, justifying their killing. The enemy's failure to respect the law is also presented as a justification for players using any method of warfare at their disposal to fulfil their mission.
In real armed conflicts many combatants break the rules simply because war is the ultimate experience and they are given the opportunity to do so. Such reasons of opportunity are reflected by the enjoyment of transgressing rules. This is at the very centre of the experience of many types of video games, including many that depict contemporary battlefields. As noted by some video games developers, players tend to shoot civilians in games simply because they can. For both the combatants and the players, the sense of opportunity is reinforced by a feeling of impunity. In most video games, violations are not followed by sanctions.
Finally, as in real armed conflicts, psycho-sociological reasons such as obedience to authority, group conformity, as well as moral disengagement are all embodied within the limited freedom of decision-making offered to the player. For instance, in one sequence in Call of Duty: Black Ops, the player must watch his or her own character introduce shards of glass into the mouth of a captured enemy. Immediately afterwards the player is requested and compelled to give a command to the computer or play station for the hero to hit the detainee in the face. With no other alternative than to obey or quit the game, the player is left to construct his or her own justification for this act of torture in order to distance himself from the facts and continue with his or her life. This mechanism is known all too well to numerous combatants in real armed conflicts.
Applicability of IHL and IHRL to video games
A plethora of legal norms are relevant to video games. Before addressing IHL, it is important to note that players, game designers, and distributors can point to a range of protections guaranteed under IHRL that are relevant to their respective activities. These protections flow from freedom of expression,Footnote 39 the right to property,Footnote 40 the right to privacy and family life,Footnote 41 and the right to play.Footnote 42 Freedom of expression, for instance, has been successfully invoked on numerous occasions in US courts to uphold the legality of video and computer games that depict violence, including torture and summary execution of captives.Footnote 43 However, this right has its limits.Footnote 44 Lawmakers in various countries have relied upon these limits to ban games that depict extreme physical violence, sexual violence, and other content deemed offensive. The fact that specific provisions of IHRL,Footnote 45 copyright and intellectual property law,Footnote 46 and domestic law are the main sources of law applicable to the design, sale, and use of video gamesFootnote 47 is uncontroversial and not central to the present article. Of more interest for present purposes is the issue of the applicability of the rules on the use of force and the treatment of persons in the hands of the enemy, as contained within IHL and IHRL, to virtual battlefields created by the militainment industry.
It goes without saying that playing video games falls within the realm of fantasy. It does not involve participation in a real armed conflict. The same is true of use of battlefield simulation technology for military training purposes. Nonetheless, two questions need answers. First of all, do IHL and IHRL rules apply to the situations portrayed within video games? And second, do states have any particular obligation to ensure that the content of video games complies with the rules on the use of force and the treatment of persons in the hands of the enemy?
Any operation on a battlefield takes place within a legal framework shaped by international law (IHL and IHRL) and national legislation. Even though video games are only virtual it is argued here that, for the sake of realism, IHL and IHRL rules on the use of force should be applied to scenes in video games that portray realistic battlefields (in the same way that the laws of physics are applied). Incidentally, video games are not the only context where this legal framework can shape a situation even though no armed conflict is actually in progress. Another important example is military training and planning. Whenever military commanders train their personnel, or plan operations with their staff, they must take into account the relevant law. They are certainly not expected to wait for the operation to be carried out before factoring in the law.
Whether IHL or IHRL or both are relevant to the situation portrayed in a video game depends upon whether the game depicts a situation of armed conflict. Each game must be examined individually. As IHL only applies during armed conflict, it has no relevance if what is portrayed in a video game is internal tensions, such as riots or protests, falling below the threshold of armed conflict. In these situations, the law enforcement regime,Footnote 48 which falls within IHRL, prescribes applicable rules on the use of force, firearms, arrest, detention, search and seizure during law enforcement operations.Footnote 49 For example, IHRL provides that firearms may not be used against a person, unless the person in question poses an imminent threat to life and there is no possible alternative.Footnote 50 Where the situation portrayed reaches the threshold of armed conflict, both IHL and IHRL are relevant. IHL contains the rules that combatants must follow when planning and conducting military operations (for example, rules on distinction, proportionality, and precautions). The conduct of hostilities regime, which falls within IHL,Footnote 51 allows for the killing of legitimate targets.Footnote 52 Where it is unclear whether the setting of the video game reaches the threshold of an armed conflictFootnote 53 – and therefore whether IHL applies – IHRL continues to be applicable, including the law enforcement regime referred to above, as well as the prohibition in particular of torture, arbitrary deprivation of life, and cruel and degrading treatment.Footnote 54
Looking at the second question, that is, whether states have an obligation to ensure video game content complies with the rules on the use of force, consider the following hypothetical example. A video game enables players to commit acts of torture and other grave breaches or serious violations of IHL in a virtual armed conflict. Players are not informed that such acts are prohibited. Sometimes players are even rewarded for acting out such behaviour in the game. For the sake of simplicity, let us put the provisions of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment to one side. Does the game engage the IHL treaty obligations of states to respect and ensure respectFootnote 55 and to disseminateFootnote 56 IHL as widely as possible?Footnote 57 It is uncontroversial to note that states, at the very least, must ensure that their military training tools (including video games used either for recruitment or training purposes) do not permit or encourage any unlawful behaviour without proper sanctions. In the best case scenario, in fulfilment of the state's obligations, military training tools should fully integrate applicable rules on the use of force, that is, these tools should enable military personnel to respect, and train in the respect of, the law.Footnote 58 State obligations to ‘respect and to ensure respect’ for IHL and disseminate IHL as widely as possible and to comply with their treaty obligationsFootnote 59 are very general and apply at all times.Footnote 60 While these rules should, as a matter of logic, apply to commercial video games sold or distributed on the sovereign territory of states, the practice of states indicates otherwise.
To conclude this section, it is important to note that questions about whether States have an obligation to ensure that the rules on the use of force, and the treatment of persons in the hands of the enemy are properly integrated into video games are not just theoretical. Depictions of violations of the law are not uncommon in video games. A 2009 Swiss study of popular video gamesFootnote 61 identified frequently depicted violations of IHL. They included: violations of the principles of distinction and proportionality; extensive destruction of civilian property and/or injury or deaths of civilians without military necessity; and intentionally directing attacks against civilians or civilian objects, including religious buildings.Footnote 62 The study found that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or torture was most often depicted in video games in the context of interrogation.Footnote 63
The same study found that direct attacks against civilians not directly participating in hostilities were frequently depicted.Footnote 64 The victims – mostly hostages or civilians present in a village – were not mere incidental casualties: they were directly targeted. In only one game was this conduct punished.Footnote 65 Indeed, failure to comply with the principle of distinction occurred in various games. One instance is the use of munitions, including tank shells and cluster munitionsFootnote 66 that are indiscriminate in their effectsFootnote 67 when deployed in densely populated areas. In Medal of Honour Airborne, weapons that do not discriminate between combatants and civilians on the ground are deployed in airborne operations in urban areas.Footnote 68 Several games also allowed players to shoot injured soldiers who are hors de combat or watch others do so.Footnote 69 Many produce inconsistent consequences when players target civilians or engage in other conduct that would constitute violations in a real armed conflict.Footnote 70
The authors of the present article have identified various other examples in video games of conduct that could constitute violations in a real armed conflict. They include: firing on medical units bearing the Red Cross, Red Crescent, or Red Crystal protective emblem or misuse of that emblem; destruction of civilian objects which appears to be disproportionate; use of anti-personnel landmines; removing identity discs from dead enemy combatants as trophies; use of heavy weapons in densely populated areas without regard for the rules on precautions in attack; and attacks on civilian objects that may involve the death of innumerable unseen civilians.Footnote 71 The last two problems are illustrated in the video game Battlefield 3. In one scene, an entire floor of a multistorey hotel is destroyed in order to kill a single sniper.
Challenges to humanitarian norms
Simply playing a video game does not give rise to violations of IHL or IHRL by the player. At the risk of stating the obvious, a player does not commit a criminal act by pressing a button to enable a character in a video game to perform torture or summary execution: video games are fantasy. Furthermore, there is neither a need nor a way to take any legal action against gamers in such circumstances. Armed conflicts are, by definition, violent environments in which participants or combatants may apply a certain degree of force to compel the enemy to surrender. The depictions of violence in video games, per se, are therefore not the issue. However, in our view, video games pose two important challenges to humanitarian norms. The first is their tendency to trivialize violations of the law. No less important is their potential undermining effect on perceptions of the normative framework among players (who include current and potential combatants, opinion-makers, lawmakers, decision-makers, and the general public).
Messages conveyed by video games and humanitarian challenges
In this debate it is necessary, first of all, to have a closer look at the messages video games convey. By doing so, their potential undermining effect on perceptions of, and respect for, the fundamental rules of IHL – especially those governing the use of force and the obligation to spare civilians and combatants hors de combat – can be better understood. This section highlights several messages video games convey, as well as positive efforts by the video game industry to address the perception issue.
Several messages conveyed by video games are of particular concern precisely because they reflect and reinforce certain ideas that pose a direct challenge to IHL. Important examples include the following: war is a law-free zone; the ends justify the means; the means and methods of warfare are not limited; anything living on a battlefield is to be shot at without distinction; identity discs are trophies; and medical staff and facilities can be attacked.
War is a law-free zone
In many video games, inflicting injury or death is normal and the only option available. Impunity is the norm and the law applicable to the situation portrayed in the game is rarely, if ever, acknowledged or enforced. One result is the absence of humanity in video games. In contemporary armed conflicts, the challenge of upholding humanitarian values is not the result of a lack of rules, but a lack of respect for them. Achieving greater respect, implementation, and enforcement of IHL remains an abiding challenge for the international community and a constant priority of the ICRC. This is the responsibility of parties to a conflict, state or non-state, but also requires action by states in peacetime. In addition, sanctions of a disciplinary or criminal nature must be adopted.Footnote 72
The ends justify the means
Some video games require players to witness or participate in graphic scenes of torture and/or murder of enemy captives in order to proceed in the game.Footnote 73 In real life, such conduct is absolutely prohibited at all times under both IHRLFootnote 74 and IHL.Footnote 75 In many video games, enemy fighters are depicted as treacherous villains who broke the rules first. They are often labelled ‘terrorists’ who deserve brutal treatment including summary execution or torture. A recent challenge for IHL has been the tendency of states to label as terroristFootnote 76 all acts of warfare against them committed by armed groups, especially in non-international armed conflicts. This has created confusion in differentiating between lawful acts of war, including such acts committed by domestic insurgents against military targets, and acts of terrorism.Footnote 77
The means and methods of warfare are not limited
Amongst the weaponry available to players in many video games are explosive devices that are detonated by the presence or proximity of the enemy or on physical contact. On a battlefield and in legal terms such devices would be considered as anti-personnel landmines.Footnote 78 Nowadays, some 160 countries have committed themselves to ban these weapons from their military ordinance. Since the Ottawa Convention's adoption fifteen years ago substantial progress has been made in response to the humanitarian issue posed by these mines that keep on killing and maiming long after wars have ended. Nevertheless, great challenges remain, especially in removing remaining mines and relieving the suffering of the hundreds of thousands of injured and their families. In 2009, during the Second Review Conference for the Ottawa Convention, states adopted a plan of action that contains strong commitments to improve work in the fields of victim assistance, stockpile destruction, and mine clearance.Footnote 79
Anything living on a battlefield is to be shot at without distinction
In many first person shooter games, use of force resembles sport. Instead of hunting wild game, players hunt virtual human beings. Since most virtual battlefields are void of civilians, anything living is an enemy.Footnote 80 When they are wounded, enemy combatants usually continue fighting thereby justifying their killing. IHL essentially distinguishes between two categories of people in armed conflict: combatants and civilians. While the latter are protected at all times, except and only for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities, the former are protected once out of combat due to illness, injury, capture, or surrender. In contemporary armed conflicts there is a blurring of civilian and military functions. Added to the difficulty of distinguishing between civilians and the military is the problem of civilians who directly participate in hostilities.Footnote 81
Identity discs are trophies
In recent video games,Footnote 82 players must retrieve dog tags from the enemy combatants they have killed in order to validate these kills and be rewarded. In war, many people go missing, causing anguish and uncertainty for their families and friends because their bodies may not be identified. IHL and IHRL require parties to an armed conflict to take measures to ensure that people do not go missing. For instance, all combatants should carry proper identity documentsFootnote 83 so that their fate can be recorded. The collection of one of the identity discs is authorized under IHL for its transmission to the National Information Bureau or the Central Tracing Agency. The other half should remain with the body to facilitate its identification. In 2003 the ICRC organized an international conference to tackle this hidden tragedy and seek ways to help the families and communities affected. In 2006 the UN General Assembly adopted the International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearances.
Medical staff and facilities can be attacked
Another message sent by some video games is that directly targeting medical staff and facilities is normal and triggers no consequences (Figure 3).Footnote 84 The impression is reinforced when medics in video games are given offensive roles and weaponry, including grenade launchers.Footnote 85 In real armed conflicts thousands of wounded and sick people are denied effective health care when: hospitals are damaged by explosive weapons or forcibly entered by fighters; ambulances are hijacked; and health-care personnel are threatened, kidnapped, injured, or killed. The problem is so acute in the wars of today that the ICRC is running a global Health Care in Danger campaign to raise awareness about this humanitarian issue.Footnote 86
Innovations by the video games industry addressing humanitarian challenges
Over the last years a number of initiatives have been taken by game designers to address some of the concerns highlighted above. This demonstrates a willingness to ‘do the right thing’.Footnote 87 Innovations include: the removal of civilians from video games, the introduction of rules and penalties, the reinforcement of the principle of distinction, the provision of options other than killing, the removal of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, and the inclusion of warnings and target restrictions to the players.
Removal of civilians from video games
After observing that players shoot innocent civilians in video games ‘simply because they can’, the creators of Battlefield 3 decided to remove all civilians from their game and sideline the issue of distinction.Footnote 88 However, this rather radical solution leads to some unrealistic depictions of urban conflict, including fighting taking place in city centres devoid of civilians.Footnote 89
Introduction of rules and penalties
In an attempt to mirror battlefield reality some video game designers have built rules and penalties into the script. In doing so they have integrated aspects of the law applicable during a real armed conflict. In some games, characters are penalized for killing civilians. For example, in Dar al-Fikr – Under Ash, produced by the Syrian creators of Under Siege, shooting civilians triggers a loss of points or ‘game over’. In Rainbow Six: Vegas, ‘excessive’ killing of civilians is punished by removing the player from command.Footnote 90 In ARMA II, players can shoot unarmed civilians. However, if they persist with such behaviour they will eventually be shot by soldiers from their own side.Footnote 91
Reinforcement of the distinction principle
In Call of Duty – Modern Warfare 3, the majority of enemy soldiers are depicted wearing distinct uniforms and emblems, and act largely within the bounds of IHL. In those parts of the story where they are not in uniform, enemy fighters are distinctly armed and intent on harming the player, causing no confusion about who is and who is not a legitimate target.Footnote 92
Provision of options other than killing
While IHL permits the use of lethal force against enemy combatants and military objectives,Footnote 93 the parties to an armed conflict are free to achieve their military aims without resorting to the use of lethal force. In a bid to better reflect reality, some games include options, other than killing the enemy, to achieve certain objectives. In Hezbollah's video game, Special Force 2, the objectives include capturing enemy soldiers. ARMA II is the only game, known to the authors, that includes a ‘surrender option’ for players or enemy troops.Footnote 94 In Under Siege the hero rescues wounded Palestinians shot by the enemy.
Removal of the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems
In some video games the Red Cross and Red Crescent protective emblems are replaced with alternatives (usually blue, green, or white crosses).Footnote 95 Nevertheless, replacing the protective emblems with other symbols does not change the fact that medical personnel and volunteers who engage in medical tasks must always be respected and protected, unless they commit, outside of their humanitarian function, acts harmful to the enemy.Footnote 96
Warnings and target restrictions
Another innovation in game design is the inclusion of warnings for players against acts that could be construed as violations of IHL if they occurred in a real armed conflict. In Call of Duty – Modern Warfare 3, game makers have gone to some lengths in Version 3 to avoid making civilians and civilian infrastructure targets (a feature of Version 1).Footnote 97 Where civilian objects become military targets, the game explains why. When civilians are in the player's line of fire, an invisible commander announces that they are civilians and instructs the player to either hold fire or aim with care. If the player chooses to shoot a civilian, the mission instantly ends in failure and the game explains why.Footnote 98
ICRC initiative
On the basis of field experience and researchFootnote 99 the ICRC has come to the conclusion that behaviour is more effectively changed by modifying the environmental conditions that influence it than by directly trying to alter people's opinions, attitudes, or outlook. Accordingly, the ICRC's activities aim to prevent human suffering caused by armed conflict and other situations of violence by fostering an environment conducive to respect for the life and dignity of persons affected by armed conflict and other situations of violence, and respect for humanitarian work. With respect to video games and individual behaviour, there is no conclusive scientific basis for linking IHL violations that occur in real life with those depicted in video games. Nonetheless, it is contended that the widespread use of video games has the potential to desensitize players to the very existence of rules on the use of force.
Considering the potential of video games to convey both positive and negative messages to players regarding what is a permissible conduct during armed conflict, the ICRC is concerned that a range of video games are trivializing heinous behaviour such as torture and summary execution (Figure 4). New releases continue to allow players to perform, without penalty, acts that would constitute violations of IHL if they occurred in a real armed conflict. In 2011 the ICRC invited states and Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies to a presentation on video games that portray contemporary armed conflicts. A short film, highlighting scenes from some of the world's most popular video games, including the Medal of Honor, Call of Duty, and ARMA franchises, generated a vibrant discussion, both at the event and subsequently online, about whether rules of IHL should be integrated into video games. In raising these concerns, the ICRC has emphasized that it does not propose a ban on the depiction of violence in video games. Nor is it calling for further regulation of the video game industry. As paradoxical as it may appear, the ICRC does not advocate for video games in which violations are prohibited. Violations occur on real battlefields and may therefore also take place in video games. However, the ICRC does call for the depiction of battlefields that mirror reality. Some recent releases, including ARMA II (see Figure 5), represent an important shift in this direction. This requires the portrayal of military operations regulated by law and the presence of civilians and civilian objects so that the principles of distinction and proportionality can be properly understood and respected. Players who act out combat roles should face the same dilemmas and challenges as real combatants do. Characters who break the rules in video games should be subject to penalties and punishments as real combatants.
The Red Cross, Red Crescent, and Red Crystal emblems are rarely displayed in today's video games. An exception is ARMA II. In this screen shot, a medic treats a wounded fighter next to medical post and vehicle marked respectively with the Red Cross and Red Crystal emblems. © Bohemia Interactive.
Considering the positive steps already taken by some designers to integrate aspects of the rules governing the use of force, the ICRC, together with a number of Red Cross National Societies, seeks to work with the industry in order to influence major video games. The overall objective is to see a change of behaviour on the part of the industry leading to the inclusion, in new video games or new versions of existing ones, of penalties for violations of the rules of war, when such violations are possible within the parameters of the game.
Since its creation in 1863, the ICRC has gained extensive first-hand experience of armed conflicts and other situations of armed violence. Thanks to its work with government authorities, non-state armed groups, the military, police, and others for the adoption of preventive measures for the respect of the law, the ICRC may offer useful advice to the industry in their endeavours. Together with concerned Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies it has initiated a dialogue with game producers, designers, and players on the production of more realistic games that integrate the law and therefore present players with the same dilemmas as those faced by soldiers on contemporary battlefields. The outcome of this initiative will be measured by the content of video games released by December 2013.
The aim is not to spoil players' enjoyment by, for example, interrupting game play with pop-up text listing legal provisions or lecturing gamers on the rules of war. Instead, the aim is to see rules governing the use of force integrated into video games so players can have a truly realistic experience and deal first hand with the principles of distinction (by verifying the nature of targets), proportionality (by choosing the course of action that will cause the least incidental damage to civilians and their property), and precautions (by deciding whether attacks can proceed or must be delayed or aborted). Consequently, persons and objects protected by IHL need to be included if the game is to reflect the realities of armed conflicts.
By way of example, a more realistic approach to the issue of the respect of medical units and to the use of protective emblems would be to retain the Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems in video games, highlight their protective and indicative functions,Footnote 100 and introduce penalties when players attack medics, medical transports, and hospitals displaying the emblem. Penalties should also apply if a player misuses or abuses the emblem (for example, by transporting weapons to the frontline in ambulances or launching attacks from ambulances (the war crime of perfidy)).Footnote 101
Initiatives already taken by the industry demonstrate the feasibility of such solutions. In a survey of gamers most respondents supported the idea that a player who respects the rules of war in a video game should be rewarded for doing so.Footnote 102 Conversely, those who break the rules should be sanctioned. Strong sales of new releases that have integrated rules of war provide evidence that integrating the law does not undermine the commercial success of video games.Footnote 103
Conclusion
This article has called for more realistic video games where players face the same dilemmas as combatants. Considering the mechanisms at play in video games and their pedagogical value, it is argued that players should be rewarded when they respect the law and sanctioned if they violate it. Undoubtedly, video games represent an important vector through which applicable rules on the use of force and the treatment of persons in the hands of the enemy can be identified or ignored. In the view of the authors, their reach far exceeds that of traditional IHL and IHRL education and training programmes.Footnote 104 Those who have doubts about the importance of video games for the dissemination of humanitarian norms need look no further than the size of the video game industry; the limited awareness of IHL and IHRL among players of video gamesFootnote 105 and the general public;Footnote 106 the large number of military personnel recruited through video games; and the higher than average rate of video game play by serving military personnel.Footnote 107 A number of questions pertaining to video games require further research. The potential for drone pilots to bring a ‘PlayStation mentality’ to work and the possible impact on decision-making during military operations is an important example. Another is the nature and scope of IHL and IHRL obligation of states with respect to commercial video games. It is the authors' hope that this article may serve as a source of inspiration for others to examine, in greater depth, these and other questions concerning the relation between video games and humanitarian norms.
