Ok, so I was reading the news today (I don't pay to much attention to it, but is good to keep up-to-date with things that are going on back home), and I came across an article that claims the Red Cross is looking into computer games under International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Needless to say, alot of gamers nerd-raged in the comments section, but thought it might be a good topic for some spirited debate.

http://www.news.com.au/technology/gaming/six-hundred-million-gamers-could-be-war-criminals-red-cross-says/

So, this issue has many parts to it, not just the legality factor:

1) Why would the Red Cross waste funds, dedicating time and effort to explore claims that computer games are breaking IHL?

2) Do computer games actually break IHL?

3) What will happen if they decide that they do break IHL?

4) (THIS I DO NOT WANT TO FOCUS ON BECAUSE THIS JUST LEADS WAY OFF TOPIC, SO PLEASE DO NOT TALK ABOUT THIS PARTICULAR ASPECT!) Do violant computer games have harmful side affects? (It really is irrelevant, and this topic is all about the legality of the issue, not to much on the computer games themselves!)

So I will begin my own point of view:

1) Recent events show that warfare can, and is, being conducted in cyber space (The recent attacks on Iranian Nuclear Power Plants, claims of Chinese cyber attacks on US companies, etc). By trying to use existing laws to govern cyber space, they are setting a precidence that can then spark new laws to govern cyber warfare. The idea is not to punish gamers (nor would it really lead to that, will discuss this later) but to set precidence to setup cyberwarfare rules.

2) To cover this, we have to actually look at the Rome Statute. (http://untreaty.un.org/cod/icc/statute/romefra.htm):

The Rome Statute was created to establish a body that has the jurisdiction to trial and convict those in breach of certain laws. Individuals, not states, stand before the ICC, so individual gamers could be summoned before the ICC. If it was deemed that computer games breached IHL then it would be here that perpetrators would be convicted). The Rome statute looks at the following laws:
    (a)     The crime of genocide;
    (b)     Crimes against humanity;
    (c)     War crimes;
    (d)     The crime of aggression.

The crime of genecide:
- From the top of my head, I am not aware of any game that has breached any of the laws set out here.

Crimes against humanity/War crimes/The crime of aggression:
- If this does extend to the fantasy world, then certain computer games places the user in a position where they commit numerous breaches of these crimes.

3) Nothing will happen to people in breach of IHL. Many nations have yet to fully ratify the Rome Statute, and without ratification, that nation is not subject to the laws bound within. Nations like the US cannot be brought before the ICC for this vary reason. Currently there is no independant global force that is capable of bringing those summoned before the ICC to stand trial, and it relies on soveriegn nations to achieve this outcome. So which soveriegn nation would subject its own population to stand trial at the ICC? It would require an opposing nation to actually bring suspects to stand trial. If we have a look at some of the trials for WW2 crimes, many nations denied extradition orders to harbour people from WW2 charged with war crimes, and the same thing would apply under the current system. Short answer, noone would actually be brought against the ICC solely for playing a computer game.

What are others opinions...