| > And modern submarines have nil ability to search for and safely collect the shipwrecked. A definitive reference that was more conclusive on this point as well as your extensive further assertions would be helpful. I have no expertise in submarines and I apologize if it seemed otherwise (but I did stay in a Holiday Inn last night!) but you've not laid out your bona fides to be able to make these proclamations either. > Parity doesn't really factor in, it's not something you'll see in international law. You're not supposed to have to put yourself at risk to effect a rescue. Sure, I was commenting on the reference you provided being targeted to situations where there was more risk and not directly addressing a similar situation as to what occurred here. > Conducting a surfaced rescue is inherently risky to the crew of a modern submarine. You could argue there is risk to any vessel, not just submarines, using the examples you have provided later on yet GCII Article 18 still requires you to do it. The best argument for there being no possibility for a war crime is one that focuses on the inability of the submarine to assist at all in a rescue. An ironclad example would be with a peace-time situation involving a ship of one's own navy that was in significant distress. This is for discussion's sake - I don't really believe that there would actually be a war crime trial around this one incident even if it were a surface vessel that did the sinking. |
u/tptacek pointed us to the San Remo Manual [1][2].
> could argue there is risk to any vessel, not just submarines
True. The facts and circumstances can vary case to case. But submarines have been de facto excempted from these rules since Laconia.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Remo_Manual
[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47560566