Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

Beyond the Call of

Duty: why shouldn’t

video game players

face the same

dilemmas as real

soldiers?

Ben Clarke, Christian Rouffaer and

Franc¸ois Se

chaud*

Ben Clarke is an associate professor, University of Notre Dame

Australia, and former adviser at the Civil Society Relations Unit,

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

Christian Rouffaer is adviser at the Unit for Relations with

Armed Forces, Division for the Integration and Promotion of the

Law, ICRC.

Franc¸ois Se

chaud is the head of division for the Integration

and Promotion of the Law, ICRC.

Abstract

Video games are inﬂuencing users’ perceptions about what soldiers are permitted to

do during war. They may also be inﬂuencing the way combatants actually behave

during today’s armed conﬂicts. While highly entertaining escapism for millions of

players, some video games create the impression that prohibited acts, such as torture

and extrajudicial killing are standard behaviour. The authors argue that further

integration of international humanitarian law (IHL) can improve knowledge of the

rules of war among millions of players, including aspiring recruits and deployed

soldiers. This, in turn, offers the promise of greater respect for IHL on tomorrow’s

battleﬁelds.

* We would like to thank Helen Durham, Alexandra Boivin, Neil Davidson, Ray Smith, and Vincent

Bernard for their valuable input. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily

reﬂect the position of the International Committee of the Red Cross.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

doi:10.1017/S1816383113000167 711

Keywords: video games, influence, behaviour, undermining effect, applicability, challenges, messages,

obligation, initiative, trivializing.

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.

Video games

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

1 Fictional account inspired by the authors’ experience of video games and an account of the battle of

Fallujah in David Bellavia, House to House – an Epic Memoir of War, Free Press, New York, 2007.

2 In this article, the term ‘video games’ is used to describe electronic ﬁrst person shooter games depicting

combat situations – including contemporary battleﬁelds, such as Iraq, Afghanistan, Lebanon, Somalia, and

the Levant – where players ﬁre at enemy targets. ‘First person shooter games’ is the industry’s term for

electronic games where players ﬁre at enemy targets. As this article is aimed at a broader readership, the

term ‘video games’ is used instead.

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

712

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,

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.

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).

‘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.

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

3 One company, Spil Games, claims to have 130 million active monthly users of its online games. It

estimates that 510 million people were playing online games in 2010: SPIL GAMES, 2010 State of Gaming

Report. According to one estimate this is multi-billion dollar industry generated at least $70 billion in

2011. See IDATE, World Video Game Market Data & Forecasts, 2011–2015, 17 January 2012.

4 At the time of publication, the most popular video games were Call of Duty: Black Ops 2, Madden NFL ‘12,

Halo 4, Assassin’s Creed 3, Just Dance 4, NBA 2K13, Borderlands 2, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, Lego

Batman 2: DC Super Heroes, and FIFA ‘12. For current sales ﬁgures for the various platforms (games), see

‘10 best selling videogames in 2012’,inMarket Watch, 10 January 2013, available at: http://www.

marketwatch.com/story/10-best-selling-videogames-in-2012-2013-01-10 (last visited January 2013).

5 ‘Militainment’ has been deﬁned as ‘war packaged for pleasurable consumption’ and ‘entertainment with

military themes in which the (US) Department of Defense is celebrated’. See Roger Stahl, Militainment,

Inc. – War, Media and Popular Culture, Routledge, New York, 2009, p. 6, and view ‘Militainment, Inc:

militarism and pop culture’, available at: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2373519247173568764

(last visited 25 May 2012).

6 Electronic games can be played on different platforms the most common being PCs and consoles. Games

played on PCs are commonly known as ‘computer games’ while those played on consoles are called ‘video

games’. This article uses the term video games to refer to both.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

713

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.

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.

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).

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.

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,

7 The same is true of military training simulators that depict contemporary battleﬁelds. Increasingly, they

are used by armed forces to operationalize the laws of armed conﬂict for military personnel. Given their

function, military training simulators are more likely to integrate IHL than commercial video games.

However, they also reach a far smaller audience. For these reasons the primary focus of this article is on

video games.

8 The increasing realism of video games that depict modern battleﬁelds has drawn attention to commercial-

military collaboration in the development of games. See, for instance, ‘Documentary – Ofﬁcial

Call of Duty Black Ops 2’, available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embeded&v=

Gm5PZGb3OyQ (last visited 24 May 2012).

9 What qualiﬁes as a ‘realistic video game that portrays armed conﬂict’ is nuanced and somewhat subjective.

Some games include realistic looking weapons and battleﬁeld environments but have unrealistic features

(e.g., players can come back to life).

10 Australian Government Attorney-General’s Department, Community Attitudes To R18 + Classiﬁcation Of

Computer Games, Report, November 2010, available at: www.ag.gov.au (last visited 5 April 2012).

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

714

Figure 1. This is a real photo-image taken during combat in Fallujah. © Anja Niedringhaus/

Keystone.

Figure 2. In ArmA II, players ﬁght in realistic looking environments. This and other scenes closely

resemble footage recorded during real military operations. © Bohemia Interactive.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

715

especially when the question is framed: ‘Can playing video games lead to violent

behaviour?’

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.

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,

scientiﬁc research conducted in say Nairobi or in the favelas of

Rio de Janeiro could yield very different conclusions from existing, often US-based,

11 For an illustration of the scientiﬁc debate: Anderson et al, assert a causal link between violent games and

violent behaviour: Craig A. Anderson, Akiko Shibuya, Nobuko Ihori, Edward L. Swing, Brad J. Bushman,

Akira Sakamoto, Hannah R. Rothstein and Muniba Saleem, ‘Violent video game effect on aggression,

empathy and prosocial behaviour in eastern and western countries: a meta-analytic review’,in

Psychological Bulletin, Vol. 136, No. 2, pp. 151–173. For Ferguson the link is not proven and attention

should be focused elsewhere (e.g., on poverty and domestic violence). See Christopher J. Ferguson,

‘Media violence effects: conﬁrmed truth or just another X-ﬁle?’,inJournal of Forensic Psychology,Vol.9,

No. 2, April–June 2009, pp. 103–126. This is also the conclusion of the Swedish Media Council, Summary

of Violent Computer Games and Aggression – An Overview of the Research 2000–2011, Swedish Media

Council, Stockholm, 2012, available at: http://www.statensmedierad.se/upload/_pdf/Summery_

Violent_Computer_Games.pdf (last visited 20 December 2012), and Brown, Governor of California,

et al. v. Entertainment Merchants Association et al., Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for

the Ninth Circuit, No. 08–1448. Argued 2 November 2010 – Decided 27 June 2011 (hereinafter ‘Brown’)

where the majority of the US Supreme Court noted that: ‘Psychological studies purporting to show a

connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that

such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and

indistinguishable from effects produced by other media’ (Scalia, J., p. 13, who delivered the opinion of the

Court, in which Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan, JJ., joined. Alito, J., ﬁled an opinion

concurring in the judgment, in which Roberts, C. J., joined. Thomas, J., and Breyer, J., ﬁled dissenting

opinions.)

12 Tragic events including mass killings by gunmen at Columbine, Virginia Tech, and Sandy Hook have

heightened public concern. Like Norwegian mass murderer Anders Breivik, several US perpetrators

regularly played Call of Duty. Police observations regarding similarities between Sandy Hook gunman

Adam Lanza’s modus operandi and methods used in a video game he frequently played are particularly

revealing. See Dave Altimari and Jon Lender, ‘Sandy Hook shooter Adam Lanza wore earplugs’,in

Hartford Courant, 6 January 2013, available at: http://articles.courant.com/2013-01-06/news/hc-sandy-

hook-lanza-earplugs-20130106_1_police-cars-lauren-rousseau-newtown (last visited 10 January 2013).

13 In 2008 an estimated 31,68 million people, worldwide, played online video games, out of which an

estimated 3 million played ﬁrst person shooter games. These ﬁgures do not take into account those people

who played either on unconnected computers, PlayStations or cell phones. In the Middle East, in 2010, 64

million people played online video games or on PlayStations. In 2012 there are an estimated 211.5 million

video-games players in the US. See ‘Mobile gamers now represent the largest gamer segment’,inNPD,

5 September 2012, available at: https://www.npd.com/wps/portal/npd/us/news/press-releases/pr_120905/

(last visited 20 October 2012). In Turkey, in 2012, an estimated 21.8 million people played video games on

computers, smartphones, and game consoles. See ‘Infographic 2012’,inNewZoo, 21 June 2012, available

at: http://www.newzoo.com/infographics/infographic-turkey/ (last visited 20 October 2012).

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

716

research.

In any case, while researchers have not established a causal link between

violent games and violent behaviour, they have not excluded such a link.

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,

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 com-

monly 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.

Arguably, a player regularly exposed to video

game scenes of torture and perhaps compelled by the script to act out torture

(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.

Of the youth surveyed, 59 per cent

considered the torture of captured enemy soldiers or ﬁghters in order to

14 In the US alone there have been more than 200 studies into violence in the media. Over the last eighty

years these studies have gradually shifted from cinema, to television, and now concentrate on video games.

15 Gaël Humbert-Droz, ‘ Les jeux vidéos et le droit international’, 2012. This survey was posted on the

following forums: jeuxvideo.com, Forum FantabobShow, Forum DpStream : Forum BF-France (battleﬁeld

France). The survey is no longer available online (copy on ﬁle with the authors).

16 See, for instance, Douglas A. Gentile, ‘Video games affect the brain – for better and worse’,inthe Dana

Foundation, 23 July 2009, available at: http://www.dana.org/news/cerebrum/detail.aspx?id=22800 (last

visited 10 February 2012).

17 By way of example, torture scenes appear in Call of Duty: World at War. See ‘Call of Duty: Modern

Warfare 2’,inWikia, available at: http://callofduty.wikia.com/wiki/Call_of_Duty:_Modern_Warfare_2

(last visited 10 October 2012). In Call of Duty: Black Ops, the player must take part in an act of torture

(they must give a command for the hero to hit in the face a detainee in whose mouth shards of glass were

previously introduced). In Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3, the superior of the player tortures a Somali

commander before shooting a bullet in his head (Figure 4). While the presence of torture in the narrative

of these games certainly leaves no one indifferent, the rationale for its inclusion is unclear.

18 More than two-ﬁfths of youth (41%) believe there are times when it is acceptable for the enemy to torture

captured American prisoners, while only 30% of adults agree. More than half of youth (56%) believe that

there are times when it is acceptable to kill enemy prisoners in retaliation if the enemy has been killing

American prisoners, while only 29% of adults agree. Brad A. Gutierrez, Sarah DeCristofaro and Michael

Woods, ‘What Americans think of international humanitarian law’,inInternational Review of the Red

Cross, Vol. 93, No. 884, December 2011, pp. 1009–1034.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

717

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.

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.

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.

AUSNavy

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.

Computer simulation programmes have also been developed to assist veterans to

reintegrate into society

and help trauma victims.

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 multiplayer

video game. In America’s Army, players

19 For a brief history of how ‘virtual worlds of war became a mutual enterprise uniting the media and

military industries’, see Robin Andersen and Marin Kurti, ‘From America’s Army to Call of Duty: doing

battle with the military entertainment complex’,inDemocratic Communique, Vol. 23, No. 1, 2009, p. 45,

available at: http://www.democraticcommunications.org/communique/issues/Fall2009/andersen.pdf

(last visited 20 February 2012). See also, Tony Fortin, ‘Jeux vidéo et monde militaire, un couple

inséparable?’,inRue89, 22 September 2012, available at: http://www.rue89.com/2012/09/22/jeux-video-et-

monde-militaire-un-couple-inseparable-235526 (last visited 20 October 2012).

20 For example, in 2002, Bohemia Interactive, creators of the video game ARMA II, developed a battleﬁeld

simulation system for the US armed forces. Virtual Battlespace (VBS) 1 and 2 are now used by armed

forces including the US Marine Corps (and several other branches of the US armed forces), the British,

Australian, New Zealand, and Canadian armed forces, and NATO. See also, ‘US Army’s new virtual

simulation training system’,inDefence Talk, 30 May 2011, available at: http://www.defencetalk.com/army-

virtual-simulation-training-system-34543/ (last visited 20 October 2012).

21 US military research suggests that 75% of male staff enlisted in the US military may play video games at

least once a week, compared to 40% of the general US population. B. W. Knerr, ‘Virtual media for military

applications’, Paper 21, Current Issues in the Use of Virtual Simulations for Dismounted Soldier Training

Data, 2006. The study does not specify the type of game played (e.g., ﬁrst person shooter or role-playing

game).

22 Robert T. Hayes, ‘The effectiveness of instructional games: a literature review and discussion’, Naval Air

Warfare Center Training Systems Division, Orlando, 2005, p. 6, available at: http://www.stottlerhenke.

com/projects/matisse/background_docs/Instr_Game_ReviewTr_2.005.pdf (last visited 10 January 2012).

23 ‘US war woe: suicide kills more soldiers than combat’,inRT, 23 December 2011, available at: http://www.

rt.com/news/us-soldiers-suicide-combat-487/ (last visited 20 May 2012).

24 See Laurin Biron, ‘Virtual reality helps service members deal with PTSD’, 11 June 2012, available at: http://

www.defensenews.com/article/20120611/TSJ01/306110003/Virtual-Reality-Helps-Service-Members-Deal-

PTSD (last visited 20 June 2012). See generally, Jane McGonigal, Reality Is Broken: Why Games Make Us

Better and How They Can Change the World, Penguin Press, New York, 2011 (this post-doctoral work

assesses how to harness the power of games to solve real-world problems).

25 Multiplayer games are set in an open battleﬁeld. Dozens of people connect to the Internet compete to

capture the enemy ﬂag or eliminate other players.

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

718

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.

In addition to being a useful vector for communicat-

ing information of clear interest to potential recruits (for example, equipment,

salaries, and career opportunities), the game is a tool for inculcating military values.

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),

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.

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.

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.

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

26 Jeremy Hsu, ‘ For the US military, video games get serious’,inLive Science, 19 August 2010, available at:

http://www.livescience.com/10022-military-video-games.html (last visited 15 June 2012).

27 One example is the notion of hero: biographies of ‘real heroes’ in the US army can be found on the

America’s Army website, available at: http://www.americasarmy.com/realheroes/ (last visited 24 May

2012).

28 Kim Ghattas, ‘Syria launches Arab war game’,inBBC News, 31 May 2002, available at: http://news.bbc.co.

uk/2/hi/middle_east/2019677.stm (last visited 15 June 2012).

29 Tom Perry, ‘Hezbollah brings Israel war to computer screen’,inReuters, 16 August 2007, available at:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2007/08/16/us-lebanon-hezbollah-game-idUSL1662429320070816 (last

visited 10 January 2012).

30 Peter W. Singer, ‘Meet the Sims ...and shoot them’,inForeign Policy, March 2010, available at: http://

www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/02/22/meet_the_sims_and_shoot_them (last visited 24 May 2012).

31 Air Marshall Brian Burridge, ‘Post-modern warﬁghting with unmanned vehicle systems: esoteric chimera

or essential capability?’,inRUSI Journal, Vol. 150, No. 5, October 2005, pp. 20–23.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

719

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?

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

study

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.

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 depersona-

lization, loss of independence and a high degree of conformity. This is a situ-

ation 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

32 Philip Alston and Hina Shamsi, ‘A killer above the law’,inThe Guardian, 2 August 2010, available at:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/feb/08/afghanistan-drones-defence-killing (last visited 1

August 2012).

33 Daniel Muñoz-Rojas and Jean-Jacques Frésard, ‘The roots of behaviour in war – understanding and

preventing IHL violations, in International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 86, No. 853, March 2004,

pp. 169–188 (hereinafter ‘the study’).

34 ‘Moral disengagement is a complex process and malicious acts are always the product of interactions

between personal, social and environmental inﬂuences’. Ibid., p. 197. ‘Moral disengagement is not only a

gradual process but also one that determines behaviour which draws from past actions the force needed to

sustain future actions’. Ibid., p. 199.

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

720

combatants is effected mainly by having recourse (1) to justiﬁcations of

violations,

and (2) to the dehumanizing of the enemy.

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 crime

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.

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,

35 Combatants resort to different justiﬁcations or a combination thereof, such as declaring oneself not as a

torturer but as a victim; arguing that circumstances render some reprehensible behaviour not only

admissible but also necessary; invoking violations by the enemy and sometime blaming the victims

themselves; or denying, minimizing, or ignoring the effects of their actions through the use of euphemisms

to refer to their operations and their consequences. Ibid., pp. 198–200.

36 ‘The humanity of the other side is denied by attributing to the enemy contemptible character traits or

intentions ...’, sometimes equating it with vermin or viruses to be eradicated. ‘Combatants thus ﬁnd it

easier not only to attack but also to rationalize the most extreme kinds of behaviour and to convince

themselves that they are justiﬁed and necessary’. Ibid., p. 199

37 Ibid., p. 189.

38 ‘Ordinary men submit willingly to an authority when they believe that it is legitimate; they then perceive

themselves as its agents ... This principle ... is further reinforced when it is a question of combatants

placed within a military hierarchy, a framework generally more constraining than any civilian authority

... Although, under these conditions, the individual commits acts which seem to violate the dictates of his

conscience, it would be wrong to conclude that his moral sense has disappeared. The fact is that it has

radically changed focus. The person concerned no longer makes value judgements about his actions. What

concerns him now is to show himself worthy of what the authority expects of him’. Ibid., pp. 194–195.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

721

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,

the right to property,

the

right to privacy and family life,

and the right to play.

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.

However, this right has its

39 According to Article 19, International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, entered into force on

23 March 1976 (adopted on 16 December 1966) (hereinafter ‘ICCPR’), ‘everyone shall have the right to

freedom of expression; this right shall include freedom to seek, receive and impart information and ideas

of all kinds, regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or in print, in the form of art, or through any

other media of his choice’. For similar guarantees under international and regional instruments, see

Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, Article 10 of the European Convention for the

Protection of Human Rights, Article 9 of the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights, Article 10 of

the European Convention on Human Rights and Article 13 of the American Convention on Human

Rights.

40 The right to property is found in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights; Article 1 of

Protocol I to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights; Article 21 of the American

Convention on Human Rights; and most explicitly in Article 14 of the African Charter on Human and

Peoples’ Rights (ACHPR).

41 Article 17 of the ICCPR guarantees the right to protection from unreasonable interference by the state

with respect to how computers and the Internet are used in private life.

42 Articles 1 and 31 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, entered into force on 2 September 1990

(adopted on 20 November 1989).

43 By way of example, attempts to persuade US courts to ban or impose restrictions on games that depict

violence rarely succeed. The outcome usually rests on whether games fall within exemptions to freedom of

speech. See American Amusement Machine Association v. Kendrick, CA7 2001, 244. F. 3d 572, 577 (video

games are protected on free speech grounds: no compelling justiﬁcation was offered for the restriction

sought); Benoit v. Nintendo of America, Inc. 2001 Lsa. Dist. Ct. (even if the death of a child during epileptic

seizures was caused by exposure to violence in Mortal Kombat, the speech in the video game was protected

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

722

limits.

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,

property law,

and domestic law are the main sources of law applicable to the

design, sale, and use of video games

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

unless it was an ‘incitement to violence’, which it was not); Video Software Dealers Association

v. Schwarzenegger, Appeals Court upheld 2005 District Court 2009 US CA 9th Cir. (legislation restricting

sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional. For the Supreme Court appeal, see Brown,

above note 11); Entertainment Software Association v. Granholm 2005 Mich. Dist. Ct. (violent game

protected as free speech, insufﬁcient evidence of harm); and Entertainment Software Association;

Entertainment Merchants Association v. Minnesota 2008 US CA 8th Cir. (injunction granted against law

banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors: freedom of speech and absence of proof of

harm were decisive).

44 Freedom of expression can be limited under domestic law to protect the rights and reputations of others,

national security, public order, public health, or morals. See Article 19(3) ICCPR.

45 In addition to the treaties mentioned above, others of relevance to video games include: the Convention

against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment, entered into force on

26 June 1987 (adopted on 10 December 1984) (hereinafter ‘CAT’), the Optional Protocol to the

Convention on the Rights of the Child on the Involvement of Children in Armed Conﬂict, entered into

force on 12 February 2002 (adopted on 25 May 2000, whether this Protocol is considered as part of IHL or

of IHRL is a matter of debate), and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination

against Women, entered into force on 3 September 1981 (adopted on 18 December 1979).

46 Aside from games made available for free by their creators, video-game software is usually protected by

International agreements on copyright include the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and

Artistic Works, 1886; Universal Copyright Convention, 1952; WIPO Copyright Treaty, 1996; and The

World Trade Organization Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS),

1994.

47 Domestic legislation can apply to various activities associated with video games. Domestic copyright,

property, privacy, and criminal laws (e.g., offences involving inciting racial hatred, providing support for a

terrorist organization, etc.) may regulate the creation, distribution, use, and enjoyment of video games. On

‘counselling’ a criminal offence through video games, see R. v. Hamilton, Supreme Court of Canada,

29 July 2005, 2 S.C.R. 432, 2005 SCC 47.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

723

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,

which falls within IHRL, prescribes

applicable rules on the use of force, ﬁrearms, arrest, detention, search and seizure

during law enforcement operations.

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.

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,

allows

for the killing of legitimate targets.

Where it is unclear whether the setting of the

video game reaches the threshold of an armed conﬂict

– and therefore whether

IHL applies – IHRL continues to be applicable, including the law enforcement

48 The law enforcement regime (IHRL) is the set of rules regulating the resort to force by state authorities in

order to maintain or restore public security, law, and order.

49 These rules are found in treaties (e.g., ICCPR; International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms

of Racial Discrimination; Convention on the Rights of the Child) and non-binding instruments (e.g.,

Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners; Code of Conduct for Law Enforcement

Ofﬁcials; Declaration of Basic Principles of Justice for Victims of Crime and Abuse of Power; Body of

Principles for the Protection of All Persons under Any Form of Detention or Imprisonment; Basic

Principles for the Treatment of Prisoners; Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law

Enforcement Ofﬁcials; Declaration on the Elimination of Violence against Women).

50 Basic Principles on the Use of Force and Firearms by Law Enforcement Ofﬁcials, adopted by the eighth

United Nations Congress on the prevention of crime and the treatment of offenders, Havana, Cuba,

27 August to 7 September 1990, in particular, provisions 5, 9 and 10.

51 Frida Castillo notes that: ‘To deﬁne which IHL apply in a given situation, it is necessary to check what

instruments were ratiﬁed by the state in question. While the 1949 Geneva Conventions were ratiﬁed

universally, there are other IHL treaties, such as Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of

12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non International Armed Conﬂicts of 8 June

1977 (AP II), which have not been ratiﬁed by all states. So here too, it is necessary to verify, whether the

states involved in the conﬂict have ratiﬁed the relevant instruments. Rules considered to be customary law

on the other hand, apply to all states.’ Report by Frida Castillo, Playing by the Rules: Applying

International Humanitarian Law to Video and Computer Games, TRIAL, Pro Juventute, Geneva, October

2009, p. 3, footnote 1.

52 Combatants and civilians if and for such time as they directly participate in hostilities. See AP I, Articles 48

and 51(3), and Rules 1 and 6 of the ICRC Customary International Humanitarian Law Study. ICRC,

Customary International Humanitarian Law, Vol. I: rules, Jean-Marie Henckaerts and Louise Doswald-

Beck (eds), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005 (‘the ICRC Customary Law Study’).

53 While any resort to armed force between two states constitutes an international armed conﬂict, in order

for the threshold of non-international armed conﬂict to be reached, there must be ‘protracted armed

violence’ involving a sufﬁcient intensity of the violence and level of organisation of the parties. For the

intensity requirement, relevant factors cited in case law include: the number, duration, and intensity of

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

724

regime referred to above, as well as the prohibition in particular of torture, arbitrary

deprivation of life, and cruel and degrading treatment.

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 respect

and to

disseminate

IHL as widely as possible?

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.

State obligations to ‘respect and to

ensure respect’ for IHL and disseminate IHL as widely as possible and to comply

individual confrontations; the types of weapons used; the number of casualties; the extent of material

destruction. See, inter alia, International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), Prosecutor

v. Ramush Haradinaj, Idriz Belaj, Lahi Brahimaj, Case No. IT-04-84-T, Judgement (Trial Chamber I),

3 April 2008, para. 49. Indicative factors for the organisation requirement include: the existence of a

command structure and disciplinary rules; headquarters; the fact that the group controls a certain

territory; the ability to plan, coordinate, and carry out military operations. See, inter alia, ICTY, Ibid.,

para. 60.

54 IHL and IHRL contain common prohibitions that must be respected at all times during armed conﬂict.

Examples include the prohibitions against discrimination, summary execution, rape, torture, and cruel

and degrading treatment. Both legal regimes also include provisions for the protection of women and

children; prescribe basic rights for persons subject to a criminal justice process; and regulate aspects of the

right to food and health.

55 Common Article 1 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949; Convention for the Amelioration of the

Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949 (hereinafter

‘GCI’); Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members

of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949 (hereinafter ‘GCII’); Convention Relative to the

Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949 (hereinafter ‘GCIII’); Convention Relative to the

Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949 (hereinafter ‘GCIV’). See also,

Rule 139 of the ICRC Customary Law Study states that: ‘Each party to the conﬂict must respect and ensure

respect for international humanitarian law by its armed forces and other persons or groups acting in fact

on its instructions, or under its direction or control’.

56 GCI Art. 47, GCII Art. 48, GCIII Art. 127, and GCIV Art. 144 all provide: ‘The High Contracting Parties

undertake, in time of peace as in time of war, to disseminate the text of the present Convention as widely

as possible in their respective countries and, in particular, to include the study thereof [if possible] in their

programmes of ... civilian instruction, so that the principles thereof may become known to the entire

population’. See also, GCIII, Arts 39 and 41; GCIV, Art. 99; AP I, Art.83; AP II, Art. 19.

57 On the obligation of continuous dissemination, see Claude Pilloud, Yves Sandoz and Bruno Zimmermann

(eds), Commentary to Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to

the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conﬂicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, ICRC, 1987

(Commentary to Article 80), p. 929, para. 3290.

58 Detailed study of relevant state practice on ‘how far these obligations extend’ in the context of training

tools and ‘what are the consequences of failure to fulﬁl them’ exceeds the word constraints of this article.

Comprehensive research on these important issues would be useful.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

725

with their treaty obligations

are very general and apply at all times.

While these

rules should, as a matter of logic, apply to commercial video games sold or dis-

tributed 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 games

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.

The study found

that cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or torture was most often depicted in

video games in the context of interrogation.

The same study found that direct attacks against civilians not directly

participating in hostilities were frequently depicted.

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.

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 munitions

that are

indiscriminate in their effects

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.

Several

games also allowed players to shoot injured soldiers who are hors de combat or

watch others do so.

Many produce inconsistent consequences when players target

59 These provisions are based on the customary rule pacta sunt servanda as enshrined in Article 26, of the

Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties,23May 1969, 1155 UNTS 331.

60 According to the Commentary of Article 1 of GCI, p. 26, ‘if it is to keep its solemn engagements, the State

must of necessity prepare in advance, that is to say in peacetime, the legal, material or other means of loyal

enforcement of the Convention as and when the occasion arises’. See also, Commentary AP I, p. 41;

Commentary GCIV, p. 16; Commentary GCIII, p. 18; Commentary GCII, p. 25. According to Art. 1(1) of

Protocol Additional I to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of

Victims of International Armed Conﬂicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force

7 December 1978) (hereinafter ‘AP I’), such respect is required ‘in all circumstances’.

61 F. Castillo, above note 51.

62 In one game only, Call of Duty 4 (Modern Warfare), attacking a church resulted in termination of the

mission (game over). Attacking mosques never triggered this outcome. Ibid., p. 24.

63 In many cases, the interrogation ends with extrajudicial execution. Ibid., p. 42.

64 Ibid., p. 42.

65 Tom Clancy Rainbow 6 Vegas. See ibid., p. 37.

66 Examples include World in Conﬂict and Frontlines: Fuel of War. See ibid., pp. 30–31. The Convention on

Cluster Munitions of May 2008 (open for signature since 3 December 2008) prohibits the use of cluster

munitions by states parties. However, their use in circumstances where civilians and combatants are

indiscriminately targeted is always prohibited.

67 For the applicable law see The Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain

Conventional Weapons which may be deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to have Indiscriminate

Effects (entered into force 2 December 1983) 1342 UNTS 137.

68 F. Castillo, above note 51, pp. 34 and 42.

69 Ibid., pp.15–16, 42. Relevant games include: Call of Duty 5 (World at War), Call of Duty: Modern Warfare

3, ARMA II, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2, Call of Duty: Black Ops. See also, 24, The Game.

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

726

civilians or engage in other conduct that would constitute violations in a real armed

conﬂict.

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.

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

70 For example, in various scenes in the Call of Duty games, torture of captives attracts no penalty, whereas in

other games shooting civilians results in ‘ game over’.

71 For example, Call of Duty games set in Paris and Tehran.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

727

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.

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.

real life, such conduct is absolutely prohibited at all times under both IHRL

and

IHL.

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 terrorist

all acts of warfare against them

committed by armed groups, especially in non-international armed conﬂicts. This

72 ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and the Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conﬂicts, 30th

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, October 2007, ICRC, pp. 30–31, available at:

http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/ﬁles/2011/30ic-8-4-ihl-challenges-report-annexes-eng-ﬁnal.pdf (last vis-

ited 10 January 2012).

73 In Call of Duty: Black Ops, players watch a superior coldly execute prisoners of war. Forced onto their

knees and begging the executioner for mercy, all prisoners receive a shot to the head, except the last

one – who is slain with a knife. On another instance in Call of Duty: Black Ops, the player must take part in

an act of torture (they must give command for the hero to hit in the face a detainee in whose mouth shards

of glass was previously introduced).

74 ICCPR, Art. 7; Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, Art. 3; CAT,

Art. 2.

75 Common Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibits torture or cruel, inhuman,

degrading, or humiliating treatment. See also, Articles 50, 51, 130 and 147 of the four Geneva Conventions

respectively, Art. 75 of AP I, Art. 4 of AP II, and CIHL Study, rule 90.

76 There is no commonly agreed legal deﬁnition of ‘terrorism’. See Additional Protocol II (APII), Art. 4(2)

(d). In addition, both Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions prohibit acts aimed at spreading

terror among the civilian population. See API, Art. 51(2), and AP II, Art. 13 (2). For a discussion on IHL

and terrorism, see ICRC, ‘International humanitarian law and terrorism: questions and answers’, 2011,

available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/faq/terrorism-faq-050504.htm (last visited

10 January 2012).

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

728

has created confusion in differentiating between lawful acts of war, including such

acts committed by domestic insurgents against military targets, and acts of

terrorism.

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.

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.

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.

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

77 See ICRC, above note 72, pp. 6–7. IHL essentially distinguishes between two categories of people in armed

conﬂict, members of the armed forces and civilians. While the latter are protected at all times, except and

only for such time as they take direct participation in hostilities, the former are only protected against

attack once out of combat (due to illness, injury, surrender, or capture). In contemporary armed conﬂicts

there is a blurring of civilian and military functions. One example is the involvement of civilian agencies

(e.g., the CIA drone programme) in military operations. This highlights another difﬁculty when it comes

to distinguishing between civilians and the military: the problem of civilians who directly participate in

hostilities.

78 Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines

and on their Destruction, 18 September 1997, Art. 2.

79 On anti-personnel landmines see, for instance, the ICRC website, available at: http://www.icrc.org/eng/

war-and-law/weapons/anti-personnel-landmines/index.jsp (last visited 25 May 2012).

80 One exception is a playable scene from Call of Duty: Modern Warfare II that includes the mass killing of

civilians inside an airport (although this scene does not take place on a battleﬁeld proper). Players can

participate in this killing spree without penalty.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

729

between civilians and the military is the problem of civilians who directly participate

in hostilities.

Identity discs are trophies

In recent video games,

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 documents

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).

The impression is

reinforced when medics in video games are given offensive roles and weaponry,

including grenade launchers.

In real armed conﬂicts thousands of wounded and

81 For the notion of ‘direct participation in hostilities’ see also, Nils Melzer, Interpretive Guidance on the

Notion of Direct Participation in Hostilities under International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, Geneva, 2009.

82 These include, in particular, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Call of Duty: Black Ops 2.

83 The identity card is the basic document with which the status and identity of persons who have fallen into

the hands of the adverse party can be determined, and it must be issued by states to any person liable to

become a prisoner of war (GC III, Art. 17). It must contain at least the owner’s surname, ﬁrst names, date

of birth, serial number or equivalent information, rank, blood group, and Rhesus factor. As further

optional information, the identity card may also bear the description, nationality, religion, ﬁngerprints or

photo of the holder, or the date of expiry. In parallel with this measure, the authorities are required to issue

speciﬁc identity cards for military personnel carrying out special tasks or for certain categories of civilians,

The authorities may supplement the above measures by providing identity discs (GC I, Art. 16; GC II, Art.

19). The identity disc is worn permanently round the neck on a chain or strap. It can be a single or double

disc made, as far as possible, of durable, stainless material that is resistant to battleﬁeld conditions. The

inscriptions it bears are similar to those on the identity card and should be indelible and fade-proof.

84 The Red Cross emblem became synonymous with ‘health care’ in video games upon the release of Doom

in 1993. In ARMA II, the Red Cross, Crescent, and Crystal emblems are highly visible (Figure 5).

Armoured vehicles rigged with an emblem do not carry weapons, only medical equipment. However,

‘artiﬁcial intelligence’ units controlled by the game do not differentiate between persons and objects

bearing the protective emblem and those that do not. In the game Crisis 2, players can attack an

ambulance with impunity. No warnings or penalties are triggered by attacks on ambulances.

85 In multiplayer games each player chooses a class or function. In addition to snipers, grenadiers, or

engineers there are often nurses or combat medics whose function is to heal or resurrect fallen comrades.

Nurses, sometimes dressed in white and often bearing a Red (or other coloured) Cross, are generally

equipped with light weapons and a short reach, but good offensive skills when performing combat

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

730

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.

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’.

Innovations include: the removal of civilians from video

games, the introduction of rules and penalties, the reinforcement of the principle of

Figure 3. In the game Crysis 2, players can attack an ambulance with impunity. No warnings or

functions. Such games send several inaccurate messages about the rules of war (e.g., protective emblems

may be worn by persons with offensive combat roles, and attacks on medical personnel are acceptable).

86 See ICRC, Health Care in Danger: A Sixteen-Country Study, ICRC, Geneva, 2011, available at: http://www.

icrc.org/eng/assets/ﬁles/reports/4073-002-16-country-study.pdf (last visited 2 August 2012). States and

Red Cross and Red Crescent National Societies unanimously passed a resolution on this issue at the 31st

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent. See ‘Resolution 5, Health Care in Danger:

Respecting and Protecting Health Care’, document prepared by the ICRC, adopted at the 31st

International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 28 November–1 December 2011,

available at: http://www.rcrcconference.org/docs_upl/en/R5_HCiD_EN.pdf (last visited).

87 See for example changes between Battleﬁeld 1 and 3. In the later version, players do not have to see or act

out torture.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

731

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.

However, this rather radical solution leads to

some unrealistic depictions of urban conﬂict, including ﬁghting taking place in city

centres devoid of civilians.

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.

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.

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.

88 Alec Meer, ‘Why you can’t shoot civilians in Battleﬁeld 3’, interview of Patrick Bach CEO of DICE, in

Rock, Paper Shotgun, 30 August 2011, available at: http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/08/30/why-

you-cant-shoot-civilians-in-battleﬁeld-3/ (last visited 2 August 2012).

89 While civilians may not be visible in the game, it is difﬁcult to imagine an armed conﬂict taking place in

downtown Tehran (Battleﬁeld 3) or Paris (Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 and Battleﬁeld 3) without any

civilians being present.

90 F. Castillo, above note 51, p. 37.

91 Alternatives to the use of lethal force against friendly forces include allowing players to arrest and court-

marshal soldiers that commit war crimes. The challenge for designers is to ﬁnd ways to implement such

changes without affecting the ﬂow of the game.

92 Unlike early versions of these games, Call of Duty 4 and Halo 3 also integrate changes to avoid improper

use of the emblems. For example, the Red Cross emblem is no longer used in these games as an indicator

of how players can recuperate and replenish their health.

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

732

Provision of options other than killing

While IHL permits the use of lethal force against enemy combatants and military

objectives,

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.

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).

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.

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).

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.

93 Subject always to the rules on distinction, proportionality, and precautions.

94 In direct contrast to IHL, the general rule in video games is that ‘no one surrenders’ to enemy ﬁghters. The

requirement to release the enemy if they cannot be detained is entirely absent. As noted above, in games

tested by the ICRC, wounded persons generally struggle or try to ﬁght back with a ﬁrearm. Others just wait

until their adversary kills them. In some (unplayable) scenes, injured ﬁghters are shot at while trying to

surrender.

95 An exception is ARMA II, which includes three of the distinctive emblems of the Red Cross and Red

Crescent Movement.

96 When they carry and use light weapons to defend themselves or to protect the wounded and sick in their

charge, medical personnel do not lose the protection to which they are entitled. The wounded and sick

under their care remain protected even if the medical personnel themselves lose their protection. See AP I,

Art. 13, rules 25 and 28 of the ICRC Customary Law Study (see also p. 85 of the commentary to rule 25, in

the ICRC Customary Law Study, above note 52).

97 For several problematic scenes in Version 1 of Call of Duty – Modern Warfare 3, see F. Castillo, above note

51, pp. 23–25.

98 Such innovations suggest the involvement of military and/or legal advisors in game design. See also, Dave

Their, ‘The real soldier behind the ‘Call of Duty’ games’,inThe Washington Post, 19 October 2010,

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

733

ICRC initiative

On the basis of ﬁeld experience and research

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

Figure 4. 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

available at: http://www.aolnews.com/2010/10/19/the-real-soldier-behind-the-call-of-duty-games/ (last

visited 30 July 2012).

99 D. Muñoz-Rojas and J.-J. Frésard, above note 33.

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

734

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.

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

Figure 5. 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.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

735

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,

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)).

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

100 See ICRC, Study on the Use of the Emblems: Operational and Commercial and other Non-operational Issues

Involving the Use of the Emblems, ICRC, Geneva, 2011.

101 Art. 37 of AP I prohibits acts of perﬁdy or ‘inviting the conﬁdence of an adversary to lead him to believe

that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in

armed conﬂict, with intent to betray that conﬁdence’. Examples include: feigning intent to surrender or

negotiate under a ﬂag of truce; feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness; feigning civilian, non-

combatant status; and feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of the UN or of

neutral or other states not Parties to the conﬂict’. The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court

(hereinafter Rome Statute), opened for signature 17 July 1998, 2187 UNTS 3 (entered into force 1 July

2002), includes as war crimes, the improper use of distinctive emblems resulting in death, serious injury,

intentional attacks on buildings, material, medical units and transport and personnel using the distinctive

emblems of the Geneva Conventions. See Art. 8(2) (b)(vii) and (xxiv), and (e)(ii) of the Rome Statute.

B. Clarke, C. Rouffaer, and F. Se

chaud – Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players

face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?

736

who respects the rules of war in a video game should be rewarded for doing so.

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.

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.

104

Those who have doubts about the impor-

tance 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 games

105

and the general public;

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.

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.

102 G. Humbert-Droz, above note 15. According to this French language survey, few players knew much

about IHL. Interest in integration of IHL into video games was low.

103 For instance, in 2012, Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 3 (in which game-makers have gone to some lengths

to avoid making civilians and civilian infrastructure targets – a feature of Version 1) ranked number eight

within the top ten best-selling games and number two among ﬁrst person shooter games depicting combat

situations (Call of Duty; Black Ops 2 being number one). See ‘10 best selling videogames in 2012’, above

note 4.

104 According to McGonigal, tens if not hundreds of millions of people play video games each year. See Jane

McGonigal, ‘Gaming can make a better world’, TED Talk ﬁlmed in February 2010, available at: http://

www.ted.com/talks/jane_mcgonigal_gaming_can_make_a_better_world.html (last visited 30 July 2012).

See also Entertainment Software Association, Sales, Demographic and Usage Data: Essential Facts about

the Computer and Video Game Industry, Entertainment Software Association, Washington, D.C., 2011,

available at: http://www.theesa.com/facts/pdfs/ESA_EF_2011.pdf (last visited 30 July 2012).

105 See G. Humbert-Droz, above notes 15 and 102.

106 See B. A. Gutierrez, S. DeCristofaro and M. Woods, above note 18, p. 1038 (‘many Americans have never

been taught about the Geneva Conventions, except perhaps that they exist ... two in ﬁve young people and

one in three adults in the US believe that American soldiers detained abroad can be tortured’).

107 See B. W. Knerr, above note 21.

Volume 94 Number 886 Summer 2012

737