'Beyond the Call of Duty: why shouldn’t video game players face the same dilemmas as real soldiers?' by
Ben Clarke, Christian Rouffaer and Francois Senechaud in (2012) 94(886)
International Review of the Red Cross 711
comments
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.
The authors state
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 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 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.
