The origins of modern international humanitarian law are rarely traced to the theatre. We instinctively credit the polished halls of Geneva or the ink-stained parchment of the Lieber Code forged during the American Civil War, attributing the rules of armed conflict to diplomats and sweeping treaties drafted in the aftermath of industrialised slaughter.

Long before international tribunals possessed the jurisdiction to prosecute war crimes, William Shakespeare was actively charting the dark, complex contours of military justice. His martial masterpiece, Henry V, operates as a foundational jurisprudential text. At the climax of the Battle of Agincourt, panicked by a raid on his camp and fearing a massive counter-attack, King Henry issues a chilling, unequivocal order: every English soldier must slaughter his French prisoners. It is a moment that brutally strips away the romanticism of medieval warfare.

Today, evaluating the legality of that exact type of command falls squarely under the jurisdiction of modern tribunals like the International Criminal Court (ICC) in The Hague. Shakespeare’s play serves as a striking historical reference point for the monumental, often agonising struggle to enforce the contemporary laws of armed conflict.

The international legal framework engineered by the Rome Statute in 1998 was specifically designed to prevent the kind of unrestrained brutality Henry leverages on the battlefield. The court was built on the ambitious promise that sovereign leaders could no longer hide behind their borders to escape accountability for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.

Yet, as contemporary conflicts........

© The Friday Times