This article poses the question as to whether and why States overlook the prosecution of people for war crimes rather than terrorist offences, where war crimes would be preferred. It looks at whether a diverse range of States (Afghanistan, Australia, Mali, the Netherlands and the Russian Federation) are able through their domestic legislation to prosecute people for war crimes or for terrorist offences. It considers what the value of prosecutions is theoretically and legally, and what the impact of prosecutions is practically in a State. It proposes that prosecutors, police and judges should ask the question whether an alleged offender should be prosecuted for war crimes and/or terrorist offences with war crimes being the preferred option where there is evidence that they have been committed.

The relentless modernisation of weaponry, the transformation of military strategy, and recent conflicts incorporating both these trends, especially in response to the War on Terror (WOT), raise two questions with regard to jus in bello: does the almost exponential increase in the use of modern weaponry and commensurate changes in military strategies foster compliance with jus in bello or, alternatively, does it make its observance less likely. Second, is jus in bello in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant in the era of post-modern asymmetrical warfare. If so, can jus in bello be adapted to meet these new challenges? Answering these two questions, this article describes jus in bello, reviews how advances in weapon technology and force structure have been reflected in recent military operations, and identifies key jus in bello issues that have arisen in these recent conflicts. The article also surveys how technology and jus in bello impacted changes in US military strategy and future weapon modernisation efforts, and concludes by noting that weapon modernisation and new military strategies have proceeded within jus in bello and have fostered its observance ensuring that jus in bello will survive the unique challenges posed by non-conforming terrorists and belligerent states.

Kamedo is a Swedish Disaster Medicine study organization that sends observers to disaster areas anywhere in the world to study recent events, collect useful information, and identify problems relative to the practice of Disaster Medicine. The results of these investigations are published in the KAMEDO Reports, and the English versions will be published in Prehospital and Disaster Medicine.

Three of the recent reports follow: 1) KAMEDO Report 69: Ebolus Virus Epidemic in Zaire, 1995; 2) KAMEDO Report 70: The German Rescue and Emergency Organizations: a) Industrial Chemical Fire, Memmingen, Germany 23 January 1997; b) Fire at the Düsseldorf Airport, 01 April 1996; and c) Bus Accident on the Autobahn in Rosenheim, Germany; and 3) Terrorist Attack with Sarin, 20 March 1995. In addition, a catalog listing all of the KAMEDO Reports available in English is provided.