The news, published by the Ukrainian media, that two Chinese citizens who had previously fought for Russian units had been taken prisoner of war, has understandably stirred up emotions. Additionally, it also raises a number of legal questions that are worth considering.
Is China becoming a belligerent?
If the Chinese citizens joined the Russian armed forces of their own free will – and based on our current knowledge, this is the case – then this does not make China a party to the ongoing conflict. If they had been sent by China, or if they were linked to China in some official capacity (e.g. being members of its armed forces), then their participation in the hostilities would certainly mean that China is also becoming a belligerent, although this is more of a political significance due to the distance between Ukraine and China.
Yes, it is possible that they did indeed go there of their own accord and joined the Russian armed forces, although the laws of most states prohibit citizens from undertaking military service for another state. However, the potential violation of this prohibition cannot be investigated by the enemy state involved in the conflict (in this case, Ukraine) in the event of their capture, since it has nothing to do with that citizen status, and is obliged to treat them in accordance with the rules dictated by the laws of war.
What rules apply to these individuals?
Since, as far as we know, they traveled to Russia of their own accord and joined its armed forces, their situation is equivalent to that of Russian soldiers – as long as they are members of the Russian armed forces, they are considered being prisoners of war and must be treated in accordance with the provisions of the 1949 Geneva Convention III. From this perspective, it is irrelevant whether they joined voluntarily while staying on Russian territory or became Russian soldiers against their will as a result of some crazy local conscription; the important thing is the official connection with the state’s armed forces.
The same would be the case if they had been present in some kind of “representation” of China, only with the more complicated political background that – as I described above – in that case China would also be considered a belligerent party.
However, the situation would be significantly complicated if these Chinese citizens had not been captured in Ukraine as members of the Russian armed forces, but as private individuals, or as employees of a mercenary group or of a private military company – that is, without a direct state connection. In this case, they would not be entitled to the status of prisoner of war, which is usually reserved only for members of the armed forces of the states participating in the conflict by the system of laws of war. Such persons are considered being civilians in the armed conflict regardless of their actions, which can be actually really bad for them: on the one hand, their harmful actions, even if in accordance with the laws of war, become punishable (which is logically not the case with soldiers), and on the other hand, their detention is regulated not by the provisions of the abovementioned Geneva Convention III, but by Convention IV, related to civilians. Moreover, there is a chance that it does not apply to them either, since this convention (specifically its Article 4) states that it should not be applied to persons held in captivity who are not citizens of either party to the conflict and whose state has regular diplomatic relations with the capturing state. Since Ukraine and China have diplomatic relations, this situation would be a textbook example of this, but since the Chinese citizens served in the Russian armed forces, that relationship establishes the more regulated, stronger protected status of prisoner of war. The essence of this rarely invoked provision of Convention IV is to keep persons who are not involved in the conflict because of their nationality as far away from the conflict as possible, including the obligation to apply the rules of war. What if their own state does not want to do anything against the detaining power? Unfortunately, in such cases, only the human rights-related rules that apply to the detaining state impose some kind of limit on their treatment. The legal loophole and legal uncertainty that easily arise from this has allowed the United States to loosen the legal rules binding it with regard to the persons it captured during its “war on terrorism” after the 2001 September 11 attacks… But let’s not open that question here.
At the same time, it is impossible to ignore the interviewing of the Chinese prisoners, which constitutes a violation of the prohibition contained in Article 13 of the Geneva Convention III, governing the treatment of prisoners of war by Ukraine. This provision states that prisoners of war must be protected from “public curiosity”, which is obviously a provision intended to protect their person. It may of course be argued that they consented to the interviews, but the relevant practice typically does not accept this argument, and has not accepted it in other cases either. However, in this case too, the practical question arises: “so what then?”… It may be nothing, but it is worth noting the fact of the violation.
That is all we know for now, and that is all that is worth recording. If there are any developments, we will discuss it further.
