What's the intent of the false flag law?

Question

From International Committee of the Red Cross - Practice Relating to Rule 62. Improper Use of Flags or Military Emblems, Insignia or Uniforms of the Adversary:

According to custom, it is permissible for a belligerent warship to use false colours and to disguise her outward appearance in other ways in order to deceive an enemy, provided that prior to going into action the warship shows her true colours. Aircraft are not, however, enentitled to use false markings.

From false flag Wikipedia page

In land warfare, such operations are generally deemed acceptable under certain circumstances, such as to deceive enemies, provided the deception is not perfidious and that all such deceptions are discarded before opening fire upon the enemy. Similarly, in naval warfare such a deception is considered permissible, provided the false flag is lowered and the true flag raised before engaging in battle.

Initial question: What is the intention of this law, like why is it considered unfair fighting to use false flags (when taking action/open firing already)? ETA: By which I mean to ask: Why is it considered unfair/inhumane/inhuman/unethical/immoral fighting to (continue to) use false flags (when taking action/open firing already)?

Context:

1

What I understand is that a 'war crime' is something which gives you an unfair advantage in that civilians are affected at the cost of your military progress eg chemical weapons, incendiary weapons (at least in our world; alternatively see here or directly here) or well actually directly killing civilians for example.

2

My intention is to genuinely understand what is inhumane/unfair/unjust about attacking with false flags. There's an answer given below that says

neither of these groups is afforded protection from the rules of war. Only if you fire under your own flag you get the protections of a POW if you fall into their hands.

But as Nassim Nicholas Taleb said

'Someone saying "ethics is good for success" is missing the entire point of ethics.'

I'm asking like: If there weren't these incentives, then what would be inhumane about doing this?

So far what I'm seeing is that this so-called war crime is not inhumane at all but really just some dumb rule...or at least some kind of 'deal' or 'gamble' like 'Ok fine, you can use false flags to attack, but you don't get this or that if you lose.'

3

And then finally I can ask on SciFi SE (about Sokka from ATLA) not merely 'Why didn't Sokka follow this rule?' (cheap conventional, stage 2 of 3 in Lawrence Kohlberg's moral development theory that causes reactance like 'There's no Geneva/UN in ATLA. What are you talking about?') but really 'Why did Sokka do this seemingly inhumane thing?' (which would be postconventional, stage 3 of 3 in moral development).

Answer 1

To my mind, one of the major goals of the customary laws of war is to try to limit the overall harm caused by a war, especially harm caused to parties other than the military forces of the nations who are actually fighting each other. Obvious examples are prohibitions on attacking civilians, destroying civilian property and infrastructure, neglecting civilian public health, harming prisoners who are incapable of fighting, and so on. I wouldn't say these are about "fairness" or any other such abstract ethical principle; they are simply pragmatic. All other things equal, the world is better off if fewer civilians end up dead.

And so just as the laws try to avoid collateral damage to individuals who are not fighting (civilians, prisoners, injured troops, etc), they likewise try to avoid collateral damage to nations who are not fighting (neutrals). Combat under a false flag carries a risk of harm to the nation whose flag is impersonated, as the belligerents may get the wrong idea about who is attacking them.

Here are a couple of scenarios that could occur if false flag combat were considered acceptable:

1. Potsylvania is at war with Grand Fenwick, while Freedonia remains neutral in the conflict. The Potsylvanian ship Fearless sights the Fenwickian ship Goose, and as a ruse, the Fearless runs up a Freedonian flag. The Goose, knowing that Freedonia is neutral, assumes the Fearless is harmless and lets it approach. When within range, the Fearless fires at the Goose, while still flying the Freedonian flag. The Goose reports back to its government that they have been attacked by a Freedonian vessel. The Fenwickian government considers this a hostile act, declares war on Freedonia, and launches an immediate retaliatory invasion of Freedonian territory. Now Freedonia has been brought into the war despite no party actually having anything against them. This is not desirable.

2. Same scenario, but instead of raising a Freedonian flag, the Fearless runs up a Fenwickian flag. The Goose knows the flag must be fake, as no genuine Fenwickian vessel would attack them, but they don't know what nation the Fearless actually does belong to. They faintly hear the captain of the Fearless shouting orders in Potsylvanian, but he has a Freedonian accent and they think he's speaking in Freedonian. They report to their government that a Freedonian vessel has attacked them, and Grand Fenwick again declares war on Freedonia.

Note that using a false flag when not attacking doesn't carry the same risks, which is why it is not included in the prohibition. Suppose that the Fearless doesn't plan to attack the Goose, but simply wants to avoid being attacked so they can get away. If their ruse of flying a Freedonian flag is successful, then the Goose simply thinks they saw a neutral Freedonian vessel going about its business, and Grand Fenwick does not get the idea that Freedonia is doing anything aggressive. And if it's unsuccessful, then the Goose must have figured out that the Fearless is not Freedonian at all, but instead Potsylvanian, and so likewise Freedonia does not come under suspicion.

Answer 2

it's not considered unfair

Fairness is not a concept in law.

It is considered acceptable only to some degree.

Flags are there to identify friends from foes. Flying a false flag for non-hostile action such as sneaking your ship through a blockade or getting a unit into a position to act or retreat from the frontline is deemed general maneuvers that have been used since military history - and acceptable.

However, firing under a false flag is something you really don't want, because doing that means you automatically belong to one of 2 groups:

• Rebels or traitors of the nation who's flag you fly.
• Someone breaking the customs of war.

Neither of these groups is a legitimate combatant - and neither of these groups is afforded protection from the rules of war. Only if you fire under your own flag you get the protections of a POW if you fall into their hands.