Charli Carpenter points us to a paper by Shawheen Saffari, a student of hers, who examined the conduct of the Rebel Alliance in Star Wars to determine how closely they followed international law standards established at the time of the original trilogy’s first release:
While the Rebels generally adhered to law regarding uniform and distinction (with some exceptions) due to the fact that their weapons were generally in plain view to distinguish themselves from noncombatants, it seems that there is a pattern in the data that suggests that Rebels are ignorant of lawful conduct in their interactions with civilians. This is apparent in a scene that was coded with “Looking Bad” and “Civilian Harm,” with the Rebels mingling with the escaping Cloud City residents from Imperial troops, their uniforms akin to the civilians around them not impacting their goals, even with the knowledge that civilians could be killed in the crossfire with Imperials. The Rebels also donned Stromtrooper armor to confuse and kill unsuspecting Imperial guards in order to save Princess Leia aboard the Death Star, applicable to the “Looking Bad” code as well as actual uniform law regarding such conduct. Another relatively questionable code was that of “Civilian Harm” being applied to the death of crime boss Jabba the Hutt. I would argue that Leia had no purpose in killing Jabba due to the fact that at that moment he posed no physical threat and was incapable of harming Leia due to his physical condition and being unarmed. R2D2 was more than capable of releasing Leia from her chains which makes the choking of Jabba being gratuitous and an episode of willful killing. The subsequent destruction of Jabba‟s sail barge, killing his guards along with civilian entertainers and bystanders, is an action that allowed the application of the code “Civilian Harm” along with “Lawful Proportions,” as the excessive killing of all those on the yacht, combatant or not, is disproportional under IHL.
What was unexpected from the coding results was that the Rebels employed the use of perfidy as battlefield tactic, with the actions of a false surrender being done as a way to launch a surprise attack. While these moments give the Rebels an advantage, such as the surprise Ewok attack from a false surrender, breaking the strong norm against perfidy, signified by the International Criminal‟s Court‟s defining of it as a war crime in internal conflicts, has the use of such strategies as unlawful and questions the “justness” of the Rebel war effort as a whole. Interestingly acts of perfidy have been noted in the Iraq War, as the technologically advanced coalition forces required insurgents to use such tactics for a greater battlefield advantage, echoing the Rebel/Ewok strategy against the might of the Empire.
I’d argue however, unlike with Jabba the assault on the Death Star in Return of the Jedi did not constitute a war crime. Both Emperor Palpatine and Darth Vader were in the Imperial chain of command, and as such were legitimate military targets for Rebel forces. I suppose Vader and Palpatine might argue that the Rebels were unlawful combatants (doubtlessly to justify their use of torture droids), but even if that were true, such treatment would not have been justified.
Anyway, the fact that Leia was not investigated for her unlawful killing of Jabba continues to be a stain on the New Republic. “Looking forward” indeed.