There is no such thing as a war crime.

There is no longer a "civilized" way to make war; there is only death and destruction - how much a belligerent can inflict upon the enemy, how much they receive in return, and how much either side can endure before capitulating.

The concept of war crimes is redundant. War is no longer the chivalrous parley of knights and the Charge of the Light Brigade [en.wikipedia.org]. Armies no longer arrange to do battle at a certain time and place, and nations need not issue formal declarations of war with valid casus belli to commence hostilities.

No, war nowadays tends to be a sortie of 100 million dollar F-22s bombing a few Middle Easterners with 100 dollar AK-47s because some geriatric on the other side of the world held up a small glass vial inside the United Nations building and said some scary things about " mass destruction ". But when a tiny, outgunned force attempts to resist the might of a superpower, why should anything they do be called a war crime? Is not the right to pursue life, liberty and happiness a universal right? The underdog will fight with whatever means are available to them, because those three rights hold more value to them than conformity to standards that corrupt global institutions set (and enforce, usually only when it benefits the powers that be). And upon seeing this, for the domineering power to restrict itself to the aforementioned set of rules by which to conduct war, owing to their supposed moral superiority, would simply invite a prolongation of conflict and unnecessary suffering.

There is no such thing as a war crime: nowadays, war itself is usually the crime.