Swiss groups call for ethics in video war games

Two Swiss advocacy groups are calling on makers of violent computer and video war games to integrate international humanitarian and human rights laws in their products.

Zurich-based Pro Juventute and Geneva-based TRIAL (Track Impunity Always) said after a review of 20 such games that feature “virtual violence” ethical rules that apply to real armed conflicts are noticeably absent in most of them.

Such rules are aimed at limiting excessive violence and protecting “the human dignity of members of particularly vulnerable groups,” the groups said in a jointly issued statement.

The images depicted in the games are sometimes shocking, allowing players to participate in simulated murders of innocent people and attacks on churches and mosques.

“No video game designer really took into account standards of humanitarian law,” Michael Marugg, public affairs manager with Pro Juventute told Swisster.

Many video war games entice and encourage players to take actions that in the real world would violate international law, without any consequences, he said.

Pro Juventute is an organization dedicated to the protection of children. The issue of violent video games without ethical content is one of its growing concerns related to new technologies and their impact on young people.

The group, and TRIAL, an organization devoted to promoting humanitarian laws, are raising the alarm at a time when video war games have emerged as a multi-billion-dollar business.

Last weekend Call of Duty:Modern Warfare 2 was rolled out by American producer Activision Blizzard with all the pomp and promotion of a Hollywood movie.

The game, which allows players to participate in a simulated war, generated 550 million dollars in sales on the first day it was introduced in the US.

The game, depicting contemporary warfare, is expected to rack up more than a billion dollars in revenues from the sale of 15 to 20 million units.

But the Swiss organizations are sharply critical of such products. In some games, “civilians or protected objects such as churches or mosques can be attacked with impunity,” they said.

The groups also decried scenes in some games that portray interrogations where it is possible to “torture, degrade or treat the prisoner inhumanely without being sanctioned.”

Other games simulate extrajudicial executions.

Marugg said a handful of games that punish the killing of civilians or that reward strategies that aim to prevent excessive damage show that it is possible to introduce ethical rules to such products.

But in such cases the ethical content is incidental rather than planned, Marugg said.

He acknowledged that “violence has always been an element of media content - I don’t think you can completely forbid them (video war games).” But there is a clear need for better guidelines internationally, Marugg said.

Current regulations, such as those in Germany, are limited to restricting games to adults or those over the age of 16.

Marugg noted that under the Swiss constitution extreme depictions of cruelty are not permitted in films, video games and other forms of media. However, the war games are not yet considered cruel enough to be banned in the country, he said.

The advocacy groups called for manufacturers to creatively incorporate human rights rules in their video games and to even involve such real-life organizations as the Red Cross and the International Criminal Court.

The analysis of the video games was undertaken by experts under the supervision of Marco Sassoli, professor and director of the department of international law and international organization at the University of Geneva.