"The suppression of the 1798 rebellion in Ireland was harsh, nobody denies that although there were atrocities on both sides, but the fact was that it was a rebellion, not a war, and those rebelling (whether you support their cause or not)had taken up arms against the authorized government and had offered support to an invading foreign army."

I can't really see any difference between that and the situation in Spain in 1811. Spain, like Ireland, was ruled by a foreign government, in this case that of the French Joseph Bonaparte. Both in Spain and Ireland there were people willing to rebel against the foreign authorities and troops. In both cases support was rendered to an invading foreign army - the French in Ireland, the British in Spain. Therefore I do not believe that different standards should be applied.

Regardless, is there anything in the conventions or codes of the time that allows or provides for different treatment of those who rebel against foreign authorities compared to those who attempt to inhibit invading troops? History would suggest that often the former were viewed as a greater menace and treated more harshly, and I would not be surprised to find that any conventions of the time are mostly silent on the matter, in an age when the great colonial empires were being established. Crushing rebellions and firmly dealing with native peoples in occupied lands were considered to be legitimate practices, and many if not most of those who took part in such activities were not punished. It is a strange quirk of war and rebellion that soldiers - being seen as those with a legitimate right to bear arms and fight - have often been treated better and with more respect for codes and morality than civilians, who even in conquered lands have in many cases been seen as having no right to challenge their foreign lords and as such are treated most harshly whenever they attempt to do so.

In light of such considerations what weight should be give the fact that a convention may permit or be silent on one type of attrocity and forbid another? Should a person responsible for an act be treated or judged differently depending on what a convention says (or doesn't say) on the matter, or on how one may interpret the nature of the circumstances in which the act was committed? I wonder...

Regards,
Chris