Note: Just assume that there is also a Geneva convetion in this scenario because it is basically our earth in a few years in the future.
So, I just found of this news that the US had developed an electrolaser weapon.
Explanation: "It uses lasers to form an electrically conductive laser-induced plasma channel (LIPC). A fraction of a second later, a powerful electric current is sent down this plasma channel and delivered to the target".
Well, I already know from this question that such weaponry would require a loooot of energy, but I don't know if it is due to the laser or the lightning itself.
Anyway, the thing is that, in my scenario I was thinking about an anti-land-mine gun that used a similar principle.
But instead of using lasers, a small turbine would have an ion-gun (these exist and are used to purify the air or take out the electrostatic from objects) on one end, which it would create a constant flow of ionised air. And so, a small Tesla coil (or anything like this) would also make a constant flow of electricity, which would travel trough the ionised air and finally be attracted to the land-mines, forcing then to explode prematurely.
The thing is, that humans can also be destroyed by electricity, and soldiers started using the ionised air flow to electrocute enemies behind cover, corners and things alike.
However, it came to my mind that maybe this would be just too cruel to be allowed in a battlefield. It would come to how much time it would take to kill the enemies (if it was almost instantaneous, or slowly cooking them alive), or it would be straight up banned?
I couldn't find anything like that about war crimes, and it didn't surprise me since no one has ever used such weapon on the battlefield.