The Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions: a quest for universality

1987 ◽  
Vol 27 (258) ◽  
pp. 243-249 ◽  
Author(s):  
Cornelio Sommaruga

Ten years ago, on 8 June 1977, the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts adopted two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, one relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts and the other to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts.

1987 ◽  
Vol 27 (258) ◽  
pp. 282-287
Author(s):  
Su Wei

Ten years ago, two Protocols additional to the Four Geneva Conventions were adopted in Geneva: one relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, the other to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. This marked a forward step in the development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts. The most outstanding problem confronting international humanitarian lawyers in the postwar years has been the protection of civilians in circumstances of armed conflicts, particularly in a period characterized by wars of national liberation. The two Protocols scored achievements on two points. First, provisions were elaborated aiming at protecting civilians from the effects of hostilities as opposed to simply protecting civilians in occupied territories as had been the case of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949. Secondly, the scope of the application of humanitarian law was greatly widened so as to bring a greater number of victims of armed conflicts under the protection of humanitarian law. This should in turn facilitate the observance and implementation of humanitarian law in conflicts. It is attempted in this paper to make some comments on the achievements of the Protocols, especially Protocol I relating to international armed conflicts.


1977 ◽  
Vol 17 (191) ◽  
pp. 66-70
Author(s):  
D. B.

After a number of consultations and preparatory meetings, the Diplomatic Conference on humanitarian law, convoked by the Swiss Federal Council and presided over by Mr. Pierre Graber, Federal Councillor, will soon hold its fourth session in Geneva. Its purpose is, with assistance from ICRC experts, to complete consideration of two draft protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949; one of these deals with international armed conflicts, the other with noninternational armed conflicts. An ad hoc committee will examine proposals for the regulation of the use of certain so-called conventional weapons.


Author(s):  
Tilman Rodenhäuser

Chapter 2 examines international humanitarian law treaties. Using classical treaty interpretation methods, it establishes what degree of organization is required from a non-state armed group to become ‘Party to the conflict’ under article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions, or an ‘organized armed group’ under article 1(1) of the Additional Protocol II or under the ICC Statute. Chapter 2 also analyses the travaux préparatoires of the different treaties, subsequent practice, and engages with the main doctrinal debates surrounding these questions. By subjecting the three treaties to thorough analysis, the chapter presents concise interpretations of the relevant organizational requirements, and compares the different thresholds. It also identifies and addresses under-researched questions, such as whether the organization criterion under international humanitarian law requires the capacity to implement the entirety of the applicable law.


2017 ◽  
Vol 20 (1) ◽  
pp. 436-458 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yateesh Begoore

While International Humanitarian Law (IHL) contains a comprehensive framework of rules and procedural protections for detainees in international armed conflicts (IACS), there is a conspicuous absence of such rules and protections for detainees in the case of non-international armed conflicts (NIACS). In fact, as the recent Serdar Mohammad v. Ministry of Defence case pointed out, the rules pertaining to NIACS make no mention of detention authority at all, leading some scholars to conclude that International Human Rights Law (IHRL), and not IHL, governs NIAC detention. Contrarily, this paper contends that not only does IHL govern (as well as grant authority for) NIAC detentions, the regime’s shortcomings regarding procedural safe-guards and treatment standards may be remedied through the application of the Copenhagen Process Principles – as evolutive interpretation or interpretation based on subsequent agreement – to Common Art. 3 of the Geneva Conventions.


Author(s):  
Bothe Michael

This chapter focuses on rules of the law of neutrality concerning the protection of the victims of armed conflicts, which must be considered as part of international humanitarian law. ‘Neutrality’ describes the particular status, as defined by international law, of a state not party to an armed conflict. This status entails specific rights and duties in the relationship between the neutral and the belligerent states. On one hand, there is the right of the neutral state to remain apart from, and not to be adversely affected by, the conflict. On the other hand, there is the duty of non-participation and impartiality. The right not to be adversely affected means that the relationship between the neutral and belligerent States is governed by the law of peace, which is modified only in certain respects by the law of neutrality. In particular, the neutral State must tolerate certain controls in the area of maritime commerce. The duty of non-participation means, above all, that the state must abstain from supporting a party to the conflict. This duty not to support also means that the neutral state is under a duty not to allow one party to the conflict to use the resources of the neutral state against the will of the opponent.


2018 ◽  
Vol 101 (910) ◽  
pp. 357-363

States party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I of 1977 have an obligation to take measures necessary to suppress all acts contrary to their provisions. Moreover, States must investigate war crimes allegedly committed by their nationals or on their territory, and other war crimes over which they have jurisdiction, such as on the basis of universal jurisdiction, and, if appropriate, prosecute the suspects. In accordance with these obligations and the limits they impose, States may adopt certain measures during and in the aftermath of armed conflicts to promote reconciliation and peace, one of which is amnesties. International humanitarian law (IHL) contains rules pertaining to the granting and scope of amnesties. Specifically, Article 6(5) of Protocol II additional to the Geneva Conventions relating to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs) provides that, at the end of hostilities, the authorities in power shall endeavour to grant the broadest possible amnesty to persons who have participated in the armed conflict, or those deprived of their liberty for reasons related to the armed conflict. Importantly, under customary IHL (as identified in Rule 159 of the ICRC customary IHL study), this excludes persons suspected of, accused of, or sentenced for war crimes in NIACs.


1992 ◽  
Vol 32 (287) ◽  
pp. 121-142 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Peter Gasser

Article 75 of Protocol I additional to the Geneva Conventions lays down with admirable clarity and concision thateven in time of war, or rather especially in time of war, justice must be dispassionate. How does international humanitarian lawpromote this end? What can theInternational Committee of the Red Cross, an independent humanitarian institution, do in the harsh reality of an armed conflict towards maintaining respect for the fundamental judicial guarantees protecting persons accused of crimes, some of them particularly abhorrent?This article will first consider the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols in relation to judicial procedure in time of armed conflicts. Thereafter it will examine the legal bases legitimizing international scrutiny of penal proceedings instituted against persons protected by humanitarian law. The next and principal part of the article will indicate how ICRC delegates appointed to monitor trials as observers do their job. In conclusion the article will try to evaluate this little-known aspect of the ICRC's work of protection.


2019 ◽  
Vol 101 (911) ◽  
pp. 869-949

This is the fifth report on international humanitarian law (IHL) and the challenges of contemporary armed conflicts prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) for the International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent (International Conference). Similar reports were submitted to the International Conferences held in 2003, 2007, 2011 and 2015. The aim of all these reports is to provide an overview of some of the challenges posed by contemporary armed conflicts for IHL; generate broader reflection on those challenges; and outline current or prospective ICRC action, positions, and areas of interest.


1991 ◽  
Vol 31 (281) ◽  
pp. 211-214
Author(s):  
Yves Sandoz

In its January-February 1991 issue, the Review informed its readers of the successive representations made by the ICRC from the outbreak of the Middle East conflict both to the States party to the conflict and to the other States to remind them of their obligations under the Geneva Conventions. In particular, the ICRC sent a note verbale on 14 December 1990 to the 164 States party to the Conventions, together with a Memorandum on the applicability of international humanitarian law, and launched appeals to the belligerent States on 17 January and 1 and 24 February 1991.


1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (320) ◽  
pp. 471-472
Author(s):  
Cornelio Sommaruga

Twenty years ago, on 11 June 1977, the plenipotentiaries of over a hundred States and several national liberation movements signed the Final Act of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts. This Conference had been convened by the government of Switzerland, the depositary State of the Geneva Conventions. After four sessions held between 1973 and 1977, themselves preceded by several years of preparatory work, the Conference drew up two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, relating to the protection of the victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I) and of noninternational armed conflicts (Protocol II).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document