Mr. Gallopin meets American Secretary of State

1975 ◽  
Vol 15 (168) ◽  
pp. 135-135

On 17 February 1975, the President of the ICRC Executive Board, Mr. Roger Gallopin, met the American Secretary of State, Mr. Henry Kissinger, while the latter was on a visit to Geneva. The talks centred on the ICRC's humanitarian work throughout the world. The Secretary of State expressed the United States Government's appreciation of the tasks accomplished by the ICRC and, in particular, its efforts to promote international humanitarian law.

2009 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
pp. 195-232
Author(s):  
Susan C. Breau

AbstractThis year in review will first discuss the major developments that contributed towards the formation or enforcement of international humanitarian law. Despite the many positive developments in the elucidation of international humanitarian law, 2009 witnessed the continuation of violent armed conflict around the world, not least in Sri Lanka where the long standing armed conflict came to a bloody conclusion amidst allegations of summary executions and other serious violations of international humanitarian law. Two other conflicts involving Israel/Gaza and Russia/Georgia which took place in 2008 and early 2009, resulted in the release of two influential international investigative reports, each of which alleged serious violations of international humanitarian law and called for the enforcement of criminal accountability. The election of Barack Obama marked a significant shift in the attitude of the United States to terrorism and detention with the new President immediately announcing on taking office, the closure of Guantánamo Bay.


2018 ◽  
Vol 63 (5) ◽  
pp. 1140-1164 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jonathan A. Chu

Reciprocity is one of the oldest principles of warfare, but humanitarian norms embedded in international humanitarian law (IHL) prohibit reciprocity over various wartime acts. When it comes to the treatment of prisoners of war (POWs), how do these conflicting norms shape public opinion? One perspective is that citizens who learn about IHL acquire an unconditional aversion to abusing POWs. Alternatively, people may understand IHL as a conditional commitment that instead strengthens their approval for reciprocal conduct. Survey experiments fielded in the United States support the latter view: people’s preferences depend on the enemy’s behavior, and this “reciprocity effect” is largest among those who believe that the United States is legally committed to treating POWs humanely. Puzzlingly, prior studies do not find a reciprocity effect, but this is due to their use of a no-information experimental control group, which led to a lack of control over the subjects’ assumptions about the survey.


Author(s):  
Knut Dörmann

The legal situation of ‘unlawful combatants’ has been one of the most contentious issues in international humanitarian law. It has been addressed in some detail in legal writings following the adoption of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and then before the 1977 Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions were adopted. The United States-led military campaign in Afghanistan, which started in 2001, revived the debate. This chapter examines the debate concerning the legal framework applicable to the possible detainability and targetability of ‘unlawful combatants’. It first considers ‘unlawful combatants’ in the hands of the enemy within the framework of international and non-international armed conflicts. It then discusses the penal prosecution of ‘unlawful combatants’ as well as their status under the rules of the conduct of hostilities. The chapter concludes by looking at the practice in Israel and the United States, the former in reference to the incarceration of unlawful combatants and the latter with respect to the fight against terrorism.


2000 ◽  
Vol 14 ◽  
pp. 3-10
Author(s):  
Alberto R. Coll

Never before in its history has the United States enjoyed such a favorable strategic environment as it does today. There are few deadly enemies anywhere in sight. The U.S. military budget surpasses that of China, Russia, and the five Western European powers combined, and U.S. military capabilities are well ahead of those of any ally or potential adversary. America's booming economy and domestic social arrangements—with crime and unemployment down to the levels of thirty years ago—are a puzzle to those who, as recently as a decade ago, were predicting inexorable American decline. Such a surfeit of U.S. power and prestige, and the apparent absence of any significant obstacles to it, have prompted many to argue that this is a unique historic opportunity for the United States to fulfill the Wilsonian dream of remaking the world in America's image. Among conservatives, the argument has been made most forcefully by William Kristol and Robert Kagan of the Project for the New American Century; among liberals, by Secretary of State Madeleine Albright and Tony Smith, whose essay follows.


2016 ◽  
Vol 104 ◽  
pp. 4-12
Author(s):  
Rosemary Ann Blanchard

One of the most radical ways of teaching about universal human rights and international humanitarian law would be to teach about these fundamental internationally-recognized standards for humane interpersonal conduct to every child who enters school in the United States.  American illiteracy about human rights and humanitarian law standards contributes to the climate in which the United States preaches human rights to it's perceived opponents while refusing to apply universally recognized hr and ihl principles to itself. From the failure to incorporate into the American educational structure the cultural and linguistic rights of Indigenous peoples and ethnic, linguistic and religious minorities to the refusal to submit to the same standards of international humanitarian law which apply to all combatants, U.S. political and military leaders have been able to rely on the unfamiliarity of most Americans with the fundamental principles of human rights and international humanitarian law to insulate them from effective public scrutiny and meaningful challenge. This article describes efforts to mainstream human rights education at all levels of public education so it becomes a part of the educational experience of every child and, thus, part of the background of every adult. The risks of having HRE co-opted are dwarfed by the risks of having HRE sidelined.


1998 ◽  
Vol 9 (3) ◽  
pp. 138-143

Acting on a recommendation from Secretary of State Albright, President Clinton today sent to the Congress his annual list of those major illicit drug-producing and drug-transit countries that have been certified as either cooperating fully with the United States or taking adequate steps on their own in the fight against drugs. We can only successfully meet the transnational threat of drugs in cooperation and partnership with other nations, President Clinton said. Building on our efforts at home in reducing the demand for drugs, I want to work with our increasingly committed partners in the hemisphere and around the world to stem the supply.


1960 ◽  
Vol 14 (2) ◽  
pp. 345-345

The Council of the ANZUS Pacific Security Pact met in Washington on October 26, 1959. New Zealand was represented by Prime Minister Walter Nash; Australia by Minister for External Affairs Richard G. Casey; and the United States by Secretary of State Christian Herter. The representatives of the three member nations voiced their concern that the destructive violence in Asia of the Chinese Communists and their threat of a “liberating” war in the Taiwan Strait should continue to pose a serious threat to the peace of the world; they reiterated their conviction in this context that any resort to force of arms by the Chinese Communists in the Taiwan area or elsewhere could only be regarded as an international problem affecting the stability of the region.


1997 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 66-67

President Richard Nixon of the United States of America visited the People’s Republic of China at the invitation of Premier Chou En-lai of the People’s Republic of China from February 21 to February 28, 1972. Accompanying the President were Mrs. Nixon, U.S. Secretary of State William Rogers, Assistant to the President Dr. Henry Kissinger, and other American officials.


1991 ◽  
Vol 85 (1) ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
George H. Aldrich

Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, concluded in Geneva in 1977, is the most important treaty codifying and developing international humanitarian law since the adoption of the four Conventions themselves; and it is the first such treaty since 1907 to deal with methods and means of warfare and the protection of the civilian population from the effects of warfare. As such, its contributions to the law were long overdue and, on the whole, are both positive from the humanitarian point of view and practicable from the military point of view. Moreover, it offers the prospect of improved compliance with international humanitarian law, which would greatly benefit the victims of war and would bring the law in action closer to the law in the books. Yet, in January 1987, the President of the United States informed the Senate that he would not submit the Protocol to the Senate for its advice and consent to ratification, calling it “fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed.” It is apparent that President Reagan’s decision resulted from misguided advice that exaggerated certain flaws in the Protocol, ignored the statements of understanding that would have remedied them, and misconstrued a humanitarian and antiterrorist instrument as one that could give aid and comfort to “terrorists.”


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document