Keeping POWs Safe

2021 ◽  
pp. 164-172
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
The Third ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Yugoslav Wars

This chapter addresses the protection of prisoners of war (POWs). Few groups of individuals are more vulnerable and more in need of protection than POWs who have been captured by their enemy or by other hostile actors. All too often, they are mistreated, tortured or even killed by those who have taken them captive or to whom they have surrendered. The Geneva Conventions and especially Common Article 3 have been cited and applied in a multitude of cases by international criminal tribunals. The chapter focuses on the case of the largest murder of POWs in the Yugoslav wars—the Ovčara massacre—a case where the Third Geneva Convention formed the gravamen of the Judgement.

The Protection of prisoners of war

1974 ◽  
Vol 14 (157) ◽  
pp. 191-193
Keyword(s):  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
The Third ◽  
Geneva Conventions

Before the existence of the Red Cross and the Geneva Conventions, any soldier fallen into enemy hands was entirely at his captor's mercy. Now the Third 1949 Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war—recognized by 133 States—clearly lays down how he must be treated during captivity.

Recent Legal Developments: The Judgement of the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia in Prosecutor v. Mladen Naletilić and Vinko Martinović

2003 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. 525-539 ◽  
Author(s):  
PASCALE CHIFFLET
Keyword(s):  
International Criminal ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
International Criminal Tribunal ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Former Yugoslavia ◽  
Legal Definition ◽  
The Third ◽  
Definition Of

This article focuses on three specific legal developments arising from the Martinović and Naletilić Judgement of the ICTY. The first issue is the possibility of prisoners of war consenting to perform otherwise prohibited labour under Geneva Convention III. The second relates to the legal definition of occupation within the meaning of Geneva Convention IV. The third issue concerns the trial chamber's analysis of the discriminatory requirement as an element of the offence of persecution.

The updated ICRC Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention: A new tool to protect prisoners of war in the twenty-first century

2020 ◽  
Vol 102 (913) ◽  
pp. 389-416
Author(s):  
Jemma Arman ◽  
Jean-Marie Henckaerts ◽  
Heleen Hiemstra ◽  
Kvitoslava Krotiuk
Keyword(s):  
Geneva Convention ◽  
International Committee ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
First Century ◽  
Historical Background ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
The Third ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
Key Points ◽  
Scope Of Application

AbstractSince their publication in the 1950s and 1980s respectively, the Commentaries on the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977 have become a major reference for the application and interpretation of those treaties. The International Committee of the Red Cross, together with a team of renowned experts, is currently updating these Commentaries in order to document developments and provide up-to-date interpretations of the treaty texts. This article highlights key points of interest covered in the updated Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention. It explains the fundamentals of the Convention: the historical background, the personal scope of application of the Convention and the fundamental protections that apply to all prisoners of war (PoWs). It then looks at the timing under which certain obligations are triggered, those prior to holding PoWs, those triggered by the taking of PoWs and during their captivity, and those at the end of a PoW's captivity. Finally, the article summarizes key substantive protections provided in the Third Convention.

Thresholds in Flux—the Standard for Ascertaining the Requirement of Organization for Armed Groups under International Humanitarian Law

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yutaka Arai-Takahashi
Keyword(s):  
Armed Conflict ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Organizational Level ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Threshold Condition ◽  
Special Importance ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Armed Groups ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals

Abstract The requirement of organization is supposed to be of special importance in international humanitarian law (IHL). In the situation of international armed conflict (IAC), this requirement is implicit as part of the collective conditions to be fulfilled by irregular/independent armed groups to enable their members to claim the prisoners of war status under Article 4 A(2) of the Third Geneva Convention. In a non-international armed conflict (NIAC), the eponymous requirement serves, alongside the requirement of intensity of violence, as the threshold condition for ascertaining the onset of a NIAC. While the requirement of organization has not caused much of disputes in IACs, the international criminal tribunals have shown a willingness to examine scrupulously if armed groups in NIACs are sufficiently organized. Still, this article argues that there is need for a nuanced assessment of the organizational level of an armed group in some specific phases of the ongoing armed conflict whose legal character switches (from an NIAC to an IAC, vice-versa, and from a NIAC to a law-enforcement model). It explores what rationales and argumentative model may be adduced to explain such varying standards for organization in different contexts.

Part I Prologue, 1 General Introduction

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kittichaisaree Kriangsak
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Legal Obligation ◽  
General Introduction ◽  
Legal Concept ◽  
Progressive Development ◽  
The Third ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
International Law Commission ◽  
Law Commission

This chapter introduces the legal concept of the international legal obligation to extradite or prosecute perpetrators of the most serious crimes of international concern, tracing its historical foundation, explaining the codification and progressive development work of the UN International Law Commission on the 1996 Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind that has bearings on the concept, and identifying the gap in the existing treaty regime on this obligation. It succinctly analyses the three intertwined alternatives of extradition, prosecution, both by domestic criminal tribunals, and the third alternative of surrendering the perpetrators of such crimes to international criminal tribunals for the purpose of their prosecution.

The Geneva Conventions—An important Anniversary—1949–1969

1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (101) ◽  
pp. 399-410
Author(s):  
C. Pilloud
Keyword(s):  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
Red Cross ◽  
Geneva Conventions ◽  
The Individual

The date of 12 August 1949 takes its place amongst the important historic events of which the Red Cross can be justly proud: on 22 August 1864 there was the signing of the First Geneva Convention; the second revision of that Convention and the signing of the Geneva Convention relative to the treatment of prisoners of war were made on 27 July 1929 and on 12 August 1949 there were the revision of the old Conventions and the adoption of the Geneva Convention for the protection of civilian persons in time of war. On each occasion protection of the individual was extended to further categories of victims.

Repatriation and Accommodation in Neutral Countries of Wounded and Sick Prisoners of War

1965 ◽  
Vol 5 (57) ◽  
pp. 623-629
Author(s):  
Jean-Maurice Rubli
Keyword(s):  
Mental Health ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
The Third ◽  
Long Period ◽  
Geneva Conventions

The termination of captivity for reasons of health is one of the rights of prisoners of war stipulated by the Geneva Conventions.Article 109 of the Third Convention lays down that Parties to the conflict are bound to send back to their own country, regardless of number or rank, seriously wounded and seriously sick prisoners of war.The same article stipulates that the belligerent Parties shall endeavour to make arrangements for the “accommodation in neutral countries”, as a subsidiary solution, of all cases where captivity should be terminated for humanitarian reasons, but where, for military motives, the States concerned are unable to agree to repatriation. We are here above all thinking of aged prisoners, of those who have undergone a long period of captivity or of those whose mental health has deteriorated.

Trying Violations of Human Rights in International Criminal Tribunals

2021 ◽  
pp. 103-115
Author(s):  
Theodor Meron
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
War Crimes ◽  
The Other ◽  
Crimes Against Humanity ◽  
International Humanitarian Law ◽  
Humanitarian Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
International Criminal Tribunals ◽  
Geneva Conventions

This chapter details the ways in which international criminal tribunals such as the ICTY have contributed to human rights law and protections. In construing the material elements of crimes under international humanitarian law, international criminal tribunals have had recourse to human rights law and jurisprudence, thereby strengthening human rights law and opening new avenues for its penal enforcement. The beginnings of these developments can be traced, first, to the drafting of crimes against humanity clauses in the Nuremberg Charter and, second, to the drafting of Common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions. The tribunals have also made immense contributions to strengthening the proscriptions of rape as war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocidal acts. With respect to persecution, the ICTY held that persecution is the gross or blatant denial, on discriminatory grounds, of a fundamental right, laid down in international customary or treaty law, reaching the same level of gravity as the other acts prohibited as crimes against humanity.

Palestine's Accession to Geneva Convention III: Typology of Captives Incarcerated by Israel

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-30
Author(s):  
Mutaz M. QAFISHEH ◽  
Ihssan Adel MADBOUH
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Criminal Law ◽  
Armed Conflict ◽  
International Criminal ◽  
Geneva Convention ◽  
Prisoners Of War ◽  
International Criminal Law ◽  
Criminal Prosecution ◽  
Security Forces ◽  
The Status

Abstract Upon the 2014 State of Palestine's accession to Geneva Convention III, captured Palestinians who took part in belligerent acts against the occupier should be treated as prisoners of war due to the fact that they belong to a party to an armed conflict. These individuals fall under three categories: members of security forces, affiliates of armed resistance groups, and uprisers who fight the occupant spontaneously on an individual basis. Contrary to established rules of IHL, Israel does not make any distinction regarding the status of these three types. Unilateral Israeli treatment of its captives does not hold water under international law. Such actions may trigger liability based on international criminal law, particularly as the ICC decided in 2021 that it possesses jurisdiction to investigate crimes occurring in the territory of Palestine. The mere fact of confining prisoners of war after the cessation of hostilities may constitute a ground for criminal prosecution.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document