Chapter IV. 1949-1980: Protocol II Additional To The Geneva Conventions Of 1949 And The Conventional Weapons Convention

2000 ◽  
Vol 94 (1) ◽  
pp. 78-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Theodor Mero

Together with the principle prohibiting weapons “of a nature to cause superfluous injury” or “calculated to cause unnecessary suffering,” the Martens clause, in the Preamble to the Hague Conventions on the Laws and Customs of War on Land, is an enduring legacy of those instruments. In the years since its formulation, the Martens clause has been relied upon in die Nurembergjurisprudence, addressed by the International Court of Justice and human rights bodies, and reiterated in many humanitarian law treaties that regulate the means and methods of warfare. It was restated in die 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of Victims of War, the 1977 Additional Protocols to those Conventions, and the Preamble to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons, albeit in slightly different versions. The Martens clause was paraphrased in Resolution XXIII of the Tehran Conference on Human Rights of 1968, and is cited or otherwise referred to in several national military manuals, including those of the United States, die United Kingdom, and Germany. Moreover, attempts have recently been made, including by parties before die International Court of Jusdce, to invoke the clause, in the absence of specific norms of customary and conventional law, to oudaw the use of nuclear weapons.


1994 ◽  
Vol 34 (302) ◽  
pp. 450-457 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hans-Peter Gasser

In its Final Declaration of 1 September 1993, the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims inter alia urged all States to make every effort to:“Consider or reconsider, in order to enhance the universal character of international humanitarian law, becoming party or confirming their succession, where appropriate, to the relevant treaties concluded since the adoption of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, in particular:—the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 (Protocol I);—the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts of 8 June 1977 (Protocol II);—the 1980 Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons and its three Protocols;—The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict”.


1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (320) ◽  
pp. 511-514
Author(s):  
Igor P. Blishchenko

The adoption of the 1977 Protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims was an event of great historic significance. In 1977 the States were convinced that developments in weaponry had made it necessary to adopt new rules of conduct in armed conflicts: methods of using conventional weapons were being perfected and the resulting casualty rates were approaching those of weapons mass destruction, affecting everyone without exception and also damaging the environment, and thus threatening the survival of entire nations. This fact persuaded the States to agree upon new rules of conduct in armed conflict.


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.


1986 ◽  
Vol 26 (251) ◽  
pp. 113-114

It is the understanding of the Government of Italy that the rules relating to the use of weapons introduced by Additional Protocol I were intended to apply exclusively to conventional weapons. They do not prejudice any other rule of international law applicable to other types of weapons.The Italian Government understands, in relation to Articles 41, 56, 57, 58, 78 and 86, that the word “feasible” is to be understood as practicable or practically possible taking into account all circumstances ruling at the time, including humanitarian and military considerations.


1986 ◽  
Vol 26 (252) ◽  
pp. 172-175
Author(s):  
L. Tindemans

On depositing the instrument of ratification by Belgium of the Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), done at Geneva on 8 June 1977, the Belgian Government makes the following declarations of interpretation:The Belgian Government, in view of the travaux préparatories for the international instrument herewith ratified, wishes to emphasize that the Protocol was established to broaden the protection conferred by humanitarian law solely when conventional weapons are used in armed conflicts, without prejudice to the provisions of international law relating to the use of other types of weapons.


2016 ◽  
pp. 7-38
Author(s):  
Grzegorz Gil

Following the end of the cold war, the incidence of statebuilding interventions has visibly increased in the case of dysfunctional (failed) states. Today, such interventionism in a good faith promotes liberal values and is believed to be in line with international legal regimes that makes it distinctive from neo-imperial politics. Even if state-building does not generally refer to regular warfare, it often takes analogous forms to occupation, which was codified in jus in bello at the beginning of the XXth century. While the occupation law requires occupants to maintain status quo on the occupying territory (article 43 of Hague Regulations), armed state-building is transformative by definition that seems to undermine conservative provisions of the former. The article presents traditional criteria for occupation in the Hague and Geneva conventions as well as prospects and limitations of its refinement (jus post bellum). In theory, such a redefinition could launch the formulation of the statebuilding regime, which aims to reduce deficits or double-standards in international state-building by focusing on the interests of local stakeholders of transformative projects. Hence, the Author addresses three interlocking issues: occupation within state-building, the occupation law and state-building, and transformative occupation as state-building.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document