No. 972. Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Signed at Geneva on 12 August 1949

1985 ◽  
Vol 25 (249) ◽  
pp. 337-363 ◽  
Author(s):  
Françoise Krill

Since the number of women who actually participated in war was insignificant until the outbreak of World War I, the need for special protection for them was not felt prior to that time. This does not imply however that women had previously lacked any protection. From the birth of international humanitarian law, they had had the same general legal protection as men. If they were wounded, women were protected by the provisions of the 1864 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field; if they became prisoners of war, they benefited from the Regulations annexed to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 on the Laws and Customs of War on Land.


Author(s):  
Yutaka Arai-Takahashi

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.


2005 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. 489-508
Author(s):  
Leslie C. Green

This paper is concerned with examining the role Canada has played in the development of the law of armed conflict. It makes the point that, while it is generally assumed that the Canadian courts followed the practice of those in the United Kingdom, this is too simple an approach. From the early years of the nineteenth century, the Vice-Admiralty Court in Halifax was making a contribution to the law of prize and maritime war law that might be compared with that of Lord Stowell in England. Moreover, even then, it was applying principles that have only recently been generally accepted — that armed conflict is as much a question of fact as of law, and that naval officers, at least, must be taken to know the law. It is hardly believable that as long ago as 1814, Dr. Croke was upholding the immunity from capture of "the arts and sciences... as the property of mankind at large, and as belonging to the common interests of the whole species. " In addition to these early decisions in maritime war law, the Canadian courts have stood almost alone in the English-speaking world in explaining the criminal liability of escaping prisoners of war, in terms which to some extent formed the basis of what appeared in the Geneva Convention of 1949. At the same time, a Canadian war crimes tribunal made an important contribution to the exposition of the nature of a commander's liability for the offences of his subordinates, while others added to the jurisprudence concerned with the nature of the defence of superior orders. In so far as an actual innovative contribution is concerned, it must not be forgotten that the enunciation by Daniel Webster in 1842 of the concept of self-defence as understood in international law resulted from the actions of loyalists during the 1837 Rebellion. More recently, Canada played a concrete role in the drafting of the 1977 Protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions for the development of humanitarian law in armed conflict. In fact, Protocol II relating to non-international conflict is almost entirely based on a Canadian draft expressing Canada*s concern to see principles of humanitarian law observed as widely as possible, regardless of the nature of the conflict. As a result of tracing Canada 's role one is led to the conclusion that itconstitutes a record of achievement that merits wider appreciation.


1969 ◽  
Vol 9 (101) ◽  
pp. 399-410
Author(s):  
C. Pilloud

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.


1919 ◽  
Vol 13 (3) ◽  
pp. 406-449
Author(s):  
Raymond Stone

When, in 1914, the Great War broke upon an astonished world, we rather took comfort to ourselves in the thought that no matter how swiftly and vigorously military operations might be prosecuted, the Conventions of Geneva and of The Hague would insure humane care and chivalrous treatment to the prisoners of war of both sides. Perhaps unconsciously we based our feeling of assurance in this regard upon two assumptions. The first of these was that the terms of those conventions were of themselves legally binding upon the parties to the great conflict; and the second that in this day and generation of high development in the elements of morality and humanity the belligerents would feel themselves morally if not technically constrained to abide by the principles, and to follow, in practice, the honorable provisions of the conventions.There are two particular conventions falling under consideration in this connection. These are, the Convention Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, generally referred to as Hague IV of 1907; and the Convention for the Adaptation to Maritime War of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 1906, commonly known as Hague X of 1907. Each of these agreements contains a provisional article, practically identical in the two instances, worded substantially as follows:The provisions contained … in the present convention do not apply except between contracting parties, and only if all the belligerents are parties to the convention.


1973 ◽  
Vol 67 (4) ◽  
pp. 693-710
Author(s):  
Howard S. Levie

In the July 1973 issue of the Journal, there appeared an article with the above title written by Professor Richard Falk, in which he, in effect, advanced the thesis that the release of prisoners of war for repatriation during the course of hostilities in Vietnam to an ad hoc and self-styled “humanitarian organization” (which admittedly consisted solely of individuals who were vocal opponents of the United States participation in those hostilities) either constituted a valid and forward-looking interpretation of the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (hereinafter referred to as “the 1949 Convention”) or indicated the need for revision of that instrument. The subject appears to be one which calls for an analysis in considerably greater depth than the treatment provided in the article by Professor Falk.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document