Prospects for United States Ratification of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions

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.”

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.


Author(s):  
Eric David

The law of armed conflict previously applied only to international armed conflicts. Today, internal armed conflicts are regulated by Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, along with an increasing number of provisions. The second Additional Protocol of 1977 (AP II) to the 1949 GC contains 18 substantive provisions devoted entirely to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). This chapter discusses the variety and complexity of international humanitarian law rules applicable to NIACs and the criteria used for identifying the existence of a NIAC. It considers how the nature of hostilities and the quality of the actors are used as defining criteria to distinguish an armed conflict from banditry, terrorism, and short rebellions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 99 (905) ◽  
pp. 785-796 ◽  
Author(s):  
François Bugnion

AbstractOn 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 1949 Geneva Conventions. This was the result of nearly ten years of intensive and delicate negotiations. Additional Protocol I protects the victims of international armed conflicts, while Additional Protocol II protects the victims of non-international armed conflicts. These Protocols, which do not replace but supplement the 1949 Geneva Conventions, updated both the law protecting war victims and the law on the conduct of hostilities. This article commemorates the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the 1977 Additional Protocols.


2018 ◽  
Vol 24 (2) ◽  
pp. 184-188
Author(s):  
Sabin Guțan

Abstract The issue of the existence of the internal armed conflict concerns both legal factors and political factors (recognition of the existence of the internal armed conflict). From a legal point of view, to declare a violent social phenomenon as internal armed conflict, we must resort to the specific rules of international humanitarian law: Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Article 1 of the First Additional Protocol to these conventions of 1977. However, these regulations, while describing the general parameters of the existence of an internal armed conflict, do not establish clear legal criteria for delimiting the internal armed conflict of internal tensions and disturbances or other forms of non-armed conflicts. This regulatory shortcoming has led to the emergence in the jurisprudence of some states, but also in the international one, of criteria for the existence of the internal armed conflict


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.


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.


1997 ◽  
Vol 37 (320) ◽  
pp. 524-527
Author(s):  
Konstantin Obradovic

It is not without reservations that I am responding to the invitation from the Review for ‘veterans’ of the Diplomatic Conference on the reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts (hereafter the Diplomatic Conference) to commemorate the signing 20 years ago of the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions. On 8 June 1977, all of us who contributed in one way or another to the drafting of those texts felt a sense of relief at having finally achieved our task. We also felt a kind of exhilaration at the thought that we had successfully completed an important undertaking that would benefit war victims. The two Protocols represented a major leap forward in the law of armed conflict. It should not be forgotten that practically two-thirds of the international community have now ratified these instruments. Yet compliance with them regrettably remains far from satisfactory. I need hardly recite the tragic litany of conflicts over the past 20 years that bear out this deficiency. The case best known to me is that of the “Yugoslav wars” (1991–1995). They constitute the clearest example of the yawning gap between the law itself and the degree to which it is implemented. What is even more worrying is that all of this is taking place in a world where the demise of “totalitarianism” has left the world with what is, for all practical purposes, a single centre of power. This centre comprises those States which, since the International Peace Conference held in 1899 in The Hague, have been inspired by their democratic traditions and their attachment to human rights and the rule of law to play a leading role in developing, affirming and reaffirming what today constitutes international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts. I therefore believe that this divergence between the letter of the law and the conduct of those responsible for implementing it results from a lack of determination on the part of governments to “ensure respect” for that law throughout the world. I am in no doubt whatsoever that they have sufficiently efficacious means at their disposal to do so. What is missing, unfortunately, is the political will.


1977 ◽  
Vol 17 (195) ◽  
pp. 299-302 ◽  
Author(s):  
Yves Sandoz

The fourth and last session of the Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable in Armed Conflicts has just opened. The Conference is considering two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The first widens the scope of humanitarian law applicable in international armed conflicts, in particular by giving additional protection to civilians even when they are not in the enemy's power, and by extending to civilian medical personnel the protection which until now had been granted only to military medical personnel. The second Protocol develops the law applicable in non-international armed conflicts, which until now was restricted to a few principles contained in common article 3 of the four Conventions of 1949.


2019 ◽  
Vol 1 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-105
Author(s):  
Dr. Faiz Bakhsh ◽  

The applicability of International Humanitarian Law (IHL) in non-international conflicts is a complex phenomenon due to the undefined and unannounced nature of non-international armed conflicts. International Humanitarian Law extends its applicability to the armed conflicts of non-international nature between state and non-state armed groups or between non-state armed groups. Common article.3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and 1977 Additional Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, provide criteria for the applicability of IHL However, the states are often seen reluctant to accept international legal oversight into their internal matters and this phenomenon of violence often need to be identified and defined. This paper investigates the scope of the application of International Humanitarian Law in situations of non-international armed conflicts, mainly focussing on the extended applicability of common article.3 to the Geneva Conventions 1949, in situation of non-international armed conflicts. Various types and nature of armed conflicts, the applicability of International Humanitarian Law to non-international conflicts are discussed with special reference to the scope and applicability of Common Article.3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. Moreover, the binding force and territorial scope of common article.3 are discussed in a broader context as to assess the applicability of International Humanitarian Law on the changing nature of the non-international armed conflicts.


1988 ◽  
Vol 28 (267) ◽  
pp. 558-559

The ICRC learned with deep sadness of the death on 24 September 1988 of General Pietro Verri, President of the Florence Branch of the Italian Red Cross, and the death on 16 October 1988 of Mr. Soehanda Ijas, Co-Chairman of the Indonesian Red Cross.General Verri, former Vice-Commander of the Arma dei Carabinieri, was an active supporter of the Red Cross and a tireless champion of international humanitarian law (IHL), a subject in which he was well versed. He was a member of the Italian delegation to the Diplomatic Conference which led, in 1977, to the adoption of the Protocols additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and as a profilic author and translator did much to promote the dissemination of IHL in his country. He drew his ability to do so from a flawless knowledge of the theoretical questions underlying the law of armed conflicts, coupled with a vast experience of the practical problems arising from the implementation of these rules. For several years he also acted as director of the courses set up by the Italian Red Cross to train instructors of humanitarian law and regularly taught the law of armed conflicts to members of the Air Force and Police Officer Academies.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document