No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 11 August 2015
This Opinion Note highlights the international humanitarian law (IHL) provisions mandating dissemination of the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols to the civilian population. In referencing three dilemmas concerning contemporary challenges to international law in armed conflict and how each of those dilemmas may result in a “breaking point” or a “turning point”, the author argues that it is vitally important not only for armed forces but also for the general public to learn – and actively engage with – IHL both during war and in (relative) peacetime.
1 Kate Brannen, “Countries in Crisis at Record High”, The Cable: Foreign Policy Blog, 15 August 2014, available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2014/08/15/countries-in-crisis-at-record-high/; Sayre Nyce and Patrick Duplat, “‘L3’ 101: The Basics of Level 3 Emergencies”, International Rescue Committee Blog, 22 September 2014, available at: www.rescue.org/blog/l3-101-basics-level-3-emergencies (all internet references were accessed in April 2015).
2 Sebastián Albuja et al., Global Overview 2014: People Internally Displaced by Conflict and Violence, report, Norwegian Refugee Council, Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre, Geneva, May 2014, p. 9.
3 Report of the Secretary-General on the Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict, UN Doc. S/2013/689, 22 November 2013, para. 8.
4 See, e.g., Annie Kelly, “Humanitarian Workers Unprepared for Decades of Conflict, Warns UNHCR”, The Guardian, 30 April 2013, available at: www.theguardian.com/global-development/2013/apr/30/humanitarian-workers-unprepared-decades-conflict.
5 de Preux, Jean, “Progress in Dissemination of Knowledge of the Geneva Conventions”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 7, No. 71, February 1967, p. 70Google Scholar.
6 Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 31 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC I), Art. 1; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 85 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC II), Art. 1; Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 135 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC III), Art. 1; Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August 1949, 75 UNTS 287 (entered into force 21 October 1950) (GC IV), Art. 1 (common Article 1).
7 GC I, Art. 47; GC II, Art. 48; GC III, Art. 127(1); GC IV, Art. 144(1).
8 Jean Pictet (ed.), Commentary on Geneva Convention IV relative to the Protection of Civilians in Times of War, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, p. 581 (emphasis added).
9 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 3 (entered into force 7 December 1978) (AP I), Art. 83(1). Pursuant to Article 19 of AP II, the “Protocol shall be disseminated as widely as possible” (emphasis added). Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977, 1125 UNTS 609 (entered into force 7 December 1987) (AP II), Art. 19.
10 ICRC, Report on the Work of the Conference, Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Second Session), Vol. 1, Geneva, July 1972, p. 201, para. 527.
11 See, e.g., AP I, Art. 43(2). For more on the debate on whether the “combatant's privilege” should be extended to members of organized armed groups in non-international armed conflicts as a matter de lege ferenda, see Kreβ, Claus and Mégret, Frédéric, “Debate: The Regulation of Non-International Armed Conflicts: Can a Privilege of Belligerency be Envisioned in the Law of Non-International Armed Conflicts?”, International Review of the Red Cross, Vol. 96, No. 893, 2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar.
12 See, e.g., AP I, Art. 50(1).
13 Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field, Geneva (signed 22 August 1864), Art. 5(1). Article 10 of the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field (signed 6 July 1906) extended protections for duly recognized and authorized personnel of voluntary aid organizations, so long as they were assimilated into the military medical service and were subject to military laws and regulations.
14 ICRC, International Humanitarian Law and Challenges of Contemporary Armed Conflict, Doc. No. 31IC/11/5.1.2, Geneva, October 2011, pp. 48–53.
15 18 USC 2339B (prohibiting the provision of material support or resources—except medicine (but not the practice of medicine) and religious materials – to designated foreign terrorist organizations); US v. Shah, 474 F.Supp.2d 492, 2007, pp. 498–499, holding that para. 2339B is not unconstitutionally vague as applied to the conduct alleged against Dr Sabir in the indictment (namely, that Dr Sabir conspired to provide, attempted to provide, and provided “medical support to wounded jihadists” including in the form of personnel (himself) and expert advice and assistance) and reasoning in part that “Sabir is not charged merely for being a doctor or for performing medical services. Here, Sabir is alleged essentially to have volunteered as a medic for the al Qaeda military, offering to make himself available specifically to attend to the wounds of injured fighters. Much as a military force needs weapons, ammunition, trucks, food, and shelter, it needs medical personnel to tend to its wounded.”
16 Report of the Independent International Commission of Inquiry on the Syrian Arab Republic, UN Doc. A/HRC/28/69, 5 February 2015, Annex II, pp. 59–60, paras 261–264.
17 Jessica Burniske, Naz Modirzadeh and Dustin Lewis, Counter-Terrorism Laws and Regulations: What Aid Agencies Need to Know, Humanitarian Practice Network Paper No. 79, Overseas Development Institute, London, November 2014.
18 Rosa Brooks, “There's No Such Thing as Peacetime”, Foreign Policy Online, 13 February 2015, available at: http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/03/13/theres-no-such-thing-as-peacetime-forever-war-terror-civil-liberties/.
19 Letter dated 23 September 2014 from the Permanent Representative of the United States of America to the United Nations, addressed to the Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/2014/695, 23 September 2014, stating, among other purported legal bases, that “ISIL and other terrorist groups in Syria are a threat not only to Iraq, but also to many other countries, including the United States … States must be able to defend themselves, in accordance with the inherent right of individual and collective self-defence, as reflected in Article 51 of the [UN] Charter … when, as is the case here, the government of the State where the threat is located is unwilling or unable to prevent the use of its territory for such attacks.”
20 But see “Russia: Airstrikes Must Be Agreed with Syria or Will Fuel Tension”, Reuters, 23 September 2014, available at: www.reuters.com/article/2014/09/23/us-syria-crisis-airstrikes-russia-idUSKCN0HI0OU20140923.
21 See generally the sources cited in Arimatsu, Louise and Schmitt, Michael N., “Attacking ‘Islamic State’ and the Khorasan Group: Surveying the International Law Landscape”, Columbia Journal of Transnational Law Bulletin, Vol. 53, No. 1, 2014, pp. 8–29Google Scholar.
22 ICRC, Report on the Work of the Conference, Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Second Session), Vol. 2, CE/SPF/1 (Proposal by Iraq Experts), Geneva, July 1972, p. 191.
23 GC I, Art. 47; GC II, Art. 48; GC III, Art. 127(1); GC IV, Art. 144(1); AP I, Art. 83(1). Art. 19 of AP II does not make a distinction between dissemination during armed conflict and during peacetime.
24 J. de Preux, above note 5, p. 70.