Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-g8jcs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T13:32:26.253Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reaffirmation and Development of international humanitarian law applicable in Armed Conflicts: the Conference of Government Experts, 24 May-12 June, 1971.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

F. Kalshoven
Get access

Extract

When, on 12 August 1949, the Diplomatic Conference of Geneva finished its work, an important part of the law of armed conflict had been “codified and progressively developed” in the light of past experience both of the Second World War and other recent armed conflicts. However, this was a far cry from saying that one could lean back in satisfaction over a job well done; indeed, equally –or perhaps even more– important problems of the law of armed conflict had remained outside the scope of the Conference and, hence, had not found a solution in the four Conventions it had adopted. The Conference had, in fact, been restricted to an examination of the problems concerning protection of war victims rather than those concerning warfare proper; and, although the IVth or Civilians Convention in particular incidentally deals with the power of belligerents to attack enemy territory, the problem of the protection of the civil population against the dangers of modern warfare had remained essentially open.

Type
Section A: Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 2 , December 1971 , pp. 68 - 90
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1971

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1. I.L.C. Yearbook, 1949, p. 281: Report to the General Assembly, para. 18.

2. Resolution 95(1) of 11 December 1946 affirmed the principles. In Resolution 177(II), of 21 December 1947, the General Assembly requested the International Law Commission to formulate these principles in the framework of a draft code of offences against the peace and security of mankind. Thereupon, the attention of the General Assembly became focused on the question of such a draft code, a question which soon became entangled with the problem of defining aggression.

3. Records of the Conference Convened by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization Held at The Hague from 21 April to 14 May 1954, published by the Netherlands Government in 1961.

4. Reprinted as Annex XIV in Reaffirmation and Development of the Laws and Customs Applicable in Armed Conflicts, published by the ICRC in May 1969 and submitted to the XXIst International Conference of the Red Cross held at Istanbul in September 1969.

5. Resolution XXVIII.

6. Resolution XXIII.

7. Resolution 2444 (XXIII) of 19 December 1968.

8. A/7720, A/8052.

9. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: The Law of Armed Conflict, report of the Conference on Contemporary Problems on the Law of Armed Conflicts, Geneva, 15–20 September 1969.

10. De positie van de niet-bezette burgerbevolking in een gewapend conflict, in het bijzonder met het oog op massaal werkende strijdmiddelen (NBC-wapens) (The position, in case of armed conflict, of the civil population in unoccupied territory, with special reference to the means of mass destruction or NBC weapons), Mededelingen(Publications) of the Society, February 1970.

11. Statutes of the Institute, reproduced at p. 365 of Human Rights as the Basis of Humanitarian Law, Proceedings of the International Conference on Humanitarian Law, Sanremo, 24–27 September 1970.

12. Report on the work of the Conference of Red Cross Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, published by the ICRC, Geneva, April 1971.

13. The composition of the delegations varied; while some Governments had merely delegated some members of the staff of their permanent missions at Geneva, many other Governments had sent important delegations comprising legal, military, medical, and diplomatic experts. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was represented by Mr. Marc Schreiber, Director of the Human Rights Division of the Secretariat, accompanied by two collaborators.

14. Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (Geneva, 24 May - 12 June 1971): Report on the work of the Conference, published by the ICRC in August 1971 (hereinafter cited as Report), paras. 4, 5. All reference to this report and other-documents of the ICRC are to the English versions. See too, on the Conference of Government Experts, the third report of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on “Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts”, A/8370, 2 September 1971.

15. Report, para. 7.

16. Para. 1.

17. Paras. 89–92.

18. Document CE/7, Part One, Chapters I and II.

19. Report, paras. 36–37.

20. Paras. 35, 71.

21. Document CE/7, Part One, Chapter I.

22. Report, para. 49.

23. Article 7 of the ICRC draft.

24. Report, para. 56.

25. Article 11 of the ICRC draft.

26. Report, para. 66: the World Health Organization and World Medical Association were especially mentioned by the Commission.

27. Document CE/7, Part One, Chapter II; Report, para. 72.

28. Report, para. 82; similarly, the Commission decided that all references to the parties to the conflict would be with a small “p”; para. 78.

29. Paras. 85–86.

30. Document CE/5, Title III.

31. CE/Com.II/1–2-3, Report, p. 61.

32. Report, paras. 112, 134.

33. Document CE/5, Title III, Chapters 1 and 2.

34. Report, paras. 197–211.

35. Document CE/5, pp. 46–48.

36. Report, para. 166.

37. CE/Com.II/13/Rev. 1, Report, pp. 63–64.

38. Report, para. 177.

39. Para. 190.

40. Paras. 225, 267.

41. Para. 255.

42. Para. 254.

43. Para. 258.

44. Paras. 260–264.

45. Paras. 114–122.

46. Paras. 282–289.

47. Paras. 290–308.

48. See the reports of the Secretary-General, A/8052, paras. 195–203, and A/8370, para. 135.

49. Report, paras. 321–331.

50. Paras. 332–338.

51. Document CE/6, Chapter V. See also Michel, Veuthey, “Règles et principes de droit international humanitaire applicable dans la guérilla”, 7 Revue belge de droit international (1971-1972) p. 505 ff.Google Scholar

52. Report, para. 371.

53. Document CE/6, Chapter II, section 2.

54. Report, para. 372.

55. Para. 378.

56. Para. 381.

57. Document CE/3, Part One, Title II. See also Jean, Mirimanoff-Chilikine, “Protection de la population et des personnes civiles contre les dangers résultant des opérations militaires”, 7 Revue belge de droit international (1971-1972) p. 619 ffGoogle Scholar (being the first part of a study the second part of which will appear in the 1972–1 issue of the Revue).

58. Document CE/3, Part One, Title I, Chapter 3.

59. Report, para. 417.

60. Para. 425.

61. Paras. 426, 432–439.

62. Document CE/3, Part One, Title II, Chapter 3, section 3.

63. Report, paras. 452–453.

64. Para. 443.

65. Para. 489.

66. Paras. 468–471. The idea of zones of refuge was given a prominent place by the Secretary-General of the United Nations in his second report on “Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts”, A/8052, paras. 73–87.

67. Report, paras. 472–483.

68. Resolution 2673 (XXV) of 9 December 1970.

69. Resolution 15(XXVII) of 24 March 1971.

70. E/CN.4/L.1149/Rev. 1, 22 March 1971. As for the organizational and procedural aspects of this question, see the report of the Working Group established in accordance with para. 4 of Commission of Human Rights Resolution 15(XXVII), A/8438, 29 September 1971.

71. Report, para. 508.

72. Para. 509.

73. Para. 510.

74. Paras. 516–518.

75. CE/Com.III/C.1, Report, p. 105; see also para. 521.

76. Report, para. 520, and CE/Com.III/C.3 (proposal submitted by the Israel experts), Report, p. 105.

77. Commission IV elected the present author as its Rapporteur.

78. Report, para. 530.

79. Paras. 533–539. Among the documents before the Commission was the text of a Projet de règlement d'exécution des Conventions de Genéve du 12 août 1949 pour la protection des vietimes de la guerre, adopted 17 April 1971 by the Commission médico-juridique de Monaco in its 6th session.

80. Report, paras. 540–549.

81. Paras. 552–554.

82. Paras. 540,543.

83. Paras. 225,531.

84. Paras. 239–242 (this point emerged especially in the discussion of Commission II).

85. Report, paras. 558–561.

86. Para. 562.

87. Para. 564. See too Document CE/2, Chapter III, section B: p. 39.

88. Report, para. 563.

89. Document CE/2, Chapter III, section E: p. 47.

90. Report, para. 562.

91. For a general view of this question see, by the present author, Belligerent Reprisals, Leyden, 1971.

92. Report, para. 574.

93. Para. 577.

94. Para. 578.

95. Para. 579. As for the Canadian suggestion, see too the report of the Hague Conference (supra n. 12), Chapter IV, section C: p. 29. The Sanremo International Institute of Humanitarian Law (supra n. 11) held a seminar from 2–4 September 1971 on “Humanitarian Regulations and Instructions to Armed Forces”; the resolution adopted by the seminar is reprinted in A/8370/ Add. 1 of 5 October 1971.

96. These feelings found expression in a “document” (as no resolutions were permitted under the Rules of Procedure); Report, para. 603, and CE/Plen/3, Report, p. 121.