- Simultaneous violations of Geneva convention, Nuremberg Code
- Aside from the faulty tests and forged death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in breach of Geneva Convention Article 32. “Mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
- Additionally, according to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected individuals constitutes a severe violation of the Convention.
There is ‘scientific evidence that COVID is a crime against humanity,’ says renowned lawyer
group's class suits over the pandemic - May 22, 2021.
( Delingpole Vimeo channel/Screenshot via TheBL)
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich, a trial lawyer, known for having successfully sued large companies such as Volkswagen and Deutsche Bank, brought together a group of experts from different fields to bring to justice to governments, health authorities, laboratories, doctors, and all those involved in the forced measures taken against the pandemic—lockdowns, social distancing, use of masks, vaccination—and which caused serious damage to millions of people around the world.
What is Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’s approach?
Dr. Fuellmich plans to assemble class action lawsuits mainly focused on destroying small and medium-sized businesses that suffered the most from the encirclement. According to the lawyer, this is part of a global agenda to destroy the middle class that large corporations like Amazon will replace.
In fact, during the pandemic, the profits of corporations like Amazon skyrocketed while many business owners suffered huge losses or went bankrupt.
As he explained in an interview with a Breitbart journalist based in London, pursuing the claims individually is impossible because the courts, unfortunately, respond to the interests of the corporations who ultimately dictate the game’s rules.
On the other hand, by raising the material damages that hundreds of thousands of people suffered from the lock-ins, for example, because of a defective product, the same principle would apply to everyone. Then, if one of these class actions succeeds in any court, it would trigger thousands of lawsuits around the world.
“Part of the agenda is the destruction of the middle class because all these small businesses will supposedly be taken over by big corporations like Amazon,” Fuellmich said. “While everyone is looking in the direction of the corona, no one sees what’s really happening or they see it, but they don’t understand why it’s happening.”
What is the basis for the lawsuit or what is the scientific evidence that motivated him
Fuellmich explains that every government in the world based its decisions to lock people up, force them to wear masks, and finally vaccinate them on PCR tests.
Now the problem is that the PCR tests invented by a German named Drosten were designed only days after the virus was discovered in Wuhan, China, and were not designed to diagnose a disease but to amplify material that would otherwise be invisible to the human eye.
As soon as Drosten announced that he had a rapid test to detect the virus on Jan. 23, 2020, the WHO recommended its use, and it was used as the gold standard for determining whether a person is infected or not.
For the lawyer, the fact that all anti-pandemic measures have been based on a ‘defective product’ such as PCR is really a deception.
According to Fuellmich, the PCR tests currently in use with amplification of between 40 and 45 cycles at the suggestion of Drosten, who apparently is not even a doctor, when the acceptable standard is 24, give a 97% false-positive rate.
That is, when the material is amplified so many times, the test is always positive because it detects any material as virus.
Vaccines will be used to control the population
The ultimate goal of the lockdowns and the measures taken against the pandemic is to vaccinate people with the promise of returning to normalcy, the lawyer explains. The vaccines are part of reducing the population. For Fuellmich, this is not a conspiracy theory because all the information is on the Internet. It is just that the media does not publish it, and Big Tech censors it.
Bill Gates owns a global firm called GAVI or Gavi, the Vaccine Alliance which of course is in charge of researching and developing vaccines.
Fuellmich gave the example of India and Africa. Gavi sent ‘vaccines’ to these countries, but in the end, they realized that they were not vaccines but sterilizers, i.e., it was a campaign to render people sterile. India sued Gavi, and they were kicked out of the country.
In other words, population control is still a ‘conspiracy theory’ because there is no media or government actively exposing this issue, but the information and evidence is available.
What about the famous ‘immunity’ that governments grant to labs?
According to the lawyer, immunity does not exist when vaccine manufacturers knowingly harm people, i.e. knowing that these experimental vaccines, which Fuellmich calls ‘gene therapy’ are not safe, have been administered to people.
During the Nuremberg trials against Nazi war criminals, not only the military was prosecuted, but also the doctors, who did many experiments on Jews.
One of the concepts that emerged as a result of the Nuremberg trials was consent.
“Informed consent means that a medical intervention is only legal if the patient consents, and the patient’s consent is only valid if he or she is fully informed before the medical intervention takes place,” Fuellmich explains.
In this case, vaccines not having gone through clinical trials, not knowing the adverse effects are highly dangerous. Governments, doctors, and everyone involved in pushing vaccination violates the Nuremberg code.
Fuellmich envisions a process similar to what happened at Nuremberg, an international jury that will try this entire corrupt system for the crimes against humanity committed during this pandemic.
“To clean this up we will need an international trial against all the perpetrators,” the lawyer said.
The plan went wrong
For the lawyer, this pandemic and the subjugation of people was going to take place in 2030. But the elite got greedy and moved the date up. That’s why they are having these problems like the adverse effects of the vaccines because the plan was not ready in its entirety.
Regarding adverse effects, Fuellmich explains that what is reported in VAERs (vaccine adverse effects reporting) is only 1% of what actually happens, so the actual reported deaths are exponentially higher.
Early litigation
There were already three cases where governments were sued and judges ruled in their favor: one was in Vienna, one in Lisbon and one in Germany.
The judge in Germany, who after listening to experts on his side, wrote a very straight opinion, had his house, his car, his computer ransacked, so the lawyer sees that it is going to be a very tough fight.
To win these class action lawsuits, considering that the court systems are full of corrupt judges who rule in favor of big corporations or global interests, some of the major players have to fall.
Fuellmich is optimistic that will happen because he is now seeing how several legislators are pushing for the firing of Fauci, an admittedly corrupt government official.
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich sees the pandemic as the Final Judgement Day
At the end of the interview and when the reporter’s questions were more along the lines of whether the lawyer feared for his life by exposing himself so much, Fuellmich said he was not afraid, that he was protected, although he clarified that he was not a religious person.
“I never thought I would say something like this because I am a lawyer, but this is really a fight of good against evil,” Fuellmich assured. But “I have no choice; I have a task to fulfill. And it is meant to happen this way.”
https://thebl.com/opinion/there-is-scientific-evidence-that-covid-is-a-crime-against-humanity-says-renowned-lawyer.html
___
Practice Relating to Rule 92. Mutilation and Medical, Scientific or Biological Experiments
Geneva Convention IV
Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule92
__
Under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, “mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited. According to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected persons is a grave breach of the Convention.
https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule92
__
The new Nuremberg trials in 2021: Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’s update
Oliver Cook | TheBL 18 hours ago
Dr. Reiner Fuellmich talks about the Nuremberg trial(@TruthPursuit/Screenshot
via TheBL/bitchute)
The CDC, the WHO, and the Davos Group are charged with crimes against humanity by a group of over 1,000 lawyers and 10,000 medical specialists led by Dr. Reiner Fuellmich.
Simultaneous violations of Geneva convention, Nuremberg Code
Aside from the faulty tests and forged death certificates, the “experimental” vaccine itself is in breach of Geneva Convention Article 32. “Mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment of a protected person” are prohibited under Article 32 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.Additionally, according to Article 147, conducting biological experiments on protected individuals constitutes a severe violation of the Convention.
https://thebl.com/world-news/the-new-nuremberg-trials-in-2021-dr-reiner-fuellmichs-update.html
__
The new #Nuremberg trials in 2021: Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’s update | 16h ago
- The #CDC, the #WHO, and the #DavosGroup are charged with #CrimesAgainstHumanity by a group of over 1,000 lawyers and 10,000 medical specialists,
- violations of Geneva Convention https://t.co/4L80Avp0kM
— Graviola Finland (@GraviolaDOTfi) July 11, 2021
__
https://thebl.com/world-news/the-new-nuremberg-trials-in-2021-dr-reiner-fuellmichs-update.html
____The new #Nuremberg trials in 2021: Dr. Reiner Fuellmich’s update | 16h ago
— Graviola Finland (@GraviolaDOTfi) July 11, 2021
- The #CDC, the #WHO, and the #DavosGroup are charged with #CrimesAgainstHumanity by a group of over 1,000 lawyers and 10,000 medical specialists,
- violations of Geneva Convention https://t.co/4L80Avp0kM
Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions are four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties, and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel), established protections for the wounded and sick, and provided protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone; moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in their entirety or with reservations, by 196 countries.[1] The Geneva Conventions concern only combatants in war; they do not address the use of weapons of war, which are the subject of the Hague Conventions,[a] and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol.[b]
The Geneva Conventions are four treaties, and three additional protocols, that establish international legal standards for humanitarian treatment in war. The singular term Geneva Convention usually denotes the agreements of 1949, negotiated in the aftermath of the Second World War (1939–1945), which updated the terms of the two 1929 treaties, and added two new conventions. The Geneva Conventions extensively define the basic rights of wartime prisoners (civilians and military personnel), established protections for the wounded and sick, and provided protections for the civilians in and around a war-zone; moreover, the Geneva Convention also defines the rights and protections afforded to non-combatants. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in their entirety or with reservations, by 196 countries.[1] The Geneva Conventions concern only combatants in war; they do not address the use of weapons of war, which are the subject of the Hague Conventions,[a] and the bio-chemical warfare Geneva Protocol.[b]
Contents
History[edit]
The Swiss businessman Henry Dunant went to visit wounded soldiers after the Battle of Solferino in 1859. He was shocked by the lack of facilities, personnel, and medical aid available to help these soldiers. As a result, he published his book, A Memory of Solferino, in 1862, on the horrors of war.[2] His wartime experiences inspired Dunant to propose:
- A permanent relief agency for humanitarian aid in times of war
- A government treaty recognizing the neutrality of the agency and allowing it to provide aid in a war zone
The former proposal led to the establishment of the Red Cross in Geneva. The latter led to the 1864 Geneva Convention, the first codified international treaty that covered the sick and wounded soldiers on the battlefield. On 22 August 1864, the Swiss government invited the governments of all European countries, as well as the United States, Brazil, and Mexico, to attend an official diplomatic conference. Sixteen countries sent a total of twenty-six delegates to Geneva. On 22 August 1864, the conference adopted the first Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field". Representatives of 12 states and kingdoms signed the convention:[3][4]
For both of these accomplishments, Henry Dunant became corecipient of the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.[5][6]
On 20 October 1868 the first, unsuccessful, attempt to expand the 1864 treaty was undertaken. With the 'Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War' an attempt was initiated to clarify some rules of the 1864 convention and to extend them to maritime warfare. The Articles were signed but were only ratified by the Netherlands and the United States of America.[7] The Netherlands later withdrew their ratification.[8] The protection of the victims of maritime warfare would later be realized by the third Hague Convention of 1899 and the tenth Hague Convention of 1907.[9]
In 1906 thirty-five states attended a conference convened by the Swiss government. On 6 July 1906 it resulted in the adoption of the "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field", which improved and supplemented, for the first time, the 1864 convention.[10] It remained in force until 1970 when Costa Rica acceded to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.[11]
The 1929 conference yielded two conventions that were signed on 27 July 1929. One, the "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field", was the third version to replace the original convention of 1864.[9][12] The other was adopted after experiences in World War I had shown the deficiencies in the protection of prisoners of war under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The "Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" was not to replace these earlier conventions signed at The Hague, rather it supplemented them.[13][14]
Inspired by the wave of humanitarian and pacifistic enthusiasm following World War II and the outrage towards the war crimes disclosed by the Nuremberg Trials, a series of conferences were held in 1949 reaffirming, expanding and updating the prior Geneva and Hague Conventions. It yielded four distinct conventions:
- The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" was the fourth update of the original 1864 convention and replaced the 1929 convention on the same subject matter.[15]
- The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" replaced the Hague Convention (X) of 1907.[16] It was the first Geneva Convention on the protection of the victims of maritime warfare and mimicked the structure and provisions of the First Geneva Convention.[9]
- The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" replaced the 1929 Geneva Convention that dealt with prisoners of war.[17]
- In addition to these three conventions, the conference also added a new elaborate Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". It was the first Geneva Convention not to deal with combatants, rather it had the protection of civilians as its subject matter. The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions had already contained some provisions on the protection of civilians and occupied territory. Article 154 specifically provides that the Fourth Geneva Convention is supplementary to these provisions in the Hague Conventions.[18]
Despite the length of these documents, they were found over time to be incomplete. In fact, the very nature of armed conflicts had changed with the beginning of the Cold War era, leading many to believe that the 1949 Geneva Conventions were addressing a largely extinct reality:[19] on the one hand, most armed conflicts had become internal, or civil wars, while on the other, most wars had become increasingly asymmetric. Moreover, modern armed conflicts were inflicting an increasingly higher toll on civilians, which brought the need to provide civilian persons and objects with tangible protections in time of combat, thus bringing a much needed update to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. In light of these developments, two Protocols were adopted in 1977 that extended the terms of the 1949 Conventions with additional protections. In 2005, a third brief Protocol was added establishing an additional protective sign for medical services, the Red Crystal, as an alternative to the ubiquitous Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, for those countries that find them objectionable.
The Swiss businessman Henry Dunant went to visit wounded soldiers after the Battle of Solferino in 1859. He was shocked by the lack of facilities, personnel, and medical aid available to help these soldiers. As a result, he published his book, A Memory of Solferino, in 1862, on the horrors of war.[2] His wartime experiences inspired Dunant to propose:
- A permanent relief agency for humanitarian aid in times of war
- A government treaty recognizing the neutrality of the agency and allowing it to provide aid in a war zone
The former proposal led to the establishment of the Red Cross in Geneva. The latter led to the 1864 Geneva Convention, the first codified international treaty that covered the sick and wounded soldiers on the battlefield. On 22 August 1864, the Swiss government invited the governments of all European countries, as well as the United States, Brazil, and Mexico, to attend an official diplomatic conference. Sixteen countries sent a total of twenty-six delegates to Geneva. On 22 August 1864, the conference adopted the first Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field". Representatives of 12 states and kingdoms signed the convention:[3][4]
For both of these accomplishments, Henry Dunant became corecipient of the first Nobel Peace Prize in 1901.[5][6]
On 20 October 1868 the first, unsuccessful, attempt to expand the 1864 treaty was undertaken. With the 'Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War' an attempt was initiated to clarify some rules of the 1864 convention and to extend them to maritime warfare. The Articles were signed but were only ratified by the Netherlands and the United States of America.[7] The Netherlands later withdrew their ratification.[8] The protection of the victims of maritime warfare would later be realized by the third Hague Convention of 1899 and the tenth Hague Convention of 1907.[9]
In 1906 thirty-five states attended a conference convened by the Swiss government. On 6 July 1906 it resulted in the adoption of the "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field", which improved and supplemented, for the first time, the 1864 convention.[10] It remained in force until 1970 when Costa Rica acceded to the 1949 Geneva Conventions.[11]
The 1929 conference yielded two conventions that were signed on 27 July 1929. One, the "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field", was the third version to replace the original convention of 1864.[9][12] The other was adopted after experiences in World War I had shown the deficiencies in the protection of prisoners of war under the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The "Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" was not to replace these earlier conventions signed at The Hague, rather it supplemented them.[13][14]
Inspired by the wave of humanitarian and pacifistic enthusiasm following World War II and the outrage towards the war crimes disclosed by the Nuremberg Trials, a series of conferences were held in 1949 reaffirming, expanding and updating the prior Geneva and Hague Conventions. It yielded four distinct conventions:
- The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" was the fourth update of the original 1864 convention and replaced the 1929 convention on the same subject matter.[15]
- The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" replaced the Hague Convention (X) of 1907.[16] It was the first Geneva Convention on the protection of the victims of maritime warfare and mimicked the structure and provisions of the First Geneva Convention.[9]
- The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" replaced the 1929 Geneva Convention that dealt with prisoners of war.[17]
- In addition to these three conventions, the conference also added a new elaborate Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War". It was the first Geneva Convention not to deal with combatants, rather it had the protection of civilians as its subject matter. The 1899 and 1907 Hague Conventions had already contained some provisions on the protection of civilians and occupied territory. Article 154 specifically provides that the Fourth Geneva Convention is supplementary to these provisions in the Hague Conventions.[18]
Despite the length of these documents, they were found over time to be incomplete. In fact, the very nature of armed conflicts had changed with the beginning of the Cold War era, leading many to believe that the 1949 Geneva Conventions were addressing a largely extinct reality:[19] on the one hand, most armed conflicts had become internal, or civil wars, while on the other, most wars had become increasingly asymmetric. Moreover, modern armed conflicts were inflicting an increasingly higher toll on civilians, which brought the need to provide civilian persons and objects with tangible protections in time of combat, thus bringing a much needed update to the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. In light of these developments, two Protocols were adopted in 1977 that extended the terms of the 1949 Conventions with additional protections. In 2005, a third brief Protocol was added establishing an additional protective sign for medical services, the Red Crystal, as an alternative to the ubiquitous Red Cross and Red Crescent emblems, for those countries that find them objectionable.
Commentaries[edit]
The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Commentary (The Commentaries) is a series of four volumes of books published between 1952 and 1958 and containing commentaries to each of the four Geneva Conventions. The series was edited by Jean Pictet who was the vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Commentaries are often relied upon to provide authoritative interpretation of the articles.[20]
The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Commentary (The Commentaries) is a series of four volumes of books published between 1952 and 1958 and containing commentaries to each of the four Geneva Conventions. The series was edited by Jean Pictet who was the vice-president of the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Commentaries are often relied upon to provide authoritative interpretation of the articles.[20]
Contents[edit]
The Geneva Conventions are rules that apply only in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities; these include the sick and wounded of armed forces on the field, wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. The first convention dealt with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces in the field.[21] The second convention dealt with the sick, wounded, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea.[22][23] The third convention dealt with the treatment of prisoners of war during times of conflict.[24] The fourth convention dealt with the treatment of civilians and their protection during wartime.[25]
The Geneva Conventions are rules that apply only in times of armed conflict and seek to protect people who are not or are no longer taking part in hostilities; these include the sick and wounded of armed forces on the field, wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea, prisoners of war, and civilians. The first convention dealt with the treatment of wounded and sick armed forces in the field.[21] The second convention dealt with the sick, wounded, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea.[22][23] The third convention dealt with the treatment of prisoners of war during times of conflict.[24] The fourth convention dealt with the treatment of civilians and their protection during wartime.[25]
Conventions[edit]
In international law, the term convention does not have its common meaning as an assembly of people. Rather, it is used in diplomacy to mean an international agreement, or treaty.
- The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864,[26] revised in 1906,[27] 1929[28] and finally 1949);[29]
- The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the Hague Convention (X) 1907);[30]
- The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929,[31] last revision in 1949);[32]
- The Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the Hague Convention (II) of 1899 and Hague Convention (IV) 1907).[33]
With two Geneva Conventions revised and adopted, and the second and fourth added, in 1949 the whole set is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva Conventions". Usually only the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are referred to as First, Second, Third or Fourth Geneva Convention. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries.[1]
In international law, the term convention does not have its common meaning as an assembly of people. Rather, it is used in diplomacy to mean an international agreement, or treaty.
- The First Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field" (first adopted in 1864,[26] revised in 1906,[27] 1929[28] and finally 1949);[29]
- The Second Geneva Convention "for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea" (first adopted in 1949, successor of the Hague Convention (X) 1907);[30]
- The Third Geneva Convention "relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (first adopted in 1929,[31] last revision in 1949);[32]
- The Fourth Geneva Convention "relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War" (first adopted in 1949, based on parts of the Hague Convention (II) of 1899 and Hague Convention (IV) 1907).[33]
With two Geneva Conventions revised and adopted, and the second and fourth added, in 1949 the whole set is referred to as the "Geneva Conventions of 1949" or simply the "Geneva Conventions". Usually only the Geneva Conventions of 1949 are referred to as First, Second, Third or Fourth Geneva Convention. The treaties of 1949 were ratified, in whole or with reservations, by 196 countries.[1]
Protocols[edit]
The 1949 conventions have been modified with three amendment protocols:
- Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts[34]
- Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts[35]
- Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.[36]
The 1949 conventions have been modified with three amendment protocols:
- Protocol I (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts[34]
- Protocol II (1977) relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts[35]
- Protocol III (2005) relating to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem.[36]
Application[edit]
The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms. The details of applicability are spelled out in Common Articles 2 and 3.
The Geneva Conventions apply at times of war and armed conflict to governments who have ratified its terms. The details of applicability are spelled out in Common Articles 2 and 3.
Common Article 2 relating to international armed conflicts[edit]
This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:
- The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
- The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[23]
- The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[23]
Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.
When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.
This article states that the Geneva Conventions apply to all cases of international conflict, where at least one of the warring nations have ratified the Conventions. Primarily:
- The Conventions apply to all cases of declared war between signatory nations. This is the original sense of applicability, which predates the 1949 version.
- The Conventions apply to all cases of armed conflict between two or more signatory nations. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a police action.[23]
- The Conventions apply to a signatory nation even if the opposing nation is not a signatory, but only if the opposing nation "accepts and applies the provisions" of the Conventions.[23]
Article 1 of Protocol I further clarifies that armed conflict against colonial domination and foreign occupation also qualifies as an international conflict.
When the criteria of international conflict have been met, the full protections of the Conventions are considered to apply.
Common Article 3 relating to non-international armed conflict[edit]
This article states that the certain minimum rules of war apply to armed conflicts "where at least one Party is not a State".[37] The interpretation of the term armed conflict and therefore the applicability of this article is a matter of debate.[23] For example, it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war, whether carried out within the confines of one country or not.[38] There are two criteria to distinguish non-international armed conflicts from lower forms of violence. The level of violence has to be of certain intensity, for example when the state cannot contain the situation with regular police forces. Also, involved non-state groups need to have a certain level of organization, like a military command structure.[39]
The other Geneva Conventions are not applicable in this situation but only the provisions contained within Article 3,[23] and additionally within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is to avoid conflict with the rights of Sovereign States that were not part of the treaties. When the provisions of this article apply, it states that:[40]
This article states that the certain minimum rules of war apply to armed conflicts "where at least one Party is not a State".[37] The interpretation of the term armed conflict and therefore the applicability of this article is a matter of debate.[23] For example, it would apply to conflicts between the Government and rebel forces, or between two rebel forces, or to other conflicts that have all the characteristics of war, whether carried out within the confines of one country or not.[38] There are two criteria to distinguish non-international armed conflicts from lower forms of violence. The level of violence has to be of certain intensity, for example when the state cannot contain the situation with regular police forces. Also, involved non-state groups need to have a certain level of organization, like a military command structure.[39]
The other Geneva Conventions are not applicable in this situation but only the provisions contained within Article 3,[23] and additionally within the language of Protocol II. The rationale for the limitation is to avoid conflict with the rights of Sovereign States that were not part of the treaties. When the provisions of this article apply, it states that:[40]
Enforcement[edit]
Protecting powers[edit]
The term protecting power has a specific meaning under these Conventions. A protecting power is a state that is not taking part in the armed conflict, but that has agreed to look after the interests of a state that is a party to the conflict. The protecting power is a mediator enabling the flow of communication between the parties to the conflict. The protecting power also monitors implementation of these Conventions, such as by visiting the zone of conflict and prisoners of war. The protecting power must act as an advocate for prisoners, the wounded, and civilians.
The term protecting power has a specific meaning under these Conventions. A protecting power is a state that is not taking part in the armed conflict, but that has agreed to look after the interests of a state that is a party to the conflict. The protecting power is a mediator enabling the flow of communication between the parties to the conflict. The protecting power also monitors implementation of these Conventions, such as by visiting the zone of conflict and prisoners of war. The protecting power must act as an advocate for prisoners, the wounded, and civilians.
Grave breaches[edit]
Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
- willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
- willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
- compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power
- willfully depriving a protected person of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.
Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
- taking of hostages
- extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
- unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[41]
Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes. Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or persons having ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.[42]
The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches when the United Nations Security Council asserts its authority and jurisdiction from the UN Charter to apply universal jurisdiction. The UNSC did this when they established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate and/or prosecute alleged violations.
Not all violations of the treaty are treated equally. The most serious crimes are termed grave breaches and provide a legal definition of a war crime. Grave breaches of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions include the following acts if committed against a person protected by the convention:
- willful killing, torture or inhumane treatment, including biological experiments
- willfully causing great suffering or serious injury to body or health
- compelling a protected person to serve in the armed forces of a hostile power
- willfully depriving a protected person of the right to a fair trial if accused of a war crime.
Also considered grave breaches of the Fourth Geneva Convention are the following:
- taking of hostages
- extensive destruction and appropriation of property not justified by military necessity and carried out unlawfully and wantonly
- unlawful deportation, transfer, or confinement.[41]
Nations who are party to these treaties must enact and enforce legislation penalizing any of these crimes. Nations are also obligated to search for persons alleged to commit these crimes, or persons having ordered them to be committed, and to bring them to trial regardless of their nationality and regardless of the place where the crimes took place.[42]
The principle of universal jurisdiction also applies to the enforcement of grave breaches when the United Nations Security Council asserts its authority and jurisdiction from the UN Charter to apply universal jurisdiction. The UNSC did this when they established the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda and the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to investigate and/or prosecute alleged violations.
Right to a fair trial when no crime is alleged[edit]
Soldiers, as prisoners of war, will not receive a trial unless the allegation of a war crime has been made. According to article 43 of the 1949 Conventions, soldiers are employed for the purpose of serving in war; engaging in armed conflict is legitimate, and does not constitute a grave breach.[43] Should a soldier be arrested by belligerent forces, they are to be considered "lawful combatants" and afforded the protectorate status of a prisoner of war (POW) until the cessation of the conflict.[44] Human rights law applies to any incarcerated individual, including the right to a fair trial. Charges may only be brought against an enemy POW after a fair trial, but the initial crime being accused must be an explicit violation of the accords, more severe than simply fighting against the captor in battle.[45] No trial will otherwise be afforded to a captured soldier, as deemed by human rights law. This element of the convention has been confused during past incidents of detainment of US soldiers by North Vietnam, where the regime attempted to try all imprisoned soldiers in court for committing grave breaches, on the incorrect assumption that their sole existence as enemies of the state violated international law.[45]
Soldiers, as prisoners of war, will not receive a trial unless the allegation of a war crime has been made. According to article 43 of the 1949 Conventions, soldiers are employed for the purpose of serving in war; engaging in armed conflict is legitimate, and does not constitute a grave breach.[43] Should a soldier be arrested by belligerent forces, they are to be considered "lawful combatants" and afforded the protectorate status of a prisoner of war (POW) until the cessation of the conflict.[44] Human rights law applies to any incarcerated individual, including the right to a fair trial. Charges may only be brought against an enemy POW after a fair trial, but the initial crime being accused must be an explicit violation of the accords, more severe than simply fighting against the captor in battle.[45] No trial will otherwise be afforded to a captured soldier, as deemed by human rights law. This element of the convention has been confused during past incidents of detainment of US soldiers by North Vietnam, where the regime attempted to try all imprisoned soldiers in court for committing grave breaches, on the incorrect assumption that their sole existence as enemies of the state violated international law.[45]
Legacy[edit]
Although warfare has changed dramatically since the Geneva Conventions of 1949, they are still considered the cornerstone of contemporary international humanitarian law.[46] They protect combatants who find themselves hors de combat, and they protect civilians caught up in the zone of war. These treaties came into play for all recent international armed conflicts, including the War in Afghanistan,[47] the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Chechnya (1994–present),[48] and the Russo-Georgian War. The Geneva Conventions also protect those affected by non-international armed conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War.[dubious ]
The lines between combatants and civilians have blurred when the actors are not exclusively High Contracting Parties (HCP).[49] Since the fall of the Soviet Union, an HCP often is faced with a non-state actor,[50] as argued by General Wesley Clark in 2007.[51] Examples of such conflict include the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Sudanese Civil War, and the Colombian Armed Conflict, as well as most military engagements of the US since 2000.
Some scholars hold that Common Article 3 deals with these situations, supplemented by Protocol II (1977).[dubious ] These set out minimum legal standards that must be followed for internal conflicts. International tribunals, particularly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), have clarified international law in this area.[52] In the 1999 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic judgement, the ICTY ruled that grave breaches apply not only to international conflicts, but also to internal armed conflict.[dubious ] Further, those provisions are considered customary international law.
Controversy has arisen over the US designation of irregular opponents as "unlawful enemy combatants" (see also unlawful combatant), especially in the SCOTUS judgments over the Guantanamo Bay brig facility Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush,[53] and later Boumediene v. Bush. President George W. Bush, aided by Attorneys-General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales and General Keith B. Alexander, claimed the power, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to determine that any person, including an American citizen, who is suspected of being a member, agent, or associate of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or possibly any other terrorist organization, is an "enemy combatant" who can be detained in U.S. military custody until hostilities end, pursuant to the international law of war.[54][55][56]
The application of the Geneva Conventions to the 2014 conflict in Ukraine (Crimea) is a troublesome problem because some of the personnel who engaged in combat against the Ukrainians were not identified by insignia, although they did wear military-style fatigues.[57] The types of comportment qualified as acts of perfidy under jus in bello doctrine are listed in Articles 37 through 39 of the Geneva Convention; the prohibition of fake insignia is listed at Article 39.2, but the law is silent on the complete absence of insignia. The status of POWs captured in this circumstance remains a question.
Educational institutions and organizations including Harvard University,[58][59] the International Committee of the Red Cross,[60] and the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute use the Geneva Convention as a primary text investigating torture and warfare.[61]
Although warfare has changed dramatically since the Geneva Conventions of 1949, they are still considered the cornerstone of contemporary international humanitarian law.[46] They protect combatants who find themselves hors de combat, and they protect civilians caught up in the zone of war. These treaties came into play for all recent international armed conflicts, including the War in Afghanistan,[47] the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the invasion of Chechnya (1994–present),[48] and the Russo-Georgian War. The Geneva Conventions also protect those affected by non-international armed conflicts such as the Syrian Civil War.[dubious ]
The lines between combatants and civilians have blurred when the actors are not exclusively High Contracting Parties (HCP).[49] Since the fall of the Soviet Union, an HCP often is faced with a non-state actor,[50] as argued by General Wesley Clark in 2007.[51] Examples of such conflict include the Sri Lankan Civil War, the Sudanese Civil War, and the Colombian Armed Conflict, as well as most military engagements of the US since 2000.
Some scholars hold that Common Article 3 deals with these situations, supplemented by Protocol II (1977).[dubious ] These set out minimum legal standards that must be followed for internal conflicts. International tribunals, particularly the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY), have clarified international law in this area.[52] In the 1999 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic judgement, the ICTY ruled that grave breaches apply not only to international conflicts, but also to internal armed conflict.[dubious ] Further, those provisions are considered customary international law.
Controversy has arisen over the US designation of irregular opponents as "unlawful enemy combatants" (see also unlawful combatant), especially in the SCOTUS judgments over the Guantanamo Bay brig facility Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld and Rasul v. Bush,[53] and later Boumediene v. Bush. President George W. Bush, aided by Attorneys-General John Ashcroft and Alberto Gonzales and General Keith B. Alexander, claimed the power, as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces, to determine that any person, including an American citizen, who is suspected of being a member, agent, or associate of Al Qaeda, the Taliban, or possibly any other terrorist organization, is an "enemy combatant" who can be detained in U.S. military custody until hostilities end, pursuant to the international law of war.[54][55][56]
The application of the Geneva Conventions to the 2014 conflict in Ukraine (Crimea) is a troublesome problem because some of the personnel who engaged in combat against the Ukrainians were not identified by insignia, although they did wear military-style fatigues.[57] The types of comportment qualified as acts of perfidy under jus in bello doctrine are listed in Articles 37 through 39 of the Geneva Convention; the prohibition of fake insignia is listed at Article 39.2, but the law is silent on the complete absence of insignia. The status of POWs captured in this circumstance remains a question.
Educational institutions and organizations including Harvard University,[58][59] the International Committee of the Red Cross,[60] and the Rohr Jewish Learning Institute use the Geneva Convention as a primary text investigating torture and warfare.[61]
New challenges[edit]
Artificial intelligence and autonomous weapon systems, such as military robots and cyber-weapons, are creating challenges in the creation, interpretation and application of the laws of armed conflict. The complexity of these new challenges, as well as the speed in which they are developed, complicates the application of the Conventions, which have not been updated in a long time.[62][63] Adding to this challenge is the very slow speed of the process of developing new treaties to deal with new forms of warfare, and determining agreed-upon interpretations to existing ones, meaning that by the time a decision can be made, armed conflict may have already evolved in a way that makes the changes obsolete.
Artificial intelligence and autonomous weapon systems, such as military robots and cyber-weapons, are creating challenges in the creation, interpretation and application of the laws of armed conflict. The complexity of these new challenges, as well as the speed in which they are developed, complicates the application of the Conventions, which have not been updated in a long time.[62][63] Adding to this challenge is the very slow speed of the process of developing new treaties to deal with new forms of warfare, and determining agreed-upon interpretations to existing ones, meaning that by the time a decision can be made, armed conflict may have already evolved in a way that makes the changes obsolete.
See also[edit]
- Attacks on humanitarian workers
- Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
- Customary international humanitarian law
- Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict
- Geneva Conference (disambiguation)
- Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
- German Prisoners of War in the United States
- Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 – traditional rules on fighting wars
- Human rights
- Human shield
- Ian Fishback
- International Committee of the Red Cross
- International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
- International humanitarian law
- Laws of war
- Nuremberg Principles
- Reprisals
- Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project
- Targeted killing
- Attacks on humanitarian workers
- Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
- Customary international humanitarian law
- Declaration on the Protection of Women and Children in Emergency and Armed Conflict
- Geneva Conference (disambiguation)
- Geneva Academy of International Humanitarian Law and Human Rights
- German Prisoners of War in the United States
- Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 – traditional rules on fighting wars
- Human rights
- Human shield
- Ian Fishback
- International Committee of the Red Cross
- International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
- International humanitarian law
- Laws of war
- Nuremberg Principles
- Reprisals
- Rule of Law in Armed Conflicts Project
- Targeted killing
Notes[edit]
Further reading[edit]
- Matthew Evangelista and Nina Tannenwald (eds.). 2017. Do the Geneva Conventions Matter? Oxford University Press.
- Giovanni Mantilla, "Conforming Instrumentalists: Why the USA and the United Kingdom Joined the 1949 Geneva Conventions," European Journal of International Law, Volume 28, Issue 2, May 2017, Pages 483–511.
- Matthew Evangelista and Nina Tannenwald (eds.). 2017. Do the Geneva Conventions Matter? Oxford University Press.
- Giovanni Mantilla, "Conforming Instrumentalists: Why the USA and the United Kingdom Joined the 1949 Geneva Conventions," European Journal of International Law, Volume 28, Issue 2, May 2017, Pages 483–511.
References[edit]
- ^ a b "State Parties / Signatories: Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949". International Humanitarian Law. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 22 January 2007.
- ^ Dunant, Henry. A Memory of Solferino. English version, full text online.
- ^ "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864". Geneva, Switzerland: International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
- ^ Roxburgh, Ronald (1920). International Law: A Treatise. London: Longmans, Green and co. p. 707. Retrieved 14 July2009.
- ^ Abrams, Irwin (2001). The Nobel Peace Prize and the Laureates: An Illustrated Biographical History, 1901–2001. US: Science History Publications. ISBN 9780881353884. Retrieved 14 July 2009.
- ^ The story of an idea, film on the creation of the Red Cross, Red Crescent Movement and the Geneva Conventions
- ^ ICRC. "Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War. Geneva, 20 October 1868 – State Parties". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ Dutch Government (20 April 1900). "Kamerstukken II 1899/00, nr. 3 (Memorie van Toelichting)" (PDF) (in Dutch). Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ a b c Fleck, Dietrich (2013). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 322. ISBN 978-0-19-872928-0.
- ^ Fleck, Dietrich (2013). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 22 and 322. ISBN 978-0-19-872928-0.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ Fleck, Dietrich (2013). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-0-19-872928-0.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Geneva Convention for the Relief of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field of July 27, 1929 [...]
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Xth Hague Convention of October 18, 1907 for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 1906 [...]
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Convention concluded at Geneva on July 27, 1929, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War [...]
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
In the relations between the Powers who are bound by the Hague Conventions respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, whether that of July 29, 1899, or that of October 18, 1907, and who are parties to the present Convention, this last Convention shall be supplementary to Sections II and III of the Regulations annexed to the above-mentioned Conventions of The Hague.
- ^ Kolb, Robert (2009). Ius in bello. Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn. ISBN 978-2-8027-2848-1.
- ^ For example by the U.S. Supreme Court, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Opinion of the Court, U.S. Supreme Court, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), Slip Opinion, p. 68, available at supremecourt.gov
- ^ Sperry, C. (1906). "The Revision of the Geneva Convention, 1906". Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. 3: 33–57. doi:10.2307/3038537. JSTOR 3038537.
- ^ Yingling, Raymund (1952). "The Geneva Conventions of 1949". The American Journal of International Law. 46 (3): 393–427. doi:10.2307/2194498. JSTOR 2194498.
- ^ a b c d e Pictet, Jean (1958). Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 15 July 2009.
- ^ "The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (PDF). The American Journal of International Law. 47(4): 119–177. 1953. doi:10.2307/2213912. JSTOR 2213912. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 February 2021.
- ^ Bugnion, Francios (2000). "The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: From the 1949 Diplomatic Conference to the Dawn of the New Millennium". International Affairs. 76 (1): 41–51. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.00118. JSTOR 2626195.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 20 July2013.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ treaties.un.org: "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I)"
- ^ treaties.un.org: "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II)", consulted July 2014
- ^ "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem (Protocol III)", consulted July 2014
- ^ ICRC (2016). "2016 Commentary on the Geneva Convention". ICRC. p. 393.
- ^ ICRC. "The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols".
- ^ ICRC (2008). "How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law?" (PDF). Retrieved 12 May2018.
- ^ "Article 3 of Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field: Conflicts not of an international character. Geneva, 12 August 1949". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 20 January2021.
- ^ How "grave breaches" are defined in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, International Committee of the Red Cross.
- ^ "Practice Relating to Rule 157. Jurisdiction over War Crimes". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 30 January2017.
Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 129 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provide: The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article. Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed [grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions], and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
- ^ "Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 - 43 - Armed forces". ihl-databases.icrc.org. Retrieved 24 November 2020.
- ^ III, John B. Bellinger; Padmanabhan, Vijay M. (2011). "Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges for The Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law". The American Journal of International Law. 105 (2): 201–243. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.105.2.0201. ISSN 0002-9300.
- ^ a b "Prisoner of war : rights & obligations under the Geneva Convention". HathiTrust. Retrieved 24 November 2020.
- ^ "The Geneva Conventions Today". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
- ^ See U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- ^ Abresch, William (2005). "A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya" (PDF). European Journal of International Law. 16(4): 741–767. doi:10.1093/ejil/chi139.
- ^ "Sixty years of the Geneva Conventions and the decades ahead". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
- ^ Meisels, T: "COMBATANTS – LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL" (2007 Law and Philosophy, v26 pp.31–65)
- ^ Clark, Wesley K.; Raustiala, Kal (8 August 2007). "Opinion | Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
- ^ "The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic – Case No. IT-94-1-A". International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
- ^ Sliedregt, Elies van; Gill, Terry D. (19 July 2005). "Guantánamo Bay: A Reflection On The Legal Status And Rights Of 'Unlawful Enemy Combatants'". Utrecht Law Review. 1 (1): 28–54. doi:10.18352/ulr.2. ISSN 1871-515X.
- ^ JK Elsea: "Presidential Authority to Detain 'Enemy Combatants'" (2002), for Congressional Research Service
- ^ presidency.ucsb.edu: "Press Briefing by White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales, DoD General Counsel William Haynes, DoD Deputy General Counsel Daniel Dell'Orto and Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence General Keith Alexander June 22, 2004", consulted July 2014
- ^ Gonzales, Alberto R. (30 November 2001). "Martial Justice, Full and Fair". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
- ^ Faith, Ryan (10 March 2014). "The Russian Soldier Captured in Crimea May Not Be Russian, a Soldier, or Captured". Vice News. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
- ^ "Training vs. Torture". President and Fellows of Harvard College.
- ^ Khouri, Rami. "International Law, Torture and Accountability". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Retrieved 26 August 2009.
- ^ "Advanced Seminar in International Humanitarian Law for University Lecturers". International Committee of the Red Cross.
- ^ McManus, Shani (13 July 2015). "Responding to terror explored". South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
- ^ Peace and, Security. "Amidst new challenges, Geneva Conventions mark 70 years of 'limiting brutality' during war". United Nations News. United Nations. Retrieved 11 September2019.
- ^ Ray, Amit (4 July 2018). Compassionate Superintelligence AI 5.0: AI with Blockchain, Bmi, Drone, Iot, and Biometric Technologies. Compassionate AI Lab, Inner Light Publishers. ISBN 978-9382123446.
- ^ a b "State Parties / Signatories: Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949". International Humanitarian Law. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 22 January 2007.
- ^ Dunant, Henry. A Memory of Solferino. English version, full text online.
- ^ "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864". Geneva, Switzerland: International Committee of the Red Cross ICRC. Retrieved 11 June 2017.
- ^ Roxburgh, Ronald (1920). International Law: A Treatise. London: Longmans, Green and co. p. 707. Retrieved 14 July2009.
- ^ Abrams, Irwin (2001). The Nobel Peace Prize and the Laureates: An Illustrated Biographical History, 1901–2001. US: Science History Publications. ISBN 9780881353884. Retrieved 14 July 2009.
- ^ The story of an idea, film on the creation of the Red Cross, Red Crescent Movement and the Geneva Conventions
- ^ ICRC. "Additional Articles relating to the Condition of the Wounded in War. Geneva, 20 October 1868 – State Parties". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ Dutch Government (20 April 1900). "Kamerstukken II 1899/00, nr. 3 (Memorie van Toelichting)" (PDF) (in Dutch). Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ a b c Fleck, Dietrich (2013). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 322. ISBN 978-0-19-872928-0.
- ^ Fleck, Dietrich (2013). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. p. 22 and 322. ISBN 978-0-19-872928-0.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ Fleck, Dietrich (2013). The Handbook of International Humanitarian Law. Oxford: Oxford University Press. pp. 24–25. ISBN 978-0-19-872928-0.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Geneva Convention for the Relief of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field of July 27, 1929 [...]
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Xth Hague Convention of October 18, 1907 for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 1906 [...]
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments represented at the Diplomatic Conference held at Geneva from April 21 to August 12, 1949, for the purpose of revising the Convention concluded at Geneva on July 27, 1929, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War [...]
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
In the relations between the Powers who are bound by the Hague Conventions respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, whether that of July 29, 1899, or that of October 18, 1907, and who are parties to the present Convention, this last Convention shall be supplementary to Sections II and III of the Regulations annexed to the above-mentioned Conventions of The Hague.
- ^ Kolb, Robert (2009). Ius in bello. Basel: Helbing Lichtenhahn. ISBN 978-2-8027-2848-1.
- ^ For example by the U.S. Supreme Court, see Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, Opinion of the Court, U.S. Supreme Court, 548 U.S. ___ (2006), Slip Opinion, p. 68, available at supremecourt.gov
- ^ Sperry, C. (1906). "The Revision of the Geneva Convention, 1906". Proceedings of the American Political Science Association. 3: 33–57. doi:10.2307/3038537. JSTOR 3038537.
- ^ Yingling, Raymund (1952). "The Geneva Conventions of 1949". The American Journal of International Law. 46 (3): 393–427. doi:10.2307/2194498. JSTOR 2194498.
- ^ a b c d e Pictet, Jean (1958). Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: Commentary. International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 15 July 2009.
- ^ "The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War" (PDF). The American Journal of International Law. 47(4): 119–177. 1953. doi:10.2307/2213912. JSTOR 2213912. Archived from the original (PDF) on 24 February 2021.
- ^ Bugnion, Francios (2000). "The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949: From the 1949 Diplomatic Conference to the Dawn of the New Millennium". International Affairs. 76 (1): 41–51. doi:10.1111/1468-2346.00118. JSTOR 2626195.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 22 August 1864". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 6 July 1906". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 20 July2013.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 27 July 1929". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ ICRC. "Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. Geneva, 12 August 1949". Retrieved 5 March 2017.
- ^ treaties.un.org: "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts (Protocol I)"
- ^ treaties.un.org: "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts (Protocol II)", consulted July 2014
- ^ "Protocol additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the adoption of an additional distinctive emblem (Protocol III)", consulted July 2014
- ^ ICRC (2016). "2016 Commentary on the Geneva Convention". ICRC. p. 393.
- ^ ICRC. "The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols".
- ^ ICRC (2008). "How is the Term "Armed Conflict" Defined in International Humanitarian Law?" (PDF). Retrieved 12 May2018.
- ^ "Article 3 of Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field: Conflicts not of an international character. Geneva, 12 August 1949". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 20 January2021.
- ^ How "grave breaches" are defined in the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, International Committee of the Red Cross.
- ^ "Practice Relating to Rule 157. Jurisdiction over War Crimes". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 30 January2017.
Article 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I, Article 50 of the 1949 Geneva Convention II, Article 129 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 146 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provide: The High Contracting Parties undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any of the grave breaches of the present Convention defined in the following Article. Each High Contracting Party shall be under the obligation to search for persons alleged to have committed, or to have ordered to be committed [grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions], and shall bring such persons, regardless of their nationality, before its own courts. It may also, if it prefers, and in accordance with the provisions of its own legislation, hand such persons over for trial to another High Contracting Party concerned, provided such High Contracting Party has made out a prima facie case.
- ^ "Treaties, States parties, and Commentaries - Additional Protocol (I) to the Geneva Conventions, 1977 - 43 - Armed forces". ihl-databases.icrc.org. Retrieved 24 November 2020.
- ^ III, John B. Bellinger; Padmanabhan, Vijay M. (2011). "Detention Operations in Contemporary Conflicts: Four Challenges for The Geneva Conventions and Other Existing Law". The American Journal of International Law. 105 (2): 201–243. doi:10.5305/amerjintelaw.105.2.0201. ISSN 0002-9300.
- ^ a b "Prisoner of war : rights & obligations under the Geneva Convention". HathiTrust. Retrieved 24 November 2020.
- ^ "The Geneva Conventions Today". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
- ^ See U.S. Supreme Court decision, Hamdan v. Rumsfeld
- ^ Abresch, William (2005). "A Human Rights Law of Internal Armed Conflict: The European Court of Human Rights in Chechnya" (PDF). European Journal of International Law. 16(4): 741–767. doi:10.1093/ejil/chi139.
- ^ "Sixty years of the Geneva Conventions and the decades ahead". International Committee of the Red Cross. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
- ^ Meisels, T: "COMBATANTS – LAWFUL AND UNLAWFUL" (2007 Law and Philosophy, v26 pp.31–65)
- ^ Clark, Wesley K.; Raustiala, Kal (8 August 2007). "Opinion | Why Terrorists Aren't Soldiers". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
- ^ "The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic – Case No. IT-94-1-A". International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia. Retrieved 16 November 2009.
- ^ Sliedregt, Elies van; Gill, Terry D. (19 July 2005). "Guantánamo Bay: A Reflection On The Legal Status And Rights Of 'Unlawful Enemy Combatants'". Utrecht Law Review. 1 (1): 28–54. doi:10.18352/ulr.2. ISSN 1871-515X.
- ^ JK Elsea: "Presidential Authority to Detain 'Enemy Combatants'" (2002), for Congressional Research Service
- ^ presidency.ucsb.edu: "Press Briefing by White House Counsel Judge Alberto Gonzales, DoD General Counsel William Haynes, DoD Deputy General Counsel Daniel Dell'Orto and Army Deputy Chief of Staff for Intelligence General Keith Alexander June 22, 2004", consulted July 2014
- ^ Gonzales, Alberto R. (30 November 2001). "Martial Justice, Full and Fair". The New York Times. ISSN 0362-4331. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
- ^ Faith, Ryan (10 March 2014). "The Russian Soldier Captured in Crimea May Not Be Russian, a Soldier, or Captured". Vice News. Retrieved 7 June 2019.
- ^ "Training vs. Torture". President and Fellows of Harvard College.
- ^ Khouri, Rami. "International Law, Torture and Accountability". Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, Harvard University. Retrieved 26 August 2009.
- ^ "Advanced Seminar in International Humanitarian Law for University Lecturers". International Committee of the Red Cross.
- ^ McManus, Shani (13 July 2015). "Responding to terror explored". South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
- ^ Peace and, Security. "Amidst new challenges, Geneva Conventions mark 70 years of 'limiting brutality' during war". United Nations News. United Nations. Retrieved 11 September2019.
- ^ Ray, Amit (4 July 2018). Compassionate Superintelligence AI 5.0: AI with Blockchain, Bmi, Drone, Iot, and Biometric Technologies. Compassionate AI Lab, Inner Light Publishers. ISBN 978-9382123446.
Ei kommentteja:
Lähetä kommentti