Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-vfjqv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-25T07:22:03.334Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Reaffirmation and development of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts: the Conference of Government Experts (second session), 3 May – 2 June 1972

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  07 July 2009

Frits Kalshoven
Get access

Extract

As was mentioned in the previous note on the above subject, the (first) Conference of Government Experts held in Geneva in May 1971, although an important step on the road towards the “reaffirmation and development” of certain more or less neglected parts of the international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts, was in itself insufficient preparation for a future diplomatic conference. A second conference of experts seemed therefore to be indicated, and the announcement, made in the final session of the Conference by the President of the International Committee of the Red Cross (or ICRC), that such a conference would be organized in 1972, was received with unanimous approval and satisfaction.

Type
Section A: Articles
Information
Netherlands Yearbook of International Law , Volume 3 , December 1972 , pp. 18 - 61
Copyright
Copyright © T.M.C. Asser Press 1972

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. 2 NYIL, (1971), p. 68 ff. at p. 89.

2. A/8370, 2 September 1971. See also the comments of Governments on the earlier reports of the Secretary-General, A/8313 and add.

3. A/8589, 15 December 1971: Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts, Report of the Third Committee.

4. This 12-Power Resolution was sponsored by Austria, Chile, Ecuador, Egypt, Ireland, Kenya, Mexico, Morocco, Norway, Peru, Sweden and Yugoslavia. The requested report on napalm and other incendiary weapons was brought out on 9 October 1972, A/8803.

5. This 3-Power Resolution, introduced by the United States, was co-sponsored by Japan and New Zealand.

6. Despite its general language, this paragraph envisages in particular the reservation to Article 85 of the 1949 Prisoners of War Convention, made by the Soviet Union and other communist States, to the effect that prisoners of war will lose their status once they are convicted of a war crime. The United Kingdom, which proposed the paragraph, has meanwhile set the example by withdrawing its own reservation to Article 68 of the 1949 Civilians Convention regarding the right to impose the death penalty in occupied territory.

7. A/C.3/L. 1902 and 1903.

8. A/8371, annex II; A/8371/Add. 1 and 2.

9. A/8589 (Report of the Third Committee), paras. 15–18.

10. Res. 6 (XXVIII).

11. D-O-1210.

12. D-O-1252/b/e and Add. 1–3.

13. D-1251: Report of the Consultative Meeting of Non-Governmental Organizations on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts (18–19 November 1971). One of these organizations, the International Institute of Humanitarian Law at San Remo, held a seminar at that place from 2–4 September 1971 on “Humanitarian Rules and Instructions to Armed Forces”. The resolution adopted at the end of the seminar was published by the Secretary-General of the United Nations as add. 1 to his report A/8370.

14. D-1254: Conference of Red Cross Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, Vienna, 20–24 March 1972 (second session): Report on the Work of the Conference, published by the ICRC, Geneva, April 1972.

15. Conference of Government Experts on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts, second session, Geneva, 3 May - 3 June 1972: Report on the Work of the Conference, published by the ICRC, Geneva, July 1972. Like in 1971, the size of the delegations and the degree of expert knowledge varied considerably, and with that the capacity of delegations effectively to contribute to the work of the Conference. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was once again represented by Mr. Marc Schreiber, Director, Human Rights Division. The Report is in two volumes, one containing the report of the proceedings of the plenary sessions and the Commissions, and the other containing the documents submitted by the ICRC to the Conference and the amendments and other proposals submitted by experts during the Conference. References to paragraphs and article numbers are to Vol. I, references to documents numbers (CE/…) are to Vol. II. See also the Report of the Secretary-General, A/8781, 20 September 1972.

16. Op cit. n. 1. at p. 75.

17. Paras. 1.20, 1.22, 1.31, 1.37; Commission draft Articles 14, 16, 18.

18. Para. 1.40.

19. Commission draft Articles 14, 16, 18.

20. Commission draft Article 20, which refers to draft Article 12 where the categories of persons qualifying for protection and care are defined. After the phrase quoted in the text above, that Article continues: “such as maternity cases and newborn infants together with shipwrecked persons at sea, the infirm and expectant mothers”; a curious collection indeed!

21. Commission draft Article 19.

22. Para. 1.66.

23. Articles 36 and 37/1, 22/IV.

24. Para. 1.72, Commission draft Article 23.

25. CE/COM I/1; para. 1.87.

26. Para. 1.67.

27. Ibid.

28. Ibid.; see also para. 1.87.

29. Commission draft Articles 25, 26.

30. Paras. 1.106–1.109 and annexed draft Article.

31. Para. 3.5.

32. Para. 3.7.

33. Para. 3.13.

34. ICRC draft Article 30 para. 3.

35. Para. 3.14.

36. CE/COM III/C 56, introduced by the Federal Republic of Germany, Australia, Belgium, Canada, the United States and the United Kingdom. See also para. 3.21.

37. CE/COM III/C 17 (Romania), CE/COM III/C 44 (Jordan); para. 3.18.

38. CE/COM III/C 2 (Poland), CE/COM III/C 6 (German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Czechoslovakia), CE/COM III/C 17 (Romania), CE/COM III/C 33 (Egypt, Finland, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia), CE/COM III/C 44 (Jordan), CE/COM III/C 57 (Spain); para. 3.19.

39. CE/COM III/C 2 (Poland), CE/COM III/C 6 (German Democratic Republic, Hungary, Czechoslovakia), CE/COM III/C 17 (Romania); para. 3.19.

40. CE/COM III/C 33 (Egypt, Finland, Mexico, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, Yugoslavia).

41. Para. 3.20.

42. CE/SPF/2 (proposal introduced in plenary session by 19 delegations); paras. 3.20, 5.8–5.11.

43. Draft Article 31.

44. CE/COM III/C 70 (Federal Republic of Germany, Australia, Belgium, Brazil, Canada, United States, Israel, Philippines, Republic of Viet-Nam); para. 3.26.

45. ICRC draft Article 36.

46. CE/COM III/C 30 (Belgium); para. 3.44.

47. CE/COM III/C 8; para. 3.45.

48. ICRC draft Article 38.

49. Paras. 3.64–3.66. A Norwegian amendment (CE/COM III/C 15) went farthest in doing away with the existing conditions; it replaced these by the following: that the level of hostilities make application of the Protocol a humanitarian neccessity, that the Party to the conflict to which the guerrillas are attached declare itself ready to apply the Geneva Conventions and the Protocol, and that the guerrilla fighters be organized and under the orders of a commander responsible for the conduct of his subordinates. Least generous towards the guerrillas were the experts of the United Kingdom (CE/COM III/C 42).

50. Paras. 3.57, 3.60. The different ways in which this protection can be sought, are demonstrated in two Norwegian amendments. One, quoted in the previous footnote, virtually abolished the traditional conditions for P.O.W.-treatment for guerrillas; the other proposed to lay down in the draft Article on perfidy that “the creation, prior to attack, of an impression with the enemy of being a non-combatant” would be among the acts betraying an enemy's confidence and therefore constituting perfidy (adding, however, that “attacks from ambush, even if carried out in civilian clothing are not prohibited”) (CE/COM III/C 55). On the question of treatment of guerrilla fighters, see also Michel, Veuthey, “La guérilla: Le problème du traitement des prisonniers”, in Annales d'études intemationales (1972) at p. 119.Google Scholar

51. ICRC draft Article 40.

52. CE/COM III/PC 2 (United States); para. 3.111.

53. CE/COM III/PC 37; para. 3.112.

54. CE/COM III/PC 42; para. 3.112.

55. ICRC draft Articles 41–43.

56. CE/COM III/PC 78 (Federal Republic of Germany, Australia, Belgium, Canada, United States, United Kingdom); paras. 3.117, 3.123.

57. CE/COM III/C 63 (Federal Republic of Germany, Australia, Canada, United States, United Kingdom); paras. 3.58, 3.68.

58. Para. 3.116.

59. CE/COM III/PC 43; para. 3.120.

60. CE/COM III/PC 68.

61. CE/COM III/PC 21.

62. ICRC draft Article 41 para. 4.

63. ICRC draft Articles 42, 47.

64. CE/COM III/PC 4 (United States), CE/COM III/PC 40 (Denmark); paras. 3.129, 3.133.

65. CE/COM III/PC 115 (Australia, Belgium, Korean Republic, United States, Philippines, United Kingdom).

66. Para. 3.141.

67. CE/COM III/PC 46.

68. CE/COM III/PC 106 (Federal Republic of Germany, Australia, Belgium, Canada, United States, United Kingdom); paras. 3.159, 3.160.

69. ICRC draft Article 44.

70. ICRC draft Article 45, para. 3.

71. CE/COM III/PC 110.

72. Para. 3.155; CE/COM III/PC 50 (Italy).

73. ICRC draft Articles 45, para. 4, and 48, para. 1.

74. Report of the Vienna Conference (supra, n. 14), p. 34.

75. CE/COM III/PC 32 (German Democratic Republic), CE/COM III/PC 47 (Romania); para. 3.177.

76. See op. cit. n. 1, at p. 88.

77. Para. 3.161.

78. Ibid.

79. CE/COM III/PC 6.

80. CE/COM III/PC 29.

81. Para. 3.161.

82. See on this question the present author's Belligerent Reprisals, 1971, in particular pp. 24–25 and 362–363.

83. CE/COM III/PC 106.

84. See op. cit. note 82, pp. 353–361.

85. ICRC draft Articles 49–51.

86. CE/COM III/PC 11.

87. CE/COM III/PC 54; see also CE/COM III/PC 46 of the same delegation, and comp. CE/COM III/PC 89 (Spain).

88. Para. 3.190.

89. Para. 3.191.

90. ICRC draft Articles 53, 54.

91. CE/COM III/PC 113 and 114.

92. Para. 3.212.

93. ICRC draft Articles 57–62 and 67–72.

94. Supra, p. 20.

95. CE/COM III/PC 19; para. 3.233. A completely opposite note was struck by the Romanian amendment CE/COM III/PC 57, which wanted to replace the whole idea of special protection with a reminder that “[m]embers of the civilian population entitled to general protection – women, children, the aged, wounded, sick and infirm – shall receive from the belligerents the necessary assistance and care”.

96. Paras. 3.230–3.232.

97. Para. 3.241.

98. CE/COM III/PC 99: para. 3.246.

99. Report of the Sub-Commission: paras. 3.281 ff.

100. Para. 3.304: Sub-Commission draft Article 67, para. 1; see also para. 3.295.

101. Para. 3.315: Sub-Commission draft Article 67 (A).

102. Para. 3.310: Sub-Commission draft Article 67, para. 2.

103. Para. 3.319: Sub-Commission draft Article 68; para. 3.324: Sub-Commission draft Article 69.

104. Paras. 3.334, 3.335; para. 3.340: Sub-Commission draft Article 71.

105. Paras. 3.76, 3.78.

106. Draft Articles 10, 8.

107. Para. 3.87.

108. Para. 3.90.

109. ICRC draft Articles 63–66.

110. Para. 3.264; CE/COM III/PC 112. See also paras. 5.39–5.41 (final plenary session).

111. Para. 4.3; as in 1971, the present author acted as Rapporteur of this Commission.

112. Paras. 4.5–4.7.

113. Articles 8–10 of Conventions I-III (9–11 of Convention IV).

114. Op cit. n. 1, at. p. 87.

115. Para. 4.73.

116. Paras. 4.58–4.59, 4.64.

117. Para. 4.62.

118. Paras. 4.62–4.65.

119. Para. 4.68.

120. Para. 5.46.

121. Para. 4.80: Working Group draft Article 6, para. 5; para. 4.81.

122. Para. 4.72.

123. CE/COM IV/48.

124. Para. 4.79.

125. Para. 4.119.

126. Para. 4.120.

127. Articles 49/I, 50/II, 129/III, 146/IV; see, e.g., Commentary to Convention I, pp. 364–5.

128. CE/COM IV/45; para. 4.122.

129. It will then also have to receive an adequate definition. For a survey of the various formulas used in the post World War II trials, see Law Reports of Trials of War Criminals. Selected and prepared by the United Nations War Crimes Commission, Vol. XV: Digest of Laws and Cases, p. 65–78 (1949)Google Scholar. See also The Law of Land Warfare, U.S. Dept. of the Army FM 27–10, section 501.

130. CE/COM IV/41 (Norway), CE/COM IV/46 (Belgium), CE/COM IV/54 (Canada), CE/COM IV/56 (Jordan); para. 4.126: Drafting Committee draft Article 75 B, para. 2., alternatives 1 and 2.

131. CE/COM IV/41 (Norway), CE/COM IV/54 (Canada), CE/COM IV/58 (Poland); para. 4.126: Drafting Committee draft Article 75 B, para. 2, alternatives 3 and 4.

132. Para. 4.123;CE/COM IV/59 (Indonesia, Iraq, Pakistan, Tanzania, Tunisia, Turkey).

133. Para. 4.121.

134. Supra, p. 37.

135. ICRC draft Article 74. See also op cit. n. 82, pp. 339–344.

136. Paras. 4.135–4.136.

137. Para. 4.136. See also op cit. n. 82, pp. 289–294.

138. Para. 4.137.

139. Paras. 4.135, 4.138. The Yugoslav expert did the useful suggestion to insert the gist of the paragraph after the opening Article (30) of the part dealing with combatants; CE/COM IV/53.

140. Op cit. n. 82, pp. 22–26, 42–44, 375–378.

141. Para. 4.140.

142. Para. 4.91.

143. ICRC draft Article 76; para. 4.151.

144. Para. 4.156.

145. As the representative of the Secretary-General recalled, referring to GA Res. 2853 (XXVI); para. 4.150.

146. A suggestion to this effect was already made by the Secretary-General in his first Report on Respect for Human Rights in Armed Conflicts. A/7720.

147. Para. 4.153. The text is found in the Report of the Vienna Conference, supra n. 14, at p. 75.

148. Para. 4.152; CE/COM IV/24 (Federal Republic of Germany), CE/COM IV/60 (United Kingdom); para. 4.158: Drafting Committee draft Article 76, para. 3.

149. Para. 4.91; CE/COM IV/14 (United States).

150. Supra, p. 50.

151. Supra, p. 28.

152. The proposed text is found between paras. 4.224 and 4.225.

153. CE/COM IV/71.

154. Part I, section 3.

155. Para. 4.231.

156. Ibid.

157. As was pointed out in the debate; para. 2.64.

158. On this question, see Oglesby, Roscoe R., Internal War and the Search for Normative Order, The Hague, 1971.Google Scholar

159. For the discussions at the 1971 Conference of Government Experts, see op cit. n. 1, pp. 80–81. This time, the issue was raised already in the general debate opening the discussions of Commission II; paras. 2.35–2.39. See too Georges, Abi-Saab, “Wars of National Liberation and the Laws of War”, in Annales d'études Internationales (1972) p. 93.Google Scholar

160. ICRC draft Article 1.

161. Such a possibility had already been categorically rejected in 1971; see op cit. n. 1, at. p. 78.

162. Para. 2.45.

163. CE/COM II/2 (Austria), CE/COM II/19 (Belgium).

164. CE/COM II/13 (Philippines), CE/COM II/17 (Egypt, Norway).

165. CE/COM II/18 (Spain).

166. CE/COM II/4 (Romania), CE/COM II/14 (United Kingdom), CE/COM II/16 (Argentina).

167. CE/COM II/1 (United States), CE/COM II/3 (France), CE/COM II/5 (Canada), CE/COM II/6 (Indonesia).

168. Para. 2.61. The experts of Pakistan made this a formal proposal; CE/COM II/40.

169. CE/COM II/1 (United States), CE/COM II/5 (Canada).

170. CE/COM II/3.

171. CE/COM II/14.

172. CE/COM II/4; the other amendment in this category was CE/COM II/16 introduced by the experts of Argentina.

173. Para. 2.28.

174. Paras. 2.26–2.32; the quoted words are in para. 2.29.

175. Para. 2.31.

176. Para. 2.29.

177. Para. 2.71: Drafting Committee draft Article 1.

178. Paras. 2.80–2.106.

179. Para. 5.46.