Talk:Geneva Conventions/Archive 1

Are Geneva conventions and Geneva Protocol related in any way? (i.e., should they be linked in Wikipedia?)

I disagree, in this case, with the move to the singular. The Geneva Conventions are a set of documents, and are just about always referred to in the plural. If you're talking about the First Geneva Convention or the Fourth Geneva Convention, fine, but this article is about the whole set. -- April 16:55 Aug 5, 2002 (PDT)

Yes. The Geneva Conventions are plural. I hope you see why I just move stuff. This above person posted 2 months ago and nobody responded. Lir 09:25 Nov 12, 2002 (UTC)

breach of geneva convention
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/08/25/military_cites_risk_of_abuse_by_cia/ "WASHINGTON -- Top military lawyers have told senators that President Bush's new rules for CIA interrogations of suspected terrorists could allow abuses that violate the Geneva Conventions, according to Senate and military officials." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.198.17.165 (talk) 07:19, August 30, 2007 (UTC)


 * United States of America (failure to prevent massacre of POWs in Afghanistan; systematic human rights abuses in treatment of prisoners)

wouldn't al-qaida and the taliban need to be signatories of the geneva convention before you could say that the united states breached the conventions in regard to its treatment of al-qaida and taliban combatants? i'm not sure that the conventions are meant to be construed as binding law upon all nations, including those that were not signatory to them. and if you are going to say that the united states breached the conventions in regard to treatment of al-qaida prisoners, wouldnt you also have to list al-qaida as breaching the conventions for its attacks on civilians?


 * USA cant breach the Geneva Convention...because the US is not a signatary to it. And I believe this ::is worth mentioning in the article page.


 * That's totally wrong. The US signed the current revisions of the Geneva Conventions (all four of them) on August 12, 1949 and ratified them in 1955. In fact, the US is a state party to ALL revisions of the Geneva Conventions which came into effect throughout history - the US became a state party to the 1864 Convention in 1882, and was a signatory state for the 1906, 1929 and 1949 revisions. As the US never withdrew its signature (I know of no country which ever did so), the Geneva Conventions became part of US law after ratification by the US Congress and the US president. --Uwe 09:03, 21 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The question is, what or who do the Geneva Conventions apply to and how does this apply to the current situation we have today. TDC 01:22, 16 November 2005 (UTC)


 * A couple of comments. First, Al-Qaida cannot violate the Geneva Conventions because they are not a signatory. They cannot be a signatory because only legally recognized states can sign the Geneva Conventions. In theory, they could deposit a (non-binding) unilateral declaration with the ICRC that they accept and respect the Geneva Conventions, like the ANC in South Africa and a couple of other armed liberation movements in Africa did. As that would have no significance other than perhaps bolstering up their credibility and acceptance within the civilized world, both things that Al-Qaida doesn't care much at all about, it's highly unlikely that Al-Qaida will do so. And considering that few people outside of Al-Qaida consider them to be a liberation movement, it would have little if any effect regarding Al-Qaida's credibility and acceptance.


 * As for the USA. As said above, the United States is a signatory state to the Geneva Conventions and as such bound to follow their rules. They are bound to follow the rules of the third Geneva Convention as far as prisoners of war are concerned. Regarding Afghanistan, that includes captured Taliban fighters as it is generally accepted that the Taliban constituted an organized militia group belonging to a Party to the conflict according to article 4(2) of GC-III (Afghanistan is a state party to the Geneva Conventions). GC-III does not apply to captured members of Al-Qaida as Al-Qaida is neither a regular armed force nor a militia or volunteer corps belonging to any state party of the Geneva Conventions.


 * Now comes the complicated part. What applies to captured members of Al-Qaida in most individual cases is the fourth Geneva Convention about Civilian Persons in Time of War. That might be difficult to grasp but GC-IV is sort of a "catch all" convention which applies to almost anybody who is not protected by any of the other three conventions. That is evident from article 4 of GC-IV: "Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals." Furthermore, article 4 defines a couple of exceptions: "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are." So the only relevant criterion to exempt somebody from the protection of GC-IV (and henceforth, from any protection by any of the four Geneva Conventions) is his nationality. As per article 5 of GC-IV, an individual protected person who is definitely suspected of or engaged in hostile activities is not entitled to protection by GC-IV only IF and only AS LONG as granting him full protection would be prejudicial to the security of the detaining power. (which naturally means the security of the territory, the armed forces and the civilian population of the detaining power).


 * So in summary, almost anybody who, in an armed conflict, finds himself in the hand of a party to the conflict is protected either by the third or the fourth Geneva Convention. The only relevant criterion for exceptions is the nationality as per article 4 of GC-IV. As long as captured members of Al-Qaida fulfill the nationality requirement of article 4, they are entitled to protection according to the rules of GC-IV as soon as they are properly detained and, as individuals, do no longer constitute a threat to the security of the US. It's important to keep in mind that the decision about protection by GC-IV is always to be made on an individual case-by-case basis.


 * The case is completely different for members of Al-Qaida who are captured outside of a theatre of war. As the Geneva Conventions apply to situations of armed conflicts only, they have no legal significance outside of such situations.


 * Hope that clarifies a few points. --Uwe 08:51, 16 November 2005 (UTC)

But the rest of article IV says:

"Where in occupied territory an individual protected person is detained as a spy or saboteur, or as a person under definite suspicion of activity hostile to the security of the Occupying Power, such person shall, in those cases where absolute military security so requires, be regarded as having forfeited rights of communication under the present Convention.

"In each case, such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity, and in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention. They shall also be granted the full rights and privileges of a protected person under the present Convention at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State or Occupying Power, as the case may be."

Since they already have shown their willingness to go back onto the battlefield to continue their fight, it makes sense that all they are entitled to is humane treatment and - at some point - a trial as prescribed by the Convention. But they certainly are not "prisoners of war".

--WJH 03:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)WJH


 * First, you're actually quoting from article 5 (not article 4). Second, the fourth Geneva Convention from which you quoted article 5 is not about POW's and their rights and privileges, but about anybody who finds himself in the hand of a foreign party to the conflict, while NOT qualifying for better protection as a POW (GC-III) or as a wounded or shipwrecked soldier (GC-I and GC-II). Third, the part which you quoted also says that even individuals who are detained as a spy or saboteur, or who are under suspicion of having committed hostile actions, should be granted the full rights under GC-IV at the earliest date consistent with the security of the State. Fourth, I don't find anything in GC-III that says that "willingness to go back onto the battlefield" disqualifies somebody from POW status, or something to that effect. Quite contrary, the convention actually recognizes a return to the battlefield as legitimate when it says in article 91 that POW's cannot be punished for a successful earlier escape if recaptured. Preventing enemy combatants from returning to the battlefield is the very reason for detaining them as POW's until the end of the conflict. --Uwe 08:11, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply ... I was unable to find the definition of a "prisonal of war" in GC-IV, now I know why. I am following this discussion to try to understand the debate on how Al-Qaida and the Taliban fighters should be treated. I make a distintion between the "Taliban" as opposed to Afghanistan, since the Taliban and Al-Qaida are trans-national political-religous movements. My point about returning to the battlefield was based on the following news report:

''Cheney mentioned the name of Maulvi Abdul Ghaffar, a released Guantanamo prisoner who returned to Afghanistan and became a Taliban commander, and was killed last year by Afghan forces. Cheney also cited Mullah Shehzada, who he said returned from the prison to organize a jail break in Afghanistan, and who was also killed last year by U.S. forces. Elisabeth Bumiller, New York Times Tuesday, June 14, 2005''

I maintain neither the Taliban nor Al-Qaida adhere to important principles that are the basis of all the GCs and their predecessors. Therefore they cannot be considered POWs.

Here are three elements of the GC that Al-Qaida and Taliban fighters routinely break:

The Laws of War on Land. Oxford, 9 September 1880.

Part I : General principles

Art. 4. The laws of war do not recognize in belligerents an unlimited liberty as to the means of injuring the enemy.

GC-III, Article 4

A. Prisoners of war, in the sense of the present Convention, are persons belonging to one of the following categories, who have fallen into the power of the enemy:

(1) ....

(2) Members of other militias and members of other volunteer corps, [...], provided that such militias or volunteer corps, including such organized resistance movements, fulfil the following conditions:

(a) that of being commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates;

(b) that of having a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance;

(c) that of carrying arms openly;

(d) that of conducting their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war.

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977. Part III : Methods and means of warfare

Article 37 -- Prohibition of perfidy

1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:

(a) the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;

(b) the feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;

(c) the feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and

(d) the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.

So if they are not POWs, they are just people with guns. They would then be covered under GC-IV. Since they did not break any laws in the USA, after they are interrogated, it would make sense to return them to the authorities where they were captured (mostly Afghanistan and Iraq, I think) instead of continuing to detain and try them under USA law and procedures. --WJH 06:04, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I just heard on the news that there is one country
that has not signed the geneva convention(s). who is that? is it mentioned in an article somewhere? is there a list of members? McKzzFizzer 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The Republic of Nauru is an independent state since 1968 and a member of the United Nations since 1999, but has not yet signed the Geneva Conventions. A list of signatory states can be found at the website of the ICRC, check this link. --Uwe 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Correction: the Republic of Nauru acceded to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols on June 27, 2006. So right now, there is actually no country which is not a state party to the Geneva Conventions. --Uwe 09:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's true - even Montenegro is now also a party of the conventions.62.142.46.22 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

"War against Terror"
Just skimming through this page, there is a part which I have trouble to understand:
 * In the 1990's and culminating on September 11, 2001, the United States of America was the inactive participant in a war with Islamic Fundamentalist groups, and as such much of the "War on Terror" has centered around American interests.

In the 90s, I think it makes reasonable sense to say that European countries were at least as exposed as the USA to islamist terrorism (see Khaled Kelkal, etc.), so the reason why ""War on Terror" has centered around American interests" is very nebulous to me, and I fail to understand the relationship with the Geneva conventions. Furthermore, the "War against Terror" which we know was officially announced by Bush Jr after the 11th of September 2001, so I find myself on a chronological problem here. Rama 08:39, 17 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree in part. The term "War on Terror" has never been used by governments outside the USA, I believe. Most countries other than the US unfortunately had plenty of experience with terrorism before 11 September, so the Ódramatic upswing in interest (or dismay at such interest) has been down to the current administration. I think the statement pointed out should stay. Drrngrvy 06:29, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

For my part, I cannot understand how you can fight a war on a tactic. Terror is a tactic, invented a long time ago. It may be proscribed by some GC, I don't know. But declaring a war on a tactic is silly. We should label what the world is fighting against more clearly.--WJH 06:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Taliban fighters in a Theater of War:

"Under Article 4 of the Geneva Convention, however, Taliban detainees are not entitled to POW status. To qualify as POWs under Article 4, al Qaeda and Taliban detainees would have to have satisfied four conditions: They would have to be part of a military hierarchy; they would have to have worn uniforms or other distinctive signs visible at a distance; they would have to have carried arms openly; and they would have to have conducted their military operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/05/20030507-18.html

Furthermore, armed civilians in a country are not covered, unless they follow the laws and customs of war under any circumstance. Enemy Combatants captured on the field of battle who do not follow the rules of law do not receive the same rights under the Geneva Conventions no matter who they are.

24.46.44.243 18:10, 16 May 2006 (UTC) A.OTT


 * As said above, it is generally accepted that the Taliban (not Al Qaeda!) constituted an organized militia group belonging to a Party to the conflict according to article 4(2) of GC-III (Afghanistan is a state party to the Geneva Conventions). Whether individual members of the Taliban fulfill all requirements of article 4 GC-III is up for decision (on a case-by-case basis) by a competent tribunal (see article 5). One thing to keep in mind is that violations of the laws and customs of war by individual members of an otherwise protected group do not render all members of that group ineligible for protection. Likewise, the fact that some individual civilians do not follow the laws and customs of war does not mean that all armed civilians in that conflict or region loose their rights according to GC-III. And finally, even persons who have committed belligerent acts, but are for some reason not entitled to POW status and protection according to GC-III, have to be considered for protection according to the fourth Genevs Convention (article 4 GC-IV: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.). That would, for example, include Al Qaeda members which are not eligible for POW status according to GC-III. --Uwe 20:20, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I will only say that the Taliban was not the internationally recognized national government of Afghanistan. They were not a party to the GC. They repudiated almost everything the secular government of Afghanistan represented. They probably would not have signed the GCs if they were asked. Nor do they accept many of the concepts that form the foundation (e.g separation of church and state) for the GCs. If the Taliban were the militia of the internationally recognized government of Afghanistan, then your point (assume they are POWs and individually prove they should not be accorded that status) would be logical. But the other position (assume they are not POWs and accord them protection under GC-IV) seems more valid to me.--WJH 06:38, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that POW status for Taliban fighters is not a clear-cut issue. But from what I read, many legal scholars with expertise in the field of International Humanitarian Law agree that, on the organizational level, the Taliban GENERALLY fulfill the characteristics of "an organized militia group belonging to a Party to the conflict". Keep in mind that the "Party to the conflict" in this context is the state of Afghanistan. The Taliban was not a party to the GC because only states can sign the conventions. On the other hand, the Taliban government did not withdraw Afghanistan's signature while ruling the country (which would have been perfectly possible). Based on the assumption that the Taliban indeed was "an organized militia group belonging to a Party to the conflict", it's up to an individual decision for each captured Taliban fighter to judge whether he acted in accordance with the conventions, and whether to grant him POW status or not based on that decision. One point to keep in mind is that long-standing US military policy for the application of the law of war (and for granting POW status) was a very generous "in dubio pro reo" approach in former wars. In other words, if there were any doubts about whether a captured enemy fighter was to be granted POW status or not, the decision was generelly in favour of the detainee as long as there was any significant indication that he MIGHT qualify. Regarding this point, the US approach went far beyond what is prescribed by the GC and was explictly praised by the ICRC as being a positive model for other countries.


 * As for the Gitmo detainees, it would be interesting to know how many of them belonged to the Taliban and how many to Al Qaeda. Last but not least, I would like to point out that there are few significant differences between GC-III and GC-IV regarding the treatment of POW's vs. civilian internees. The most important rules can be found in the common article 3 of all four conventions, and the US Supreme Court recently found in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld that article 3 applies to ALL detainees. --Uwe 10:06, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It seems safe to assume that many of those detained as being members of the Taliban were part of the official armed forces of that party to the conflict in Afganistan both the civil war and with the United States, as such they would fall under Section 1 Article 4 of GCIII. Furthermore many of those being detained, apart from those that were turned in for bounties and have little if any evidence against them (ie the 80 year old man), may fall under the category of Section 4. Additionally the argument that the Taliban is not covered as they were not a party is irrelevant because they did claim to be the lawful government of Afganistan, and in claiming such a position were also necessarily claiming to be a party to such treaties as GCIII. Admittedly to a minor extent the United States could claim that the conflict and combatants are such that they would be covered only by Protocol 1, which, unlike 166 other countries it is not a party, although it is a signatory. CACLF 15:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Translation Project
Another guy requested it, but i am starting the translation of the german article. Have a closer look to the project page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/Geneva_Conventions if you want to participate.

By now i finish the main translation work. i need some native english speakers with a good proficiency of german if possible, for proof reading - Yamok 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Reorganizing convention/protocol pages.
I think a complete reorganization of the pages covering the conventions is in order. Here are several concerns:


 * This page, which talks a little about what the conventions are before going on to give half a dozen links to their various parts, is boring, uninformative, and needlessly inconvenient. Users who wish to have a basic understanding of all the provisions in the conventions/protocols should be able to view them together to get a better understanding of their breadth and implications. This is a large and complex topic, and it shouldn't be relegated to this type of small page that just links to various other pages, where all of the pertinent information is scattered.
 * Additionally, the pages on each of the Conventions and Protocols either have a sentence or two about the convention/protocol, or they list the full text thereof. The full-text ones need to be consolidated into a summary, with links to the full texts. In either case, none of these pages provide enough raw or unique information to warrant an individual page, which again suggests that a merge is necessary.
 * The link to Protocol III goes to a redirect which goes to information about the recent Red Crystal symbol and flag. This linking problem can be fixed immediately without debate, although I think the Red Crystal deserves its own page and shouldn't have to share one with information about the third protocol. This would also be solved by merging Protocol III info here.

Rodeosmurf 15:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

The translation of the german article (see above) aims at changing some of these things. the german article give summaries of the different conventions and their most important articles and of the development of the conventions - Yamok 14:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Right to a Fair Trial When No Crime is Alleged
The article is weak because it does not cover a critical element of the GC's AND this omission is important because many are confused on the issue. Please improve upon the text below. The idea is to clarify a common area of confusion. Most people think that soldiers captured in combat should get a trial. The point is to clarify that they don't get a trial when they have not violated any law.

The Geneva Conventions guarantee soldiers the right to not be put on trial for fighting in a war - unless they commit a war crime (a grave breech). This protection against a fair trial is fully consistent with human rights law because human rights law prohibits putting people on trial when there is no crime to try them for. The Geneva Conventions however guarantee that anyone charged with a war crime will get a fair trial.

67.169.229.2 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC).

Treaty protections for individuals rather than states
I deleted this text: "These laws may not be entirely harmonious with their national constitution or their cultural values. Despite the advantages offered by the Conventions to individuals, political pressures may cause the governments to be reluctant in accepting its responsibilities."

Treaties generally must be consistent with the laws of the nations that sign them. If there is an exception and above is factual this requires support.

The article claims that this treaty has advantages for individuals, but treaties are always about sovereign governments and their relationships and are never applicable to individuals (except perhaps monarchs and absolute dictators). I deleted this because I don't believe that any treaty has ever guaranteed any individual any right. Treaties often compel sovereign government to ensure human rights. Either it needs to be deleted or it needs to be supported.

Is there any example anywhere of a treaty that guarantees any individual anything?

Within the EU many human rights are guaranteed by treaties, but EU treaties are only temporary agreements to observe the treaty in how that national government ensures the rights of individuals.

For example, Treaty of Lisbon arguably diminished the human rights of EU citizens in three nations via the The British Protocol. If the treaty guaranteed anything then a British citizen could ask the ECHR to enforce their right, but the ECHR has no jurisdiction unless the government of the UK wishes for it.

Whenever a nation decide to abrogate any treaty, legally it may. The EU may not compel the UK to observe any of the EU's human rights protections. The UK legally may (and might) withdraw partially or completely from the ECHR.

Is there any example anywhere of a treaty that guarantees any individual anything? If so, please restore this text and reference that example. 67.169.229.2 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)

ICC
Text: "''In the 1999 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic judgement, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ruled that grave breaches apply not only to international conflicts, but also to internal armed conflict."

While this is true is it relevant to a discussion of the Geneva Conventions? The UN, the ICJ, and the UN Charter take precedence over all ICC law. All three of these have the broad international jurisdiction that comes with being accepted by almost every nation on earth.

This finding was made under UN proprietorial authority, but did the UNSCR grant interpretive authority for the Geneva Conventions broadly that were to set precedent? If it did, this requires a supporting reference.

The ICC or the ECHR and even national courts hold opinions, but are any of these so relevant that they should be included here? Less than half of the world's population is subject to the ICC or the ECHR. Virtually all are subject to the UN Charter and Article 25 which assures that the UN always has precedence over the ICC or ECHR. 00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC) ''
 * Agreed. I have no problem with discussion of the ICC and the Geneva Conventions on a relevant page. The ICC does not normally have any international authority or jurisdiction over any body of law and particularly over the GCs. All of the ICC jurisdiction for the GCs comes from their requirement that national laws reflect the GCs. This authority and jurisdiction is generally not transferred to the ICC even in nations that have signed the Treaty of Rome unless their domestic judicial system is in total failure mode. This is too complex for summary on this page. It is better to refer it to appropriate ICC related pages. I recommend an appropriate edit. 71.202.48.48 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

This page has been vandalized
Starting on April 1st, this page has been repeatedly vandalized, for ex. adding a new protocol "Protocol IV (2006) all chapters of Java Methods must be taught over the course of one to two weeks." If you check the revision history, you can see the issues. It's been unresolved for 18 days now. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.73.109 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Vandalized again, point 5 of grave breaches. 74.196.166.4 (talk) 05:09, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

History Re-written
I read in this book that history was rewritten in this and it's following conventions to favor the winners and the western societies. Any sources on this?

Dubious
Currently (01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)) the article says:

Two major points.

The first sentence has nothing to do with the rest of the paragraph.

The second part syns, the person who wrote it assumes that the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia could judge the Yugoslavian wars as a civil war. Yet it specifically ruled that it was an international conflict.

The ICTY base their judgements on the Geneva conventions as they apply apply to an international conflict not an internal conflict which would instead rely on the Common Article 3 of the Conventions. In the full trial judgement See paragraph 568. in that it says that the scope and intensity of the fighting was sufficient to be considered an armed conflict "for the purposes of the application of the laws or customs of war embodied in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, applicable as it is to armed conflicts in general, including armed conflicts not of an international character". But the next paragraph (paragraph 578 makes clear "It suffices for the moment to say that the level of intensity of the conflict, including the involvement of the JNA or the VJ in the conflict, was sufficient to meet the requirements for the existence of an international armed conflict for the purposes of the Statute."

This is summed up in the mislabelled article source ("The Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic - Case No. IT-94-1-A" [sic]) listed above in footnote two. It is actually appeals tribunal's judgement (see the section "The nature of the conflict" in the Judgement in Sentencing Appeals of Dusko Tadic).

This mistake probably occurred because the person who wrote the sentences relied on a primary source. Just to show that my criticism of the above is not (just) my personal opinion (although the sections are not hard to understand) on a primary source. Here is an secondary source from an academic publisher which gives the same summary:

Therefore the Wikipedia paragraph is misleading as Dusko Tadic (Case No. IT-94-1-Abis) Judgement was ruling on the application of the Geneva Conventions to an international conflict not an internal conflict. -- PBS (talk) 01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)

Capitalization of the Geneva Protocol
I think the word "other" should be capitalized in the full title of the Geneva Protocol (found in the second introduction paragraph), but I don't want to change it myself because I don't know if this is the official title.

Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare

Computergeeksjw (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Vietnam
In the prologue to "the conventions and their agreements", which 'conflict in Vietnam' is being refered to?173.58.253.195 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Renaming for disambiguation
I think this page should be moved to (for instance) Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and that Geneva Convention should be changed to a disambiguation page listing Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees.

Although this is not an issue of semi-protection, I used the "Edit semi-protected" template because I could not find a more appropriate one.

Apokrif (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Padlock-olive-arrow2.svg Not done: page move requests should be made at Requested moves. I also left a note on your talk page.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Reciprocal
Are all (or some) obligations unconditional or otherwise, subject to the constraint of reciprocity? Could this be explained in the article? --Netol (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)

Did the United States ratify the Geneva Conventions?
A reader interested in this current issue may be unable to easily answer it, since the following external link leads to a page that says it is out of service:

[broken external link] States party to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols

Perhaps a POV-neutral page that answers the question might be added? A short page entitled "Did the United States sign the Geneva Conventions?" is to be found at http://ask.yahoo.com/20020212.html


 * The fact that the US indeed is a state party to the Geneva Conventions can easily be verified by a number of different sources, and therefore it can be considered an established and undisputed fact. In my humble opinion, there is no need to add a weblink to the article just for this single issue - remember that selection of weblinks should follow a "best of the best" approach. And if anything, either the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs as the body who accepts signatures and ratifications, or the ICRC as the supreme guardian of International Humanitarian Law, should be used as the most competent, accurate and neutral source for this information. --Uwe 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No one challenges the assertion that the United States signed the Geneva Conventions. Before the question may be asked here some basis for the relevance of the question must be supported. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.48.48 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)


 * The United States signed the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it did not agree to the Protocols that came later. The appropriate Wikipedia articles contain links showing what the US Senate agree to. The joke goes that Hitler was the last honourable enemy of the USA. Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Countries recently in breach of the Geneva Conventions
Countries which have recently breached the Geneva Conventions include:


 * United Kingdom (shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland)
 * United States of America (failure to prevent massacre of POWs in Afghanistan; systematic human rights abuses in treatment of prisoners)
 * Israel (systematic human rights abuses; systematic maltreatment of prisoners)
 * Russia (systematic and routine maltreatment of prisoners in Chechnya)
 * Burundi (attacks on International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC))
 * Zaire (attacks on ICRC)
 * Rwanda (attacks on ICRC)

Could someone reference this? I don't ever recall reading this in the Geneva Conventions.


 * In the field, soldiers of a signatory who carry prohibited equipment or perform prohibited actions are subject to summary field execution without a trial. This is usually carried out on prisoners of war who are captured with prohibited equipment.  It may be ordered by the senior officer of a group that observed an atrocity and can recognize participating individuals.
 * You may need to look in the Hague Declaration. Rmhermen 04:32, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)

Like the case of USA, a good reference would be this guys advice that ended up on this story

A couple of corrections. First, alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions are not heard by the International Court of Justice; it has no jurisdiction over criminal acts. For those states which have joined the International Criminal Court (ICC), war crimes including breaches of the Geneva Conventions can be heard there; the United States is not a party to the ICC. Second, on the above comment about summary execution, the 1907 Hague Regulations have been modified by the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 to prohibit any kind of summary execution. A good place to consult is Crimes of War. Ken 20 November 2004

goto www.genevaconventions.org for more results


 * Is it appropriate to have a section on the so-called "War on Terror" in this article? The very definition is extreemly biased towards the American viewpoint, and the article uses heavily prejudicial language against the other side. Both sides are clearly comitting war crimes in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.

What worry me is why this list is so limited. Are some transgressions permitted? Iran violated something when they took American hostages in 1979, didn't they? And there was that little war in Israel in 1967. I didn't see any names on the list, except Israel.

If there is suppose to be no bias, then let's list everything. What about the civil wars throughout the world where both sides did some rather nasty things? Are militias involved in a civil war suppose to abide by the convention since the country for which they are fighting about is a signator? Hezbollah says they represent Lebanon, so should they be forced to abide by the convention based on the fact that Lebanon is a signator? Then again, if a militia is taking its orders from a third country that is a signator, shouldn't they still be required based on that fact that third country is a signator? Will we allow countries to get around the Geneva Convention that uses militas as proxies. I thought that one of the rules is that one must be affiliated with a country and wearing a uniform of that country. Is it now the rule that everyone gets protection regardless of thier own actions in following the convention rules? Can Americans now wear civilian clothes in Iraq so that they are less noticable to the insurgants and not be considered to be in violation? user:mnw2000 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Who exactly is responsible for bringing convention violators to justice? Is there a court in The Hague for this? Does NATO or the U.N. get involved? Are charges against Americans being withheld until George W Bush finishes his term so that he can't pardon anyone? --Ace Frahm 12:51, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a matter of national honour. A country is honour and treaty bound to arrest, put on trial and punish any politicians, officers and enlisted men who have dishonoured their country by committing war crimes. Should a country have no honour then the enemy forces can prosecute people they capture for war crimes - a double national dishonour. (A government that is both evil and weak.) Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Ukraine (Crimea) fighters not wearing insignia
Since we talking about not wearing insignia when fighting the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 apply. Since Russia is officially not part of this war and the men are not members of the Ukrainian army then they are members of a militia or volunteer corps. Consequently under Article 1 of the Hague Convention 1907 they are required "2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;" and "4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war". Their officers and commanders can probably be prosecuted for failing to provide such insignia. This is not a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. IMHO being minor war crimes permits the men to be treated as POWs and court marshalled under the appropriate section of the Ukrainian military code for wearing an incorrect uniform. Without insignia officers need to prove their rank.

Ref: Hague Convention of 1907 Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)

Diagram is incorrect
The diagram (Geneva Conventions 1864-1949.svg) illustrating the relationship between the Conventions is factually incorrect. I am going to remove it in a few days unless someone wants to object. Morrillonline (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The Second Geneva Convention was first adopted in 1906, not 1927.
 * The Third Geneva Convention was first adopted in 1927
 * The Hague Conventions did not get incorporated into the Geneva Conventions. These are separate treaties.
 * Removed Morrillonline (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
 * I was digging across the Hague Conventions and when I stumbled across the Geneva Conventions and this talk page. Actually, the diagram is correct. Although the name 'second Geneva convention' is chosen rather poorly, it was the second convention qua subject matter (dealing with prisoners of war). The 1906 and other 1929 conventions merely elaborated upon the first (1864) convention, concerning war on land. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Distinction between versions of the Geneva Convention, and sections of the 1949 version
There seems to be some sort of mix-up between the first, second, third, and fourth revisions of the Geneva Convention signed in 1864, 1906, 1929, and 1949 respectively, and the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions that comprise the 1949 version. This mix-up seems to be present on this page as well as the individual pages for each of the separate Conventions. This is most clearly apparent on the page Second Geneva Convention, where it refers to it being first adopted in 1906. While the First and Third Geneva Conventions appear more closely related to the first version and the code relating to prisoners of war introduced at the Geneva Convention of 1929 (at the same time as the third revision of the original Geneva Convention) respectively, the second version of the Geneva Convention that was adopted in 1906 makes no mention of warfare at sea, which is the primary topic of the Second Geneva Convention. According to the Red Cross' website, the source for the adaption of the provisions of the Geneva Convention to warfare at sea is Convention X of the Second Peace Conference of The Hague in 1907. However, I only noticed this misconception as I went about writing a paper related to the subject, and I'm not about to implement radical changes to all of these pages without further input.98.166.92.36 (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * You are correct, until an IP changed this in 19 July 2008, this page stated correctly that GC 2 was the successor to the tenth Hague Convention of 1907. This also follows from the preambule to the Second Geneva Convention of 1949: "The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments [...] for the purpose of revising the Xth Hague Convention of October 18, 1907 [...] have agreed as follows". I'll try to clarify it. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

Common Article 3
Currently under the common article 3 subhead, a sentence states that, "It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts." In that sentence "non-international conflicts" links to the wiki article "civil wars." The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this narrow claim that non-international conflicts means only civil wars, so this article is inaccurate. If there are editors here, I'll let them figure out whether or not the link should be removed or the sentence reworded, as I don't know enough about law outside the US. But if no one has an alternative, I'll remove the link in a couple days. WoodDraw (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The link to civil wars does not really imply that "non-international conflicts means only civil wars". However, I have adjusted the link to go directly to the section of the civil war article Civil_war which clarifies the issue, I believe.--Joel Mc (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

The claim that non-international conflicts are those "that are contained within the boundaries of a single country" is not correct and in fact this is challenged by the source. I am changing this based on the new source I am inserting, which specifically says "[Non-interanational] types of conflicts vary greatly. They include traditional civil wars, internal armed conflicts that spill over into other States or internal conflicts in which third States or a multinational force intervenes alongside the government." Antonz44 (talk) 18:35, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 October 2020 and 12 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jimmygotclass. Peer reviewers: Maxmcq11, Lheiler02.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Thermobaric Bombs
Hello, in light of recent developments in the Russo-Ukrainian war, where in the Geneva specifically is it mentioned that thermobaric bombs are explicitly banned? I have the pdf open but I cannot for my life find it. Any help would be appreciated. Obama gaming (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Belgian "variant" flag
Under the header "History" is the list of countries that signed the Convention in 1864. Belgium is one of them. This list shows a variant of the Belgian flag, allegedly the "1858 version". This is false. Belgium has never changed its flag since its adoption in 1831. For more info and sources, check Flag of Belgium: "On 23 January 1831, the stripes changed from horizontal to vertical, and on 12 October, the flag attained its modern form, with the black placed at the hoist side of the flag.". No further changes have been made since. Takk (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

Armed conflict definition as a matter of debate
New user so comments welcome and please forgive any etiquette mistakes. I am trying to incorporate the U.S. jurisprudence on Common Article 3 in the War on Terror context. The text says, "The interpretation of the term armed conflict and therefore the applicability of this article is a matter of debate." It cites Jean Pictet's 1958 Commentary, but it seems the applicability of Common Article Three has settled down quite a bit since then. Is it ok to delete that sentence? Checkpoint42 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

Common Article 3 relating to non-international armed conflict
The quotation by added by Luke.firewalker1 in this edit at the end of this section appears to be from a self-published work by Sumanatilake. I've been reverted twice after removing it, and won't do so again, but am posting here for others to review. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)