DOCSLIB.ORG

Foundationsbg-DISEC.Pdf

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Foundationsbg-DISEC.Pdf Committee Description In January 1946, the Disarmament and International Security Committee held its first meeting to resolve numerous security issues and political tensions the Second World War accentuated. In the present day, with all 193 UN members, DISEC is at the forefront of ensuring international peace on concerns ranging from small arms trade to nuclear proliferation and covering regions from the Arctic Circle to the digital world of cybersecurity. As the First Committee of the General Assembly, Disarmament and International Security Committee (DISEC) deals with “disarmament, global challenges and threats to peace that affect the international community”.1 It seeks out solutions to the challenges that come with maintaining the security of the international community. Working closely with the United Nations Disarmament Commission and the Geneva-based Conference on Disarmament, the First Committee is also entitled to verbatim records coverage. Its sessions are structured as follows: 1) General debate, 2) Thematic discussions, 3) Action on drafts. Throughout the past years, efforts have been made to rationalize the work of the Committee while focusing on its agenda and improving its organization of work.2 Notably, this was done through: the 48th session on “Rationalization of the work and reform of the agenda of the First Committee”, the 59th session on improving the effectiveness of the methods of work of the First Committee, and the 60th session on the “Revitalization of the work of the General Assembly”. As DISEC cannot enforce any legally binding decisions or direct interventions, it tackles international security concerns through their global influence, promotion of cooperative arrangements, creation of countless peace treaties, and insightful recommendations that broaden the scope of the UN. Some notable resolutions passed by the First Committee include: Resolution 1 entitled “Establishment of a Commission to Deal with the Problems Raised by the Discovery of Atomic Energy” and Resolution 1378, the very first General Assembly resolution that was co-sponsored by all Member States at the time.3 !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 1 http://www.un.org/en/ga/first/ 2 Ibid. 3 Ibid.! CAHSMUN 2018 DISEC Backgrounder A 2 ! Topic A: Prisoners of War Overview Prisoner of war (POW) refers to any person captured by a belligerent power during a war.4 In the strictest sense, it only applies to regularly organized armed forces. In a broader sense, it also encompasses irregular fighters such as guerrillas.5 In early history, a label such as POW did not exist, as the defeated enemy was either killed or enslaved by the victor.6 During religious wars, it was even considered a virtue to put non-believers to death. However, as warfare evolved, so did the treatment of prisoners. The 16th and early 17th centuries became a time for some European political and legal philosophers to express their opinions on the treatment of POWs. One of the most famous examples of these philosophers is Hugo Grotius. Grotius stated in his De jure belli ac pacis that “victors had the right to enslave their enemies”. However, he still advocated exchange and ransom instead. The 18th century marked the rise of philosophers such as Montesquieu, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, and Emerich de Vattel. Montesquieu developed the idea that the only right captors had was the right to prevent the prisoner from harming.7 The following two philosophers expanded the idea. From this point in time, treatment of prisoners improved. The philosophical foundation initiated countless promises to improve the treatment of POWs and the failure to carry out such promises. The treatment of POWs in both the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War served as legal reasoning for the Brussels Declaration. The declaration helped The Hague Convention to develop a legally binding document that ensured the fair treatment of POWs. Even after substantial documents were established, POWs still experienced horrific treatment throughout the two world wars. In order to handle the matter in more detail and to protect more actors, the Geneva Conventions (1929 and 1949) took place. In the present day, even with tenacious pressure from the international community to ensure humane treatment of POWs, problems still occur. These problems consist of both blunt violations as well as abuse of loopholes, especially when it comes to labeling individuals as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 4 https://www.britannica.com/topic/prisoner-of-war 5 http://www.veterans.gc.ca/eng/remembrance/history/historical-sheets/pow 6 Ibid. 7 http://www.efm.bris.ac.uk/het/montesquieu/spiritoflaws.pdf ! CAHSMUN 2018 DISEC Backgrounder A 3 ! POWs. Often, individuals who are not labeled as POW are exempt from the umbrella of international regulations and treaties. As the international community, putting an end to these problems is a first step to humanizing warfare. Timeline 5th Century-15th Century – The Middle Ages mark an era where prisoners are being used for economic benefits like slavery instead of being executed. 1648 –Treaty of Westphalia is signed.8 The treaty first established the rule of releasing prisoners at the end of the conflict. 1748 – Montesquieu introduces a philosophy of guaranteeing certain rights for the captured through his publication: The Spirit of the Laws. 1861-1865 – American Civil War reveals the horrific conditions of POW treatment in the U.S. 1870-1871 – The Franco-Prussian War reveal the horrific conditions of POW treatment in Europe. July 27 1874 – The Brussels Convention introduces the 1874 Brussels Declaration, in reflection of both the American Civil War and the Franco-Prussian War.9 October 18 1907 – The Hague Convention sets up legally binding laws based on the 1874 Brussels Declaration. July 28 1914 – November 11 1918 – World War I takes place. POW treatments are relatively less harsh (compared to World War II). July 27 1929 – The Geneva Convention of 1929 is signed. The Convention, building on top of The Hague, regulated the treatment of prisoners in more detail September 1 1939-September 2 1945 – World War II takes place. Legal loopholes allow the legal justification of violation of fair treatment of POWs. !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8 http://www1.umassd.edu/euro/resources/dutchrep/14.pdf 9 https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/135 CAHSMUN 2018 DISEC Backgrounder A 4 ! August 12 1949 – The Geneva Convention of 1949 is signed. Out of all the Geneva Convention, this Convention dealt with the POW situation with the most detail and even recognized some problems irregular fighters’ experience, like massacres.10 November 1 1955-April 30 1975 – Vietnam War takes place. Questions associated with U.S. POWs arise. This was mainly due to a) U.S. inability to search the battlefields for the dead and the missing and b) U.S. inability to search prisons or cemeteries in North Vietnam. June 25 1950-July 27 1953 – Korean War takes place. North Korean forces refused to recognize the POW status of its South Korean captives, consequently bypassing the 1949 Geneva Convention and enlisted former South Korean soldiers into its own forces after weeks of re-education. June 14 1967 –UNSC resolution 237 is signed to ensure further protection of POWs. 1971 – Indo-Pakistani War takes place. POWs are used to gain international political recognition. India’s release of POWs only started once Pakistan agreed to sign the Simla Agreement and recognized the independence of Bangladesh.11 August 2 1990-February 28 1991 – Gulf War takes place. The Iraqis never apologized for their treatment of American POWs. Unlike with Vietnam soldiers, American government never recognized or honored these soldiers. As a result, the American POWs were left alone to deal with the unbearable post-traumatic stress. March 15 2011-Present – Syrian Civil War shows the violation of fair treatment of POWs happening in present wars. Historical Analysis Pre 15th Century Throughout early human history, combatants of the losing side in a battle experienced slaughter or enslavement. The temperament of the victors often decided the treatment of the “prisoners”. Victors rarely spared “prisoners” unless for economic and social benefits as !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 10 http://www.un.org/en/genocideprevention/documents/atrocity-crimes/Doc.32_GC-III-EN.pdf 11 https://history.state.gov/countries/bangladesh CAHSMUN 2018 DISEC Backgrounder A 5 ! slaves. In Ancient Greece, castration was common.12 Castration remained in practice in Chinese dynasties as well, until the late nineteenth century. During the Middle Ages, religious wars took place in several occasions. Throughout the seventh century, the Islamic concept of Ma malakat aymanukum was introduced to the Divine Islamic laws of the Qur’an.13 The concept stated that female slaves obtained by war or armed conflicts to be the only persons to be used for sexual purposes. Furthermore, after a religious war, the extermination of heretics or “non-believers” was encouraged. The Crusades against the Cathars and the Baltic people during the thirteenth century is a good example of this. Like the ancient times, the concept of taking “prisoner” was uncommon. Instead, rulers often used to trade the “prisoners” for significant ransom in treasury or land. Treaty of Westphalia (1648) Following the end of the Thirty Years War, the Treaty of Westphalia of 1648 first established the rule of releasing prisoners at the end of the conflict. The treaty also allowed prisoners to return to their homelands safely.14 Clause LXIII states: “All prisoners of war shall be released by both sides without payment of any ransom and without distinction or reservation concerning prisoners who served outside the Netherlands and under other standards and flags than those of the Lords States”. 15 Charles de Montesquieu and the 18th Century Charles de Montesquieu introduced a new perspective on prisoners of war (POW). In his writing, The Spirit of Laws, in 1748, Montesquieu defined his views on the rights of POWs.16 In general, he opposed slavery and argued for prisoners’ rights.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949
    THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 AUGUST 12 OF CONVENTIONS THE GENEVA THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 0173/002 05.2010 10,000 ICRC Mission The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is an impartial, neutral and independent organization whose exclusively humanitarian mission is to protect the lives and dignity of victims of armed conflict and other situations of violence and to provide them with assistance. The ICRC also endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarian principles. Established in 1863, the ICRC is at the origin of the Geneva Conventions and the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. It directs and coordinates the international activities conducted by the Movement in armed conflicts and other situations of violence. THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 12 AUGUST 1949 THE GENEVA CONVENTIONS OF 1949 1 Contents Preliminary remarks .......................................................................................................... 19 GENEVA CONVENTION FOR THE AMELIORATION OF THE CONDITION OF THE WOUNDED AND SICK IN ARMED FORCES IN THE FIELD OF 12 AUGUST 1949 CHAPTER I General Provisions ....................................................................................................... 35 Article 1 Respect for the Convention ..................................................................... 35 Article 2 Application of the Convention ................................................................ 35 Article 3 Conflicts not of an international
    [Show full text]
  • Corporate Actors: the Legal Status of Mercenaries in Armed Conflict Katherine Fallah Katherine Fallah Is Ph.D
    Volume 88 Number 863 September 2006 Corporate actors: the legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict Katherine Fallah Katherine Fallah is Ph.D. candidate at the University of Sydney, presently working as a Research Associate to the Judges of the Federal Court of Australia. Abstract Corporate actors are taking on an increasingly significant role in the prosecution of modern warfare. Traditionally, an analysis of the law applicable to corporate actors in armed conflict commences with inquiry into the law as it applies to mercenaries. As such, the rise of the private military industry invites a reconsideration of the conventional approach to mercenaries under international law. This article critically surveys the conventional law as it applies to mercenaries, and considers the extent to which corporate actors might meet the legal definitions of a ‘‘mercenary’’. It demonstrates that even mercenaries receive protection under international humani- tarian law. The debate about the definition and status of mercenaries is not new. It is one which has provoked a polarized response from different groups of nations, with some arguing that mercenary activity should be prohibited outright, and others contending that mercenaries should not receive any differential treatment under international law. In the second half of the twentieth century, objectionsto mercenary activity were grounded in concerns about preserving the right of post-colonial states to self-determination. This approach is reflected in the language adopted by the United Nations in its persistent consideration of the use of mercenaries ‘‘as a means of violating human rights and impeding the exercise 599 K. Fallah – Corporate actors: the legal status of mercenaries in armed conflict of the right of peoples to self-determination’’.1 Until recently, legal consideration of corporate actors in armed conflict was limited to the question of mercenaries.
    [Show full text]
  • Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols International Humanitarian Law April 2011
    Summary of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and Their Additional Protocols International Humanitarian Law April 2011 Overview: Protecting the Byzantine Empire and the Lieber Code The Red Cross Vulnerable in War used during the United States Civil War. and International International humanitarian law (IHL) is The development of modern Humanitarian Law a set of rules that seek for humanitarian international humanitarian law is The Red Cross and the Geneva reasons to limit the effects of armed credited to the efforts of 19th century Conventions were born when Henry conflict. IHL protects persons who are Swiss businessman Henry Dunant. In Dunant witnessed the devastating not or who are no longer participating in 1859, Dunant witnessed the aftermath consequences of war at a battlefield hostilities and it restricts the means and in Italy. In the aftermath of that battle, of a bloody battle between French methods of warfare. IHL is also known Dunant argued successfully for the and Austrian armies in Solferino, Italy. as the law of war and the law of armed creation of a civilian relief corps to The departing armies left a battlefield respond to human suffering during conflict. littered with wounded and dying men. conflict, and for rules to set limits on A major part of international Despite Dunant’s valiant efforts to how war is waged. humanitarian law is contained in the mobilize aid for the soldiers, thousands Inspired in part by her work in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 that died. Civil War, Clara Barton would later have been adopted by all nations in found the American Red Cross and In “A Memory of Solferino,” his book also advocate for the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Private Military Companies Under International Humanitarian Law
    Chapter 7 — Private military companies under international humanitarian law Louise Doswald-Beck Private military companies (PMCs) frequently operate in situations of armed conflict, whether international or non-international. They are sometimes hired by a state party to a conflict, less often by a non-state party to an internal armed conflict or by a company seeking to protect its operations in a country where a conflict is taking place. Although PMCs are a relatively new phenomenon, the participation in armed conflicts of persons that are not officially members of the regular armed forces is far from new. International humanitarian law (also known as the “law of war” or the “law of armed conflict”) has extensive rules relating to such persons, whether it be their status and treatment upon capture, the use of force by or against them as well as state or individual responsibility for their actions. Though there is specific reference to mercenaries in international humanitarian law (IHL), there is no such reference to PMCs either in IHL treaties nor are they specifically regulated in customary international law. It is true, then, to say that there is no discrete regulation of PMCs as such, but not accurate to say that there is no law applicable to them at all. Depending on the circumstances, specific aspects of established law will apply. Some issues, however, remain unclear in the law, which future state practice may resolve. This chapter will examine existing law and its application to PMCs. Certain issues commonly raised when considering regulation are not actually relevant to IHL. These are, in particular, the name of the company — in particular whether it calls itself a private military or a security company — and whether such companies are involved in so-called “offensive” or “defensive” operations.1 Any attempt at differentiating between companies on this basis would be counter-productive for IHL.
    [Show full text]
  • 4434 002 Updated Commentary on the Third Geneva Convention of 1949
    UPDATED COMMENTARY ON THE THIRD GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1949 NEW FROM THE INTERNATIONAL COMMITTEE OF THE RED CROSS In 2011, the International Committee The treaty also contains the articles com- of the Red Cross (ICRC) and a team of mon to all the Conventions, setting out the renowned experts embarked on a major obligation to respect and ensure respect for project: updating the Commentaries on the Conventions and defining minimum the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their rules applicable in non-international Additional Protocols of 1977, which date armed conflicts. In addition, it requires back to the 1950s and 1980s respectively. States to establish universal jurisdiction Since then, the Geneva Conventions and over grave breaches and to suppress all Protocols have been put to the test, and other violations of the Convention. there have been significant developments in how they are applied and interpreted This updated Commentary takes into in practice. The new Commentaries seek account developments in law and practice to document these developments and over the past six decades gleaned from provide up-to-date interpretations. State practice, case law, legal writings and the ICRC archives. It has undergone This third volume is an article-by- an extensive peer review by practitioners article commentary on the Third Geneva and academics from around the world. Convention, which is a foundational text It is an essential resource for anyone for international humanitarian law (IHL). dealing with IHL. It contains rules for the protection of pris- oners of war who fall into enemy hands All six volumes of the updated Commen- during an international armed conflict.
    [Show full text]
  • The Legal Situation of “Unlawful/Unprivileged Combatants”
    RICR Mars IRRC March 2003 Vol. 85 No 849 45 The legal situation of “unlawful/unprivileged combatants” KNUT DÖRMANN* While the discussion on the legal situation of unlawful combatants is not new, it has nevertheless become the subject of intensive debate in recent publications, statements and reports following the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan. Without dealing with the specifics of that armed conflict, this article is intended to shed some light on the legal protections of “unlaw- ful/unprivileged combatants” under international humanitarian law.1 In view of the increasingly frequent assertion that such persons do not have any pro- tection whatsoever under international humanitarian law, it will consider in particular whether they are a category of persons outside the scope of either the Third Geneva Convention (GC III)2 or the Fourth Geneva Convention (GC IV) of 1949.3 On the basis of this assessment the applicable protections will be analysed. Before answering these questions, a few remarks on the ter- minology would seem appropriate. Terminology In international armed conflicts, the term “combatants” denotes the right to participate directly in hostilities.4 As the Inter-American Commission has stated, “the combatant’s privilege (...) is in essence a licence to kill or wound enemy combatants and destroy other enemy military objectives.”5 Consequently (lawful) combatants cannot be prosecuted for lawful acts of war in the course of military operations even if their behaviour would consti- tute a serious crime in peacetime. They can be prosecuted only for violations of international humanitarian law, in particular for war crimes. Once cap- tured, combatants are entitled to prisoner-of-war status and to benefit from the protection of the Third Geneva Convention.
    [Show full text]
  • Military Uniforms and the Law of War
    RICR Mars IRRC March 2004 Vol. 86 No 853 93 Military uniforms and the law of war TONI PFANNER* The use of uniforms is found everywhere. Schoolchildren often wear uniforms distinguishing them from pupils of other schools; boy scouts proudly don military-like uniforms with insignia indicating membership and rank. Bus drivers, sportsmen and women, milk deliverers, monks, nurses and security personnel of private companies all wear clothes identifying them as belonging to a particular group, service, firm or profession. They may wear uniforms of plain fabric or of a distinctive design. By its lack of variation and diversity, the uniform promotes a sameness of appearance and brings homo- geneity to an otherwise heterogeneous group of people. Other groups indicate their membership of a particular segment of the population more discreetly. Companies, institutions and administrations pre- scribe dress codes; a particular haircut or even posture shows obedience or devotion to a group, mission or goal; the wearing of symbols such as pins or badges fosters a cooperative image or national pride. The similarity in salient details distinguishes such groups from other groups or the general population. Armies both past and present have continued to do the same: their best-known distinctive sign is the military uniform. Literally, the word uni- form derives from the words “una” (one) and “forma” (form). Its general meaning is clothing in a particular fabric and with a particular design, colour and insignia, defined in regulations and/or by tradition for all members of one and the same military unit. Military uniforms are intended to demon- strate that their wearers belong to the armed forces of a State.
    [Show full text]
  • Unprivileged Combatants and the Hostilities in Afghanistan: Their Status and Rights Under
    The American Society of International Law Task Force on Terrorism Unprivileged Combatants and the Hostilities in Afghanistan: Their Status and Rights Under International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law Robert K. Goldman and Brian D. Tittemore Professor of Law and Louis C. James Scholar, Washington College of Law, American University, Washington, D.C.; and Staff Attorney, Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, respectively December 2002 The Task Force on Terrorism, established by then-ASIL President Arthur Rovine in 2001, is co-chaired by Ruth Wedgwood, Edward B. Burling Professor of International Law and Diplomacy and Director of International Law at the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies and Professor of Law at Yale Law School and by Anthony D’Amato, Leighton Professor of Law, Northwestern University School of Law. ASIL Task Force Papers The ASIL Presidential Task Force on Terrorism seeks to provide informed and informative debate on issues of international law related to terrorism through a series of essays analyzing legal issues underlying the War on Terrorism. Wherever possible, the Task Force will publish multiple essays on a particular topic to showcase differing points of view. Essays represent the opinions of the individual authors and are not necessarily the opinions of the ASIL. For permission to reprint, please contact ASIL at 2223 Massachusetts Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20008. Attn: ASIL Task Force Papers ã 2002 The American Society of International Law Unprivileged Combatants and the Hostilities in Afghanistan: Their Status and Rights Under International Humanitarian and Human Rights Law* Robert K. Goldman** & Brian D. Tittemore*** INTRODUCTION Perhaps no issue has stirred more controversy in connection with the U.S.
    [Show full text]
  • Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War of 12 August 1949
    0031-0330 irl.qxd 2.3.2009 14:19 Page 85 III GENEVA CONVENTION RELATIVE TO THE TREATMENT OF PRISONERS OF WAR OF 12 AUGUST 1949 PART I General Provisions Article 1 Respect for the Convention ....................................................... 91 Article 2 Application of the Convention .................................................. 91 Article 3 Conflicts not of an international character ............................... 91 Article 4 Prisoners of war ......................................................................... 92 Article 5 Beginning and end of application ............................................. 94 Article 6 Special agreements..................................................................... 94 Article 7 Non-renunciation of rights........................................................ 94 Article 8 Protecting Powers ...................................................................... 95 Article 9 Activities of the International Committee of the Red Cross .... 95 Article 10 Substitutes for Protecting Powers.............................................. 95 Article 11 Conciliation procedure.............................................................. 96 PART II General Protection of Prisoners of War Article 12 Responsibility for the treatment of prisoners ........................... 96 Article 13 Humane treatment of prisoners ................................................ 97 Article 14 Respect for the person of prisoners........................................... 97 Article 15 Maintenance of prisoners .........................................................
    [Show full text]
  • The Current Status of Mercenaries in the Law of Armed Conflict, 14 Hastings Int'l & Comp
    Hastings International and Comparative Law Review Volume 14 Article 2 Number 1 Fall 1990 1-1-1990 The urC rent Status of Mercenaries in the Law of Armed Conflict Edward Kwakwa Follow this and additional works at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/ hastings_international_comparative_law_review Part of the Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, and the International Law Commons Recommended Citation Edward Kwakwa, The Current Status of Mercenaries in the Law of Armed Conflict, 14 Hastings Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 67 (1990). Available at: https://repository.uchastings.edu/hastings_international_comparative_law_review/vol14/iss1/2 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Hastings International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of UC Hastings Scholarship Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. The Current Status of Mercenaries in the Law of Armed Conflict By EDWARD KWAKWA* I. INTRODUCTION Although mercenaries have been involved in the conduct of war for centuries, events in recent years have raised new questions about merce- naries and their status in the law of war.' The 1976 trial of thirteen mercenaries in Angola highlighted the phenomenon of mercenarism 2 as a central world concern. As recently as December 1989, the mercenary problem was brought to the fore again as a result of mercenary activity in the Comoro Islands. Finally, in December 1989, the United Nations General Assembly adopted the International Convention Against the Re- cruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries.' One of the most important events in the recent development of in- ternational law regarding mercenaries occurred in 1977.
    [Show full text]
  • Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman Or
    United Nations CAT/C/60/R.2 Convention against Torture Distr.: Restricted 2 February 2017 and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment Original: English or Punishment English, French and Spanish only Committee against Torture Sixtieth session 18 April-12 May 2017 Item 6 of the provisional agenda Consideration of communications submitted under article 22 of the Convention General Comment No. 1 (2017) on the implementation of article 3 of the Convention in the context of article 22 Draft prepared by the Committee1 I. Introduction 1. On the basis of its experience in considering individual communications under Article 22 of the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (hereinafter referred to as the Convention), addressing allegations of violation by States parties of article 3 of the Convention, the Committee against Torture (hereinafter referred to as the Committee) at its fifty-fifth to fifty-eight sessions in 2015 and 2016 discussed and agreed to revise its General Comment No. 1 entitled “General comment on the implementation of Article 3 of the Convention in the context of Article 22” which had been adopted on 21 November 1997 (A/53/44, Annex IX). 2. At its 59th session, in November - December 2016, the Committee began the drafting process of the revised General Comment, taking into account the recommendations for the consultation process in the elaboration of general comments made by the Chairpersons at their twenty-seventh meeting in San José de Costa Rica, from 22 to 26 June 2015 (A/70/302, paragraph 91). 3. The Committee, at its … session, … meeting held on …, decided to replace the text of its initial General Comment No.
    [Show full text]
  • Status of Taliban Forces Under Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949
    STATUS OF TALIBAN FORCES UNDER ARTICLE 4 OF THE THIRD GENEVA CONVENTION OF 1949 The President has reasonable factual grounds to determine that no members of the Taliban militia are entitled to prisoner of war status under Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War. February 7, 2002 MEMORANDUM OPINION FOR THE COUNSEL TO THE PRESIDENT You have asked for our Office’s views concerning the status of members of the Taliban militia under Article 4 of the 1949 Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War (“GPW”). Assuming the accuracy of various facts provided to us by the Department of Defense (“DoD”), we conclude that the President has reasonable factual grounds to determine that no members of the Taliban militia are entitled to prisoner of war (“POW”) status under GPW. First, we explain that the Taliban militia cannot meet the requirements of Article 4(A)(2), because it fails to satisfy at least three of the four conditions of lawful combat articulated in Article 1 of the Annex to the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) Respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land (“Hague Convention”), which are expressly incorporated into Article 4(A)(2). Second, we note that neither Article 4(A)(1) nor Article 4(A)(3) apply to militia, and that the four conditions of lawful combat contained in the Hague Convention also govern Article 4(A)(1) and (3) determinations in any case. Finally, we explain why there is no need to convene a tribunal under Article 5 to determine the status of the Taliban detainees.
    [Show full text]