2.1.2 The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols As was stated above, the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols do not define the term ‘humanitarian assistance’. Nevertheless, they contain a basic regulation of the obligations and rights of parties to the conflict and also regulate the status and the role of the providers of humanitarian assistance in armed conflicts. It is important to note that given the fact that the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols are primarily addressed to States, they do not directly confer rights or obligations upon humanitarian organizations. Rather, they describe situations in which States have to allow the delivery of humanitarian assistance to civilians under their power or through …show more content…
The Geneva Convention (IV) was adopted on 12th August 1949, entered in force on 21th October 1950 and there are currently 196 State parties to the treaty. Given the extraordinarily high number of ratifications and its general acceptance by the States and other international actors, the Geneva Convention (IV) together with the Geneva Convention (I), Geneva Convention (II) and Geneva Convention (IIII) are considered not only to be universally ratified, but they are also perceived as the cornerstone of the contemporary IHL. The position of the AP I is, however, more complicated. In April 2016 the AP I was ratified by 174 States. Although this still places the AP I among the most widely accepted legal instruments in the world , it cannot be considered as universally ratified as there is a number of States with strong military involvement in current armed conflicts or significant political power which have not ratified the AP I yet. For example: the USA, Pakistan, Iran, Somalia, Israel or …show more content…
Nevertheless, the second paragraph of the article deals with the so-called ‘right to humanitarian initiative’. According to the second sentence of Common Art 3 para 2: ‘An impartial humanitarian body, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross, may offer its services to the Parties to the conflict.’ Thus, under this provision an impartial humanitarian organization is entitled to offer its services without this being seen as an unfriendly act or as an attempt to interfere in the internal affairs of concerned subject. The Commentary to the Geneva Conventions highlights that for the offer to be legitimate and acceptable, it must come from an organization which is both ‘humanitarian’ and ‘impartial’ and the services offered and rendered must be ‘human’ and ‘impartial’ too. However, there is no explicit provision provided by Common Art 3 which would oblige the concerned State to actually accept the offer, even when it satisfies the abovementioned criteria, and which would provide details for its execution and
The Allied established the Geneva Convention to protect wounded soldiers in 1864. They amended it four times with the fourth time following some of most atrocious acts against prisoners of war during World War II. I will provide evidence of what I believe led to the modifications of the Geneva Convention in 1949 to protect POWs. I will present the reasons behind the amendment and accounts of the 6th Bomb Squadron 29th Bomb Group 314th Wing during World War II. Finally, I will discuss the modifications that resulted from these acts of violence.
Humanitarian intervention after the post-cold war has been one of the main discussions in the International Relation theories. The term intervention generally brings a negative connotation as it defines as the coercive interference by the outside parties to a sovereign state that belongs in the community. The humanitarian intervention carried out by international institutions and individual sovereign states has often been related to the usage of military force. Therefore, it is often perceived intervention as a means of ways to stop sovereign states committing human rights abuse to its people. This essay will focus on the key concepts of allowing for humanitarian intervention mainly in moral and justice in international society. This essay will also contribute some arguments against humanitarian intervention from different aspects of theories in International Relation Theory.
In order for a state to be allowed intervention into a conflict on the international sphere, they must first gain approval from all the members of the United Nations Security Council. Through this it is assumed that the reasoning for intervening are assessed, and legitimate. It should be noted however that This however has been proven to be a cumbersome mechanism to adhere to the right authority aspect as permission has never been granted by the UN Security Council to intervene in the conflict of a sovereign nation. The international community is largely hesitant to label a conflict a ‘humanitarian conflict’ as this would imply the necessity of international intervention.
Since this is true, states are less restrained by the potential risk of humanitarian consequences of their actions. However, global human rights norms do make a difference, but to what extent? This article explains that the U.S violated the fundamental norm to not target civilians on multiple occasions during the Iraq war, however it was not blatantly done; the targeting was done indirectly, and more secretive. The ability for the United States to commit these international crimes discretely, without repercussions displays the level of influence the United Nations has. However, when civilian targeting is discovered this is the point where international humanitarian norms come into play; states fear being shamed or illegitimated. Since the establishment of an international court there has been a reduction in this type of crimes against humanity. Actions such as torture during war has been significantly reduced because of its
None of the four requirements that the tribunal must meet is easily achieved, and, in some cases, success seems unlikely. Many supporters of international humanitarian law are convinced, however, that, so long as the court does no harm, it must continue to pursue its original goals. This position supports the general idea of the rule of law, without reference to the circumstances. Ordinarily, of course, justice is supposed to be above the particularities of any case. Yet the nature of the circumstances in the case of the former Yugoslavia may undermine the ICTFY's credibility and render it ineffective in obtaining justice and promoting the concept of international humanitarian law. Justice must be predicated on detachment and impartiality. But the ICTFY is essentially a first attempt at administering such justice, and the peculiarities of the test case have to be kept from contaminating the process.
ICRC. (2014, April 4th). The Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. Retrieved from International Committee of the Red Cross: http://www.icrc.org/eng/assets/files/publications/icrc-002-0173.pdf
The concept of humanitarian intervention is highly contested but it is defined by Wise to be the threat or use of force across state borders by a state (or a group of states) aimed at preventing widespread and grave violations of fundamental human rights of individuals other than its own citizens, without the permission of the state within whose territory force is applied.
In the 1800s a Swiss man by the name of Henry Dunant saw the aftermath of the Battle of Solferino. Upon observation, Henry was distraught with what he saw. In fact, Henry was so perplexed by what he witnessed that he wrote a book about it and lobbied for a conference of nations in the hope of agreeing upon the improved handling of enemy soldiers in a time of war. His lobbying inevitably led to both The Hague and Geneva Conventions. Since their conceptions in the 1800s, these conventions have been persistent in setting broader and stricter “rules” for war over time in regards to everything from ammunition and hospitals, to the treatment of both civilians and militants (human rights). These authoritarian standards that are written in black and
This essay will argue that the genocide convention is not a meaningless document, but rather weak in dealing with genocide as evidenced in the case of Darfur 2003, because of limitations in definition which need to be addressed. The convention is characterized as being problematic due to the following grounds, its definition of genocide and its furtherance’s as well as lack of enforceability and its failure to prevent genocide. Even though the statement contains an element of truth, it is too subjective and unfairly undermines the legal significance of the Convention. This paper will consider this claim paying particular attention to the legal definition of genocide, which is described by Martin Shaw as vague and incomplete. First, this essay will examine the origins and define the concept of genocide in accordance with the GC; second, it will address the case of non intervention during genocide using the realist and liberal paradigms, third, It will address the case study and examine whether or not the genocide convention is indeed a meaningless document then conclude by arguing that it is not meaningless but is in need of reform.
“On November 21, 1947, the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted resolution 174 (II), establishing the International Law Commission and approving its statute.”[2] The International Law Commission encourages the development of international law and its codification. The Commission deals primarily with public international law, but also hears private cases as well.[3] International law is applied within an international community, such as the United Nations, and functions to define the proper norms or standards for members to abide by in a collective manner. Examples of such standards could be a ruling on The Universal Declaration of Human Rights or on threats to peace within the International Community.
You may have heard of the Geneva Convention in movies or television programs. Usually, the character is referring to the fourth Geneva Convention, written in 1949(Schading, Schading, Slayton 206-14), which is relative to the protection of citizens during a time of conflict. The Geneva Conventions are a series of documents generated by the world’s leading nations that set rules that apply to all conflicts, rules that apply to certain conflicts, and rules that are based on other international treaties (Schading, et.all. 206-14). The third Geneva Convention, which is relative to the treatme...
One of most crucial aspects of humanitarian intervention is the lack of proper motives. As noted by Bush, Martiniello, and Mercer, in the case of Libya and Côte d’Ivoire the Western nations were pursuing their own economic imperial interests under the guise of humanitarian intervention (Bush). The lack of pure motives to help decrease crimes against humanity resulted in an increased number of human rights violations in both Libya and Côte d’Ivoire (Bush). In order
The complex issue of humanitarian intervention is widely argued and inherently controversial. Humanitarian intervention involves the coercive action of states intervening in areas for the sole purpose of preventing or halting the killing or suffering of the people there. (1, 9, 5) It is an issue argued fervently amongst restrictionists and counter-restrictionists, who debate over whether humanitarian intervention is a breach of international law or a moral requirement. (10) Restrictionists argue that Articles 2 (7) and 2 (4) of the United Nations (UN) Charter render forcible humanitarian intervention illegal. The only legitimate exception to this, they claim, is the right to self defence, as enshrined in Article 51 of the UN Charter. (1-472) This position is contested by counter-restrictionists, who insist that any and all nations have the right, and the responsibility, to prevent humanitarian disasters. (8-5) Despite the declaration of a ‘new world order’, the post-Cold war world has not been a more peaceful one: regional and ethnic conflicts have, in fact, proliferated. Between 1989 and 1993, for example, thirteen new peacekeeping operations were launched by th...
Although, within the U.N. Charter of 1945, Article 2(4) prohibits the use of force against ‘the territorial integrity or political independence of any state’ (U.N. Charter, art.2 para.4), it has been suggested by counter-restrictionist international lawyers, that humanitarian intervention does not fall under these criteria, making it legally justifiable under the U.N. Charter (e.g. Damrosch 1991:219 in Baylis and Smith 2001: 481). However, this viewpoint lacks credibility, as it is far from the general international consensus, and unlikely the initial intentions of the draftsmen of the charter. In more recent times, one can examine the emerging doctrine of the ‘Responsibility to Protect’(RtoP), which was adopted unanimously by the UN in 2005, as a far more persuasive example of modern legitimacy of humanitarian intervention. While not consolidated within international law, RtoP, which promotes humanitarian intervention where sovereign states fail in their own responsibility to protect their citizens, does use legal language and functions as a comprehensive international framework to prevent human rights
Magno, A., (2001) Human Rights in Times of Conflict: Humanitarian Intervention . Carnegie Council for Ethics in International Affairs, 2 (5). [online] Available from: [Accessed 2 March 2011]