The Geneva Conventions of 1949_ Origins and Current Significance

8/12/2019 The Geneva Conventions of 1949_ Origins and Current Significance

1/5


2/5

med conflict, including internal ones. Emboldened by this support, the ICRC informed the Swiss authorities of its wish to convene

other diplomatic conference. Meanwhile, the participants of the 17th International Conference of the Red Cross in Stockholm in 1948

clared themselves in favour of revising and adapting the Geneva Conventions.

e diplomatic conference opened on 21 April in the presence of representatives from 64 countries, covering almost every State in the

rld at that time. According to various eye-witness accounts, no conference had ever been so well prepared. Nevertheless, it took

most four months to complete its work, which surprised the public and made the conference much longer than anticipated. However,

re was a positive feeling at the meetings, even perhaps a sense of camaraderie and frank discussion, even while the world had just

ered the Cold War. The following four conventions were adopted as a result of these proceedings:

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field;

Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;

Geneva Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War;

Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.

erall, these four texts greatly expanded the scope of international humanitarian law. Article 3 common to the four Geneva

nventions proved to be a significant victory, extending the principles of the Geneva Conventions to non-international armed conflicts,

d sweeping aside certain obstacles of national sovereignty. According to common Article 3, the parties to an internal armed conflict

mmit to respecting peoples fundamental rights. Understandably, common Article 3 was the subject of the most intense andwn-out discussions of the whole conference.

t the greatest advance of all remains the adoption of the fourth Convention, which offers civilians a similar protection to other victims

war. Described as a miracle by the then ICRC president, Paul Ruegger, the fourth Convention finally closed one of the most

ious gaps exposed by the Second World War and all other wars before it.

e four Geneva Conventions are dated 12 August 1949. This is the date on which the Final Act of the diplomatic conference to which

y are annexed was signed. At the same moment, 18 government delegations also signed the four new Conventions.

e other delegations had asked for some time so their governments could study the texts, so a second signing ceremony was held on

December 1949 in Geneva. On this occasion, government representatives signed the new Conventions on the same table which haden used to sign the 1864 Geneva Convention a highly historic and symbolic gesture.

e Geneva Conventions immediately had a huge success. They entered into force already on 21 October 1950 after the first two

fications. They were rat ified by 74 States in the 1950s and obtained a further 48 ratifications in the 1960s. The ratification steadily

reased in the 1970s (20 ratifications) and 1980s (20 ratifications). A wave of 26 new ratifications occurred in the early 1990s,

ulting in particular from the break up of the Soviet Union, Czechoslovakia and the former Yugoslavia. With the last few (7)

fications since the year 2000 the applicability of the Geneva Convention has today become universal, with 194 States party.

day the Geneva Conventions remain the cornerstone of contemporary international humanitarian law. They contain the essential

es protecting persons who are not or no longer taking a direct part in hostilities when they find themselves in the hands of an

verse party. These persons are, as mentioned before, the wounded and sick, the shipwrecked, the prisoners of war and civilians,

uding those civilians living under occupation.

e basic notion underlying the Geneva Conventions is the notion of respect for the life and dignity of the individual. Those who suffer

conflict must be aided and cared for without distinction. The Conventions also confirm and strengthen the role of the medical mission

medical personnel, medical units and transports must be respected and protected in all circumstances. This is an indispensable

ndition to be able to collect and care for the wound and sick. The principles on which these rules are based are as old as armed

nflict itself.

t, the question still rises frequently: Are the Conventions still relevant today; are they still relevant in contemporary wars?

e ongoing relevance of IHL is supported by the findings of an opinion poll that asked a series of questions about what people in

untries affected by war consider acceptable behaviour during hostilities and on the effectiveness of the Geneva Conventions. The

earch, entitled Our world. Views from the field ., was carried out by the Ipsos Agency in Afghanistan, Colombia, the Democratic

public of the Congo, Georgia, Haiti, Lebanon, Liberia and the Philippines. This survey I am referring to was specifically

mmissioned by the ICRC to mark this anniversary and has been published yesterday.


3/5

st of the roughly 4,000 people surveyed across the eight countries 75% say there should be limits to what combatants are

owed to do in the course of fighting. But when asked if they had ever heard of the Geneva Conventions, slightly less than half said

y knew such rules existed. Among them, around 56% believe the Conventions limit the suffering of civilians in wartime.

e findings reveal broad support for the cor e ideas behind the Geneva Conventions, and IHL as a whole, by people who have

ually lived in conflict- and violence-affected countries.

wever, the survey has also revealed I suppose this is less surprising - that the perceived impact of the rules on the ground is far

aker than the support for them. This appears as a strong indicator that people in war-affected countries want to see better respect

and implementation of the law.

r the purpose of analysing the question of the relevance of the Geneva Conventions, I will look separately at their relevance in

ernational (inter-state) and non-international armed conflicts and will provide in both cases some examples to illustrate their practical

evance.

en further analysing the question of the Conventions'relevance we must bear in mind that for the most part the Geneva Conventions

y regulate international armed conflicts, including situations of military occupation. While it is true such conflicts and occupations are

ortunately not as frequent as in the past, we can only observe that they have not completely disappeared either. Recent examples

conflicts where the conventions were fully applicable are the conflicts in Afghanistan (2001-2002), the Iraq war (2003-2004), the

nflict in Southern Lebanon (2006) and the conflict between Russia and Georgia (2008). Hence, to the extent that international

nflicts and occupations continue to exist and will occur in the future, the Conventions remain valid and relevant. It is therefore veryportant to preserve this precious humanitarian acquisobtained through the universal acceptance of the Conventions. Whatever

velopments may occur in the future, these should build upon these existing rules.

provide just one example of this aquis: The regulation of the conditions of detent ion has been fundamental in saving the lives and

suring the well-being of many detainees. It is on the basis of these rules in the Geneva Conventions that the ICRC can carry out its

rk in the field, including its visits to detainees. The purpose of these visits is to prevent enforced disappearances, extra-judicial

ecutions, torture and other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment, to monitor the material conditions of detention and

estore family links i.a. through the exchange of Red Cross messages.

ew figures from recent international armed conflicts may suffice to illustrate how the Geneva Conventions remain relevant for war

ims. In the course of the conflict between Eritrea and Ethiopia, the ICRC visited, in the year 2000 alone, over 1,000 Ethiopian

Ws and 4,300 civilian internees. In addition, we exchanged 16,326 messages between Ethiopian and Eritrean POWs and their

milies. The ICRC also organized safe passage across the front lines for 12,493 civilians of Ethiopian origin. In cooperation with the

rean Red Cross, the ICRC distributed aid to over 150,000 civilians affected by the conflict and provided surgical supplies to treat

000 war-wounded, in cooperation with the Ministry of Health.

raq, the ICRC visited 6,100 POWs and 11,146 civilian internees and detainees held by the occupying powers between April 2003

d May 2004. In addition, over 16,000 Red Cross messages were exchanged. Even in the fairly short conflict between Russia and

orgia in 2008, a number of POWs benefited from the protection and status conferred upon them by the Third Geneva Convention.

the basis of this Convention, the ICRC was able visit the POWs in question.

t not all the positive effects of the Geneva Conventions can be reflected in concrete figures. The real value of the Conventions lies

alone in the good they help to achieve, but maybe even more so in the yet greater evil they have helped to prevent. For example,

know from experience that the distinctive emblems of the Red Cross and Red Crescent have protected countless hospitals,

dical units and personnel as well as innumerable wounded and sick. In the recent years we unfortunately have witnessed far too

ny examples of flagrant violations of both the distinctive emblems and the medical mission, however, and this is the point I would like

make: without the rules contained in the Conventions the situation would be far worse. Worse for the victims and far more difficult

those who try to assist and protect.

ubmit therefore that the Geneva Conventions have served well over the past 60 years and that they remain highly relevant and this

tainly in situations of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation.

his assertion equally true for armed conflicts of a non-international character? From a phenomenological perspective it is

doubtedly true that these types of conflicts that are pre-dominant today. It is these conflicts varying greatly in shape and form that

have to generally deal with these days. They can be traditional internal civil wars, but they can also spill-over into other States.

ey can pitch the government against armed groups but they can also consist of armed groups fighting among themselves. They can


4/5

olve third States or multinational forces fighting side by side with the government. The situations that come to mind include, for

ample, the Darfur region in Sudan, Colombia, Eastern DRC or todays Afghanistan, Iraq, and Somalia. The Geneva Conventions

ver all of these situations. Indeed, common Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions deals with any armed conflict not of an international

aracter. That is to say that any armed conflict that it is not an inter-State conflict falls within the scope of common Article 3 of the

nventions. Although this is just one provision, it contains the essential rules in a nutshell:

t requires humane treatmentfor all persons in enemy hands, regardless of how they may be legally or politically classified or in

ose custody they may be. As a result, no one may be placed or treated outside of common Article 3, bereft of all protection.

t requires that the wounded, sick and shipwreckedbe collected and cared for.

t grants the ICRC the right to offer its servicesto the parties to the conflict. On the basis of common Article 3, the ICRC

tematically requests access to persons deprived of their liberty in connection with non-international armed conflicts, and such

cess is generally granted.

Finally, it recognizes that the application of these rules in noway affects the legal statusof the Parties to the conflict.

m this overview you can see that common Article 3 is not just an article like any other but indeed a mini-Convention within the

nventions. The International Court of Justice has called common Article 3 a reflection of elementary considerations of humanity. In

light of the prevalence of non-international armed conflicts, it remains a provision of utmost importance. As a result, with respect to

n-international armed conflicts the Geneva Conventions remain extremely relevant today. Because of their universal acceptance,

mmon Article 3 is applicable in any armed conflict not of an international character anywhere in the world.

order to fully appreciate the relevance of the Geneva Conventions today, they have to be looked at in the proper perspective. They

st not be viewed in isolation. Since their conclusion in 1949, they have been supplemented and developed by three Additional

otocols. The first two were adopted in 1977, more than 30 years ago, and the third more recently in 2005 introducing a new

tective emblem, the Red Crystal.

e 1977 Additional Protocols were drawn up essentially as a response to changes in warfare, most notably the expansion of guerrilla

rfare, and the increased suffering of civilians in armed conflict due in part to developments in weapons technology. They introduced

sential rules relating to the conduct of hostilities and the methods and means of warfare, the aim of which was to strengthen

tection for civilians. In particular, they formulated the important principle of distinction between civilians and combatants and

ween civilian objects and military objectives. They have also expanded the list of fundamental guarantees applicable to all persons

he power of an adverse party.

e 1977 Additional Protocols were also a response to the proliferation of internal armed conflicts. Indeed, Additional Protocol II was

first treaty ever devoted exclusively to the protection of the victims of such conflicts elaborating upon the protection provided in

mmon Article 3.

ile the 1949 Geneva Conventions have been universally ratified, the Additional Protocols have not. At present, 168 States are party

Additional Protocol I and 164 States to Additional Protocol II. Although this places the 1977 Additional Protocols among the most

ely accepted legal instruments in the world, we cannot be satisfied with this situation. The rules on the conduct of hostilities and thedamental guarantees enshrined in the 1977 Additional Protocols are an absolute necessity. Their recognition and application is

eded, now more than ever. Therefore, the ICRC believes that the ratification of the Additional Protocols should be a priority. We call

all States that have not yet done so, to adhere to these instruments. The universal ratification of the Geneva Co nventions, together

h their Additional Protocols, would establish a firm legal framework for the protection of war victims, wherever or whoever they may

The current situation is unsatisfactory as it creates a patchwork of treaty obligations with the Protocols applicable in some conflicts

not in others.

the request of the international community, the ICRC has tried to remedy this situation by identifying the rules of customary

manitarian law that apply regardless of the ratification record of treaty law. Yet, customary law cannot replace the legal certainty

ned by rat ification of treaties. In closing, therefore, I would like to reiterate our call for worldwide adherence to existing instrumentshumanitarian law, in particular the Additional Protocols of the Geneva Conventions.

ank you for your attention.


5/5

ument printed from the web site of the ICRC

/index.jsp

International Committee of the Red Cross

Last update: 16-10-10

The Geneva Conventions of 1949_ Origins and Current Significance

Documents

Transcript of The Geneva Conventions of 1949_ Origins and Current Significance