The Adoption Of Geneva Conventions

Geneva Convention Articles are expounded on in FM 2-22.3, which was a change from the previous version, FM 34-52, where some of the applicable articles were just introduced. FM 2-22.3 has included an appendix covering all the articles of the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. Although, these references can be found in numerous publications, by inserting them in the manual the authors reemphasize the importance of compliance with the Geneva Conventions and also reinforce the prohibition of torture, something that was not covered in FM 34-52.

In 1864, Henri Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross, started the first Geneva Convention in Geneva, Switzerland. The second Convention was held in 1906, and the third Convention, which dealt with rules regarding the treatment of prisoners of war (“Geneva Convention” 180), was on July 27, 1929. More than forty representatives from different countries came together in Switzerland and signed the 1929 Convention (Wukovits 11). Consisting of ninety-seven articles, the document was very detailed on how prisoners of war were to be treated (11). A prisoner was read his rights and duties by his captor, and was able to communicate with his family (12). The prisoners’ food, clothing, and shelter also had to be similar to the captor’s troops (12). Articles 27 to 34 of the third

The Geneva conventions are a group of treaties on treatment on the public, (POWs) prisoners of war and soldiers who are differently concluded hors de combat, or incapable of fighting. The leading convention was admitted by the International committee for relief to the Wounded (that became the International committee for the Red Crescent and Red Cross). This convention made a treaty which was designed to protect sick and wounded soldiers during wartime. The Swiss government agreed to hold the conventions in Geneva, and couple of years later, an alike agreement to protect shipwrecked soldiers was produced. In 1949, subsequent to World War 2, 2 new conventions were added on from the original 2, and all four of them were confirmed by a lot of countries.

The US’s unilateral reinterpretation of the Geneva Conventions to support its questionable detention policies undermines respect for the rule of law around the world and puts US

It stated: “The human dignity of all individuals must be respected at all times. Everything possible must be done, without any kind of discrimination, to reduce the suffering of people who have been out of action by sickness wounds or captivity whether or not they have taken part in the conflict” (Geneva Convention 1). The second protocol of the Geneva Convention basically aimed to give a chance to the civilians in the area and made the guidelines for the minimum requirement of care known by all. The third Geneva Convention put in place stated that prisoners of war be taken care of and not forced to answer any question given to them if they are not acknowledged by the rules set in place by the treaty (Geneva Convention). The fourth Geneva Convention asserted that civilians should be protected and not involved in the fighting unless said civilian is already part of the conflict.

According to Borelli, prisoners’ legal rights are being violated today more than ever, especially when prisoners are “detained abroad” (3). Many states justify their actions based on the “legal black hole” philosophy, which claims that prisoners have no international legal rights in war. However, Borelli affirms that the rights promised by IHL and IHRL are still applicable to the detainees, citing several international committees as evidence.

The Geneva Convention impacted Global affairs by defining war crimes and how to remain humane in a time of war. The Four Geneva Conventions were created by Henry Dunant, after he witnessed a battle aftermath. The Four Conventions talk about how to treat a prisoner, how to treat civilians, how to release a prisoner, and many more things. These articles and rules helped created the “Rules” for war, and what not to do in a time of war.

While the entire world looked on at the American Civil war, both military and civilian institutions started to realize the importance of a code of ethical treatment for soldiers on the battlefield. In 1864, the Red Cross in association with the international community created the Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded in Time of War (Shaw, 2013). This document laid out ethical guidelines for the treatment of combatants and became the basis for the Geneva Conventions as we know them today. During the tumultuous events of World War I, the ethical limits of warfare were pushed and expanded in a variety of ways. Shortly thereafter, the third Geneva convention met in 1929 and produced a range of wide sweeping reforms, most notably expanding the rights of prisoners of war (Shaw, 2013).

But as these conflicts have shown, laws of war do not “restrain” conflict, but rather prioritize military necessity over human life. War law has facilitated violence, through the use of the law, violence circumvents humanism and becomes legitmized. As each decade and century goes on, we see optimistic signs of states unifying to condemn violence and signing pacts and conventions which at face value appear to be a sign of the decrease in the ever- increasing savagery of warfare. Jochnick and Norman again explain this paradox very well, in that in lie in the ulterior motives of those who formulate and practice the laws of war versus the idealistic individuals who simply call for it. Governments, lawyer, diplomats and soldiers who often oversee these conventions and pacts again prioritize their sovereign authority during laws creation. No state, regardless of their ambitions is willing to agree to restrictions to deploy the necessary military power to defend their national interests. The vital point here is national interests, not simply defending the state or its boundaries. The Geneva Conventions are often characterized as strict and non-negotiable, the Hague laws are vague and weak, enabling easy loopholes and abuses to be justified under its oversight by states. The United States, United Kingdom, and France were one of the original 26 creators of the Hague Conventions, again it is no surprise that many of the global powers of the 19th and 20th century sought create a legal jurisprudence that enabled certain concessions by other states, but also created easy loopholes that could be exploited by their hegemonic power and global influence. This also has the falls into what I had previously noted. was the Westernized notion of law and legal practices. An act

The Geneva Convention was the place where a list of rules was made to save and protect the lives of those that were involved in the war.

The Geneva Convention III had provided many provisions on the protections for prisoners of war. The provision on the prisoner of war status was meant to remove the combatant from the armed conflict. For prisoners of war, they were entitled on receiving rights on retaining their personal property, sending and receiving correspondence with family, and also receiving the material aid from relief organizations such as the ICRC. All of the right that needs to be given to the prisoners of war was consider as absolute and it cannot be

Ever since civilisation came into existence, the world has seen many wars being fought and many lives lost as a result of these. These wars have not only taken a toll on the lives of soldiers and their armies alone, but have also had devastating consequences on the lives of civilians and prisoners of war. In wake of the damage caused by the Battle of Solferino in 1859 as documented by Swiss Henry Dunant in his book, “A Memory of Solferino”, the International Committee of the Red Cross was conceptualised in 1863 and the First Geneva Convention was adopted in 18641.

In the pursuit of positive peace for the global community, certain mechanisms are necessary in order to better protect human rights and resolve interstate conflicts. Prior to the events of World War II, a cogent set of laws defining those human rights, much less violations therein were never heard at an international scale. The International Criminal Court has the role as both appellate for justice and voice for peace in the international community but has not yet resolve the contradictory ends of both roles. That contradictory end is that many countries proclaim the necessity of the International Criminal Court as an advocate for conflict resolution and peace advocacy while being resist or outright antagonistic towards the court when their own state has committed those same crimes. To the ends of defending basic universal rights, the International Criminal Court (hereafter ICC) serves that capacity when state level systems cannot or will not act accordingly.

Human rights norms – and the prohibition of torture in particular - belong to the category of jus cogens. That status means that they are peremptory norms so ´its derogation is not permitted and can be modified only by a subsequent norm of general international law having the same character’ (Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties 1969, art. 53).

Put differently, the measures in which the US went about this issue is problematic as they acted outside the legality of international law. Jocknick and Normand argue that the international humanitarian law cannot be used to “humanize war” and that they may impose states to create “effective humanitarian limits on the conduct of wars” (Jochnick, 51). They also outline the importance of understanding the events of “past legal effort to regulate war” in an attempt to reassure that mistakes are prevented and that outcomes in regards to protecting civilians can be better predicted (51). Consequently, many nations were not relatively happy at the outcome of the war on terror and how the States handled the issue.