Geneva Coventions: And The Reality…
Aug 13th, 2009 | 6 responses
Keeping in mind the horrors of the two world wars, a clutch of conventions were adopted six decades ago this month in Geneva, and these agreements still form a bedrock for the laws of war and the protection of non-combatants. The Economist raises important points about these in the present context.
“Do the old rules really apply in such conflicts? And if they still do, how can they be enforced more effectively, since all the evidence suggests they are not only not honoured but dishonoured in the breach? Can they be stretched to cover new threats, such as international terrorism and piracy?
“The chasm is still too wide between noble Swiss ideas and the hard reality of locations where war is hell. In a year that has already seen bitter fighting in Gaza and Sri Lanka, and a still mounting civilian toll in an eight-year-old battle against the Taliban in Afghanistan, some inevitably question whether the Geneva conventions and their later protocols are really suited to today’s conflicts.
“In any case, better than new rules would be more effective enforcement of those that already exist. For a while, after the horrors of the 1990s in Europe and Africa, there was hope that ending impunity for the worst offenders might curb the worst excesses in conflicts. Yet here the prospects seem again to be turning bleak.
“Walk the calm, well-heeled streets of Geneva and there seems little to connect this metropolis in neutral Switzerland with the genocidal slaughter in Rwanda and the rape camps of Bosnia in the 1990s, or the appalling violence lately inflicted on civilians caught up in fighting in Darfur, Chad or eastern Congo. Yet decisions taken in Geneva do have an effect, both legal and humanitarian, on people in benighted places—and the world would be much happier if the effect was far greater.”
More here…
opinions powered by SendLove.to
6 Responses to “Geneva Coventions: And The Reality…”
“In any case, better than new rules would be more effective enforcement of those that already exist. For a while, after the horrors of the 1990s in Europe and Africa, there was hope that ending impunity for the worst offenders might curb the worst excesses in conflicts. Yet here the prospects seem again to be turning bleak.”
Amen. When the world's so-called superpower officially accepts, condones and implements torture, “the worst offenders” turn out to include us. And while we worked to prosecute former worst offenders, we refuse to even investigate our own abuses. Way to go, America.
But do you think if we made revisions to the convention it would make America more willing to follow the laws, although to be honest, we should follow them regardless. There is a lot of talk among the media about what would happen if we did sign a new convention. Check out what they are saying here.
http://www.newsy.com/videos/geneva_turns_60_yea…
Here are some interesting quotes:
“The time when cruelties and atrocities go unpunished must come to an end. Let us renew
today this commitment that inspired the founders of the United Nations. Let us strongly reaffirm the
‘never again’ expressed 50 years ago”
(Statement by Austria, on behalf of EU, in the UNGA, 2 Dec.
1998)
—————–
“On the other hand, we have also witnessed many violations of the Geneva Conventions. The good news is that these violations no longer pass in silence. While in the past giving effect to the obligation to account for violations was rather the exception than the rule, the situation is gradually changing. Impunity for serious violations of international humanitarian law can no longer be taken for granted. This change in attitude has come about, in large part, under the pressure of public opinion…
“What is needed now is a common European approach to the application of IHL, with four main focus areas, namely: implementation; dissemination; advocating for humanity; and accountability. This call to action reflects an initiative taken within the European Legal Support Group, comprising the legal advisers of various European national Red Cross societies. A number of these will send a common letter to their national authorities on the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions.
“So what does this mean? In terms firstly of implementation, there should be a continued momentum within Europe towards ratifying all IHL conventions, in particular the three Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions.”
Official Statement on the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions
Address by Christine Beerli, ICRC Vice-President, London, 9 July 2009
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/html/g…
———————-
“The ICRC is also looking at aspects of Article 3 common to the Geneva Conventions that need to be further clarified. Article 3 is widely regarded as a mini Convention in itself, binding States and non-state armed groups; a baseline from which no departure, under any circumstances, is allowed. It applies minimum legal standards to the treatment of all persons in enemy hands, regardless of how they may be legally or politically classified or in whose custody they may be. We are preparing a consolidated reading of the protective legal and policy framework applicable in non-international armed conflicts that meet the threshold of common Article 3.
“The ICRC has a responsibility in ensuring that the Conventions will continue to stand the test of time. Of course it is the political and legal responsibility primarily of States, which have universally ratified the Conventions, to ensure that they are implemented and enforced.
“Ideally of course, all parties to an armed conflict, whatever they call themselves or each other, would appreciate that it is in their own best interest to apply the legal restraints provided by IHL. After all, combatants on both sides have obligations as well as rights. On the other hand, failure to prevent abuse against others ultimately removes the safeguard against similar abuse in return. The result, simply put, is spiralling human suffering…”
Address by Jakob Kellenberger, President of the ICRC, Geneva, 12 August 2009.
http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlal…
We know the terrorists don't follow them.
Why do you hate America?
jeainnj, we know that rapists don't obey the law. Should we then condone rape by our soldiers? After all, if our enemies aren't going to be lawful, moral and decent people, why should we be?
DQ, just can't help it, overcome as I am by liberal delusions like “rule of law”