the law of war requires humane treatment for military

cit., p. 4. Three were water-boarded. It grants the ICRC the right to offer its services to the parties to the conflict. Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1977 adds further to this understanding, outlining further in Article 1(4) that self-determination movements of a native population against another States colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regime (discriminating against and/or persecuting one or more ethnic races within the State) may also be considered an International armed conflict under International Law, in accordance with the principles enshrined in the UN Charter.[7]. The riots were essentially a deliberate attempt to conduct reverse ethnic cleansing against the Kosovar Serb population, in direct if belated retaliation for the Serb ethnic cleansing that had been carried out against pro-independence minorities during the previous decade from 1991-1995 in Bosnia and Croatia (see blog , (3) Unchecked ethnic cleansing in Kosovo involving the deliberate destruction or razing of homes in the cities as well as in the countryside (including the burning of entire villages and the forced displacement of their inhabitants), and targeted destruction of sites of great historical import or cultural significance to the local Serb civilian population, including multiple places of worship (one of which, like, The LOAC is comprised of international laws such as the Geneva Conventions, which, once ratified by individual Nation States, proscribe powerful and unequivocal obligations and duties on all individual members of the Nation States armed forces during any and every military conflict. They charged that Americans had committed unlawful torture. This language was added in 1949 to accommodate situations that have all the characteristics of war without the existence of a formal declaration of war, such as a. They charged that Americans had committed unlawful torture. In Rwanda in 1994 and Bosnia in 1995, UNAMIR and UNPROFOR national contingent forces failed in their preeminent mandated duty to act in a robust military fashion to protect the lives of thousands of non-combatant civilians, sheltering in UN safe areas under their command, from the hostile intent and hostile lethal force actions of Enemy forces towards the local civilian population. It was considered that this LOAC classification change would not only give more formal legal protection to the captured terrorists and extremist insurgents, but also automatically rule out any further use of enhanced interrogation techniques to extract actionable intelligence from the detainees no matter how effective or successful they were which advocates of the classification change deemed inhumane and a form of torture illegal under CIL (see endnote for a discussion on torture, and refer to American President George W. Bushs argument provided in endnote #30 above). The principle seeks to ensure that the physical integrity of captured/detained persons is not violated, that they are not subjected to any form of torture or ill treatment. In the territory of a High Contracting Party [State] between its armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of its territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to implement this Protocol. Under this Convention, civilians are afforded the same protections from inhumane treatment and attack affordedto sick and wounded soldiers in the first Convention. Specifically, it required POWs to give only their names, ranks, and serial numbers to their captors. In addition to nationally ratified laws of war (e.g. 13, 17; GC, Art. Seven new ratifications since 2000 have brought the total number of States Party to 194, making the Geneva Conventions universally applicable. Adopted in 2005 to add another emblem, the "red crystal," to the list of emblems used to identify neutral humanitarian aide workers. This blog is a brief overview of the LOAC, Customary International Law, and the challenges posed to both by modern armed conflict today. As the ultimate defenders of your State andits laws it is your DUTYto know the provisions of the law and to ensurethey are respected and obeyed. The worldwide campaign against Al Qaeda and other global terrorist networks along with their State sponsors or protectors, which began in 2001 following the 9/11 terrorist attacks, and continues in various forms against diverse Islamist terrorist entities (including ISIS) and in multiple conflict theatres around the globe to the present day, was termed the Global War on Terrorism (GWOT). 5, 7. Intelligence information is much more often imprecise than it is precise[Included in our intelligence analysis was] WMD from the last Gulf War, the [testimony of Saddams defecting] son-in-law who gave information, [and the] monumental reams of intercepted information (cited in DeLong. . Since there was no set treaty or law specifically outlining the obligations due to such detainees under the Geneva Conventions when captured by an opposing force, it appeared the problems arising from this new conflict exigency would be best guided by the customs of modern CIL notably, humane treatment consistent with the Geneva Conventions, but subject to military necessity, that of preventing additional, unlawful terrorist attacks against American citizens or those of its allies. [21] Derbyshire, 149.335 Introduction to LOAC, in Section One: Introduction to LOAC and Historical Development, 149.335 Law of Armed Conflict, ibid., p. 14. International treaties, agreements, pacts, conventions and protocols (including the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols); International customs or practices that are so consistently repeated in modern warfare that they are accepted by States as binding law, also known as Customary International Law; Common principles of law generally recognised by civilised nations; Judicial decisions of international courts; and the. [27] M. De Long (Lt. Gen.) & N. Lukeman, A General Speaks Out [originally published as Inside CentCom: the unvarnished truth about the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq], Zenith Press, St. Paul (MN), 2007, p. 68. cit., p. 4-5). receive humane treatment, to have contact with humanitarian organizations, and . In this Protocol, the fundamentals of "humane treatment" were further clarified. In 2006, however, there was a whirlwind of international legal controversy with regard to Al Qaeda and Taliban terrorists and terror-using insurgents captured by the United States and its coalition allies in Afghanistan and Iraq, and held as unlawful combatant detainees in Guantanamo prison. 37,708,430 questions answered Some highlights of these rules are: Male and female prisoners of war received expanded protections in the Convention of 1949 such as: Articles were also put in place to protect wounded, sick and pregnant civilians as well as mothers and children. But as the years went by, Saddam became much more aggressive in limiting the reach of the inspectors, and the inspections for all practical purposes ended in 1998. Some of these LOAC obligations have been so universally ratified and accepted as customary norms worldwide over the last century, that they have become extremely powerful and are now internationally regarded as binding on all military and non-military combatant forces, in all places, and at all times, during all the stages of conflict that exist on the scale between peace and war. Your email address will not be published. All cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a High Contracting Party, even if the said occupation meets with no armed resistance. Protocol I increased protections for civilians, military workers and journalists during international armed conflicts. 2023, A&E Television Networks, LLC. States comply with the practice out of a sense of legal obligation to an international norm or custom, rather than solely due to their own legal LOAC obligations or national interests.[16]. *For an excellent documentary discussing the CIAs use of enhanced interrogation techniques on captured terrorists detained at Guantanamo prison, and presenting, However, while this is a clear and generally accepted definition of torture, there is still. This way of thinking resulted in more humane treatment for those officially classified as prisoners of war. Subsequently a preventative pre-emptive war took place in Iraq against Saddam Husseins dictatorship during 2003, which: firstly, had been meeting with senior Al Qaeda leaders; secondly, was cooperating with and housing Al Qaeda members at a chemical and biological weapons-testing laboratory situated at an Iraqi base near the Iranian border (including the notorious Al Qaeda attack-planner, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi); and thirdly, was strongly suspected internationally of having stockpiles of illegal biological and chemical Weapons of Mass destruction (WMD),in addition to nuclear material from its nuclear development programme, that, given the regimes long and proven record of support for terrorism, it was feared Saddam might easily give or sell to Al Qaeda terrorists to enhance and further their attacks in America and around the world (see endnote). We strive for accuracy and fairness. To better illustrate this point, the following comprises a list of the known various terrorist plots and attacks that were prevented or stopped by the U.S. as a result of the CIAs enhanced interrogation programme during the early 2000s (among many other terrorist plots that remain classified and are therefore unknown to the general public): (1) the 2002 U.S. West Coast Airliner Plot; (6) the 2004 United Kingdom (UK) Urban Targets Plot; Furthermore, according to the U.S. Department of Defense, as a direct result of the enhanced interrogation program the CIA was also able to successfully: (Bush, Decision Points, ibid., p. 171; United States Department of Defense (U.S. DoD), Summary of the High Value Terrorist Detainee Program, Office of the Director of National Intelligence, Washington DC 20511, Military Commission Proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, 2008, http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Detainee_Affairs/, (accessed 12 September 2008); U.S. DoD, JTF-GTMO Information on Detainees, Military Commission Proceedings at Guantanamo Bay, 4 March 2005, http://www.defenselink.mil/home/features/Detainee_Affairs/, (accessed 12 September 2008)). [15] Derbyshire, Section Four: When and to Whom Does LOAC Apply, p. 2, Section One: Introduction to LOAC and Historical Development, p. 3, and 149.335 Introduction to LOAC in Section One: Introduction to LOAC and Historical Development, p. 7, 149.335 Law of Armed Conflict, ibid. I approved the use of the interrogation techniques. It renders the convicts or accused of such crimes to the jurisdiction of all signatory States, regardless of their nationality or territoriality of their crime. reaffirming this belief, the 1949 geneva conventions specifically prohibited terrorism and required humane treatment of civilians. Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions covered, for the first time, situations of non-international armed conflicts. For much of mankinds history, the ground rules of warfare were hit or miss, if they existed at all. 4 of 8) It does not justify prohibited actions (correct) It justifies the use of overwhelming force, but not wanton destruction (correct) Humanity is a principle of the Law of War that addresses the immunity of peaceful populations and civilian objects from attack. Had we captured more al Qaeda operatives with significant intelligence value, I would have used the program for them as well (Bush, Decision Points, ibid., pp. The controversy especially concerned Americas use of CIA/Department of Justice government-approved enhanced interrogation techniques to extract information from approximately 33 uncooperative detainees on plans for future terrorist attacks and the members and organisational structure of the Al Qaeda terrorist network. I directed the CIA not to use them. This. no to inflict lawful pain and suffering on a law-breaking person, who has planned, acted and desired to inflict unlawful pain, suffering and death on innocent multitudes, in order to prevent acts of terrorism and thereby save the lives and limbs of countless, law-abiding citizens? Under this classification of the LOAC, Taliban and Al Qaeda militants were not entitled to the Prisoner of War (PW) protections given to lawful combatants under Geneva Convention III, nor entitled to any protections from any of the other three Geneva Conventions (regarding lawful combatants that are hors de combat on land or at sea, and protections given to civilians), that together govern International Armed Conflict. In essence this means that, according to CIL, States acting as Detaining Powers must provide persons under their power with the most humane (human) treatment that each State is capable of providing, including adequate food and medical care, and that they should not submit those persons under their control to unnecessarily unpleasant treatment that States would not like their own military personnel or civilian citizens to undergo themselves if captured, interned or detained by another State or armed group. Humane Treatment of Prisoners. Adherence to the sanctions also gradually weakened as a number of governments France, Russia, Germany, and China, among others angled for oil contracts and other business opportunities with the Iraqis. Fresh conventions are constantly under negotiation and in the absence of such agreements States are bound by customary international law which is always evolvingThese observations are as applicable today as they were then. As a direct result of the CIAs use of the enhanced interrogation techniques on the terrorist detainees at Guantanamo, over the period of 5 years between 2001-2006, the United States is credited with having saved the lives of countless hundreds of innocent, non-combatant, American and foreign citizens from planned Al Qaeda terrorist attacks around the world. Non-International armed conflicts typically involve civil wars in which: (a) the government of a State is using its regular armed forces to fight against one or more identifiable, dissident armed groups operating within the territory of the State; or (b) armed and hostile fighting is taking place between dissident, rival armed groups within a State, that does not involve the government, but nevertheless requires the government to act to restore security and stability to the State. But as the years went by, Saddam became much more aggressive in limiting the reach of the inspectors, and the inspections for all practical purposes ended in 1998. This variation in interpretation is especially apparent with respect to, or in contrast to, practices of lawful interrogation in response to national security threats or during national security emergencies where the State is seeking to fulfil its primary responsibility and duty to protect the lives of its citizens. [25] Derbyshire, History of LOAC, in Section One: Introduction to LOAC and Historical Development, 149.335 Law of Armed Conflict, ibid., p. 35. It was considered that this LOAC classification change would not only give more formal legal protection to the captured terrorists and extremist insurgents, but also automatically rule out any further use of enhanced interrogation techniques to extract actionable intelligence from the detainees no matter how effective or successful they were which advocates of the classification change deemed inhumane and a form of torture illegal under CIL (see endnote for a discussion on torture, and refer to American President George W. Bushs argument provided in endnote #30 above).[33]. My most solemn responsibility as president was to protect the country. In sum, Non-International armed conflict (NIAC) largely concerns. Our conclusion was that they wereGiven all of this information, and given that the CIA had made a judgement call based on this information, President Bush, in my opinion, would have been negligent not to act (DeLong, A General Speaks Out, ibid., pp.66, 69). (2) The laws of war do not apply; the US military has a free hand. [10] Non-international armed conflict, ICRC Casebook How does Law protect in War?, 2019, https://casebook.icrc.org/glossary/non-international-armed-conflict, (accessed 23 April 2019). In Kosovo, despite the express aim of the security mission being to establish and maintain a secure environment in Kosovo including public safety and order, two-thirds of the NATO KFOR force was comprised of national contingents restrained by national caveat bans that prohibited them from any participation or engagement whatsoever in direct combat-related functions. Furthermore, the majority of KFOR national contingents were also prohibited by their governments from engaging in low-level riot control operations.
Roy Clark Children's Names, Articles T