Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz (New page: Offered for signature in 1977, '''Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions''' extended prisoner of war protection to fighters that do not wear insignia and hide in a civilian po...) |
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{subpages}} | |||
Offered for signature in 1977, '''Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions''' extended [[prisoner of war]] protection to fighters that do not wear insignia and hide in a civilian population, which its proponents argued were a military necessity for insurgent groups such as the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]]. Extending POW coverage was consistent with the views of international human rights activists, and also fit a "no gaps" model that appealed to the Red Cross. Its Part IV does contain language forbidding attacks against civilians.<ref name=GC1977-I>{{citation | Offered for signature in 1977, '''Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions''' extended [[prisoner of war]] protection to fighters that do not wear insignia and hide in a civilian population, which its proponents argued were a military necessity for insurgent groups such as the [[Palestine Liberation Organization]]. Extending POW coverage was consistent with the views of international human rights activists, and also fit a "no gaps" model that appealed to the Red Cross. Its Part IV does contain language forbidding attacks against civilians.<ref name=GC1977-I>{{citation | ||
| url = http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/470 | | url = http://www.icrc.org/IHL.nsf/FULL/470 | ||
Revision as of 10:37, 26 April 2009
Offered for signature in 1977, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions extended prisoner of war protection to fighters that do not wear insignia and hide in a civilian population, which its proponents argued were a military necessity for insurgent groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization. Extending POW coverage was consistent with the views of international human rights activists, and also fit a "no gaps" model that appealed to the Red Cross. Its Part IV does contain language forbidding attacks against civilians.[1]
U.S. opposition, in the Reagan Administration but also in much of the press, reflected Reagan's observation that Protocol I was "fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed" and would "endanger citizens in war." The Washington Post editorialized "we must not, and need not, give recognition and protection to terrorist groups as a price for progress in humanitarian law."[2] The argument was shared by many major powers.
References
- ↑ Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, International Committee of the Red Cross
- ↑ "Hijacking the Geneva Conventions", Washington Post, February 18, 1987, p. A18