Protocol I Explained

Geneva Conventions Protocol I
Long Name:Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I)
Type:Protocol
Date Drafted:20 February 1974 – 8 June 1977
Location Signed:Geneva
Depositor:Swiss Federal Council
Languages:
Wikisource:Geneva Convention/Protocol I

Protocol I (also Additional Protocol I and AP I)[1] is a 1977 amendment protocol to the Geneva Conventions concerning the protection of civilian victims of international war, including "armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination, alien occupation or racist regimes".[2] In practice, Additional Protocol I updated and reaffirmed the international laws of war stipulated in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to accommodate developments of warfare since the Second World War (1937–1945).

Summary of provisions

Protocol I contains 102 articles. The following is a basic overview of the protocol.[3] In general, the protocol reaffirms the provisions of the original four Geneva Conventions. However, the following additional protections are added.

Ratification status

As of August 2024, it had been ratified by 174 states.[5] The United States, Iran, and Pakistan signed it on 12 December 1977 but never ratified it. Israel, India, and Turkey have not signed the treaty.

Russia

On 16 October 2019, President Vladimir Putin signed an executive order[6] and submitted a State Duma bill to revoke the statement accompanying Russia's ratification of the Protocol I, accepting the competence of the Article 90(2) International Fact-Finding Commission.[7] The bill was supplied with the following warning:[8] [9]

Article 1(4)

Article 1(4) says:

The situations referred to in the preceding paragraph include armed conflicts in which peoples are fighting against colonial domination and alien occupation and against racist regimes in the exercise of their right of self-determination.

Jan Arno Hessbruegge, who works at the New York Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, examined the three categories listed in his book Human Rights and Personal Self-defense in International Law:[10]

Legal scholar Waldemar A. Solf opined that Article 1(4) was largely symbolic and gave party states "a plausible basis for denying its application to their situation", while the states which the article most applied to (e.g., Israel, and apartheid-era South Africa) would not sign the agreement at all.[11]

The Reagan administration declared that Article 1(4) would "grant terrorists a psychological and legal victory",[12] as it appears to grant combatant status to non-state actors, many of which (such as the Palestine Liberation Organization) have been designated as terrorist groups by the United States and other countries. By contrast, an article in the International Review of the Red Cross argues that this article, in fact, strengthens the fight against terrorism, by applying the laws of war (including all its prohibitions and obligations) to national wars of liberation. By granting combatant status to non-state actors in wars of liberation, it too requires non-state actors to follow the strict prohibitions against acts of terror (Article 13, Article 51(2), etc.).[13]

See also

External links

Notes and References

  1. Book: Cadwalader . George Jr. . Yearbook of International Humanitarian Law 2011 - Volume 14 . 2011 . 978-90-6704-854-5 . 14 . 133–171 . The Rules Governing the Conduct of Hostilities in Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions of 1949: A Review of Relevant United States References . 10.1007/978-90-6704-855-2_5 . https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/yearbook-of-international-humanitarian-law/article/abs/rules-governing-the-conduct-of-hostilities-in-additional-protocol-i-to-the-geneva-conventions-of-1949-a-review-of-relevant-united-states-references/5089B0FD7E7CF55057D76972F4F76A9E . December 2011.
  2. https://www.icrc.org/ihl/INTRO/470 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
  3. Web site: Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions (Protocol I) of 8 June 1977 . International Humanitarian Law Databases.
  4. Web site: Commentary on the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions . International Committee of the Red Cross.
  5. Web site: 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.
  6. Web site: Указ Президента Российской Федерации от 16.10.2019 № 494 . Executive order by President of Russian Federation No. 494, 16 October 2019 . 10 March 2022 . publication.pravo.gov.ru.
  7. News: 17 October 2019 . Putin Pulls Russia Out of Convention on War-Crime Probes . Bloomberg .
  8. News: Putin Seeks to Abandon Geneva Conventions' Victim-Protection Clause . The Moscow Times . 17 October 2019.
  9. News: Putin revokes additional protocol to Geneva Conventions related to protection of war crimes victims . Reuters . The Globe and Mail . 17 October 2019.
  10. Book: Hessbruegge . Jan Arno . Human rights and personal self-defense in international law . 2017 . Oxford University Press . 9780190655020 . First . New York, NY . 317.
  11. According to "A Response to Douglas J. Feith's Law in the Service of Terror -- The Strange Case of the Additional Protocol" by Waldemar A. Solf (1986), Akron Law Review vol. 20, issue 2, p. 285: "In view of the foregoing, it follows that the self determination provision in Art. 1(4) is largely symbolic and is not at all likely to present any practical problems in operations except that it automatically precludes Israel and South Africa from being parties to the Protocol, an unfortunate consequence in view of the military capability of both states in relation to their neighbors."
  12. According to "Exceptional Engagement: Protocol I and a World United Against Terrorism" by Michael A. Newton (2009), Texas International Law Journal vol. 45, p 323: "The United States chose not to adopt the Protocol in the face of intensive international criticism because of its policy conclusions that the text contained overly expansive provisions resulting from politicized pressure to accord protection to terrorists who elected to conduct hostile military operations outside the established legal framework."
  13. Gasser . Hans-Peter . Prohibition of terrorist acts in international humanitarian law . . 208, 210, 211.