Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65_sectiong
Timestamp: 2019-04-24 01:01:32+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning the improper use of the United Nations emblem or uniform which does not amount to perfidy, see Rule 60.
Article 37(1)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I lists “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” as an act of perfidy.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 37(1)(d). Article 37 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
Under Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[m]aking improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform … of the United Nations, … resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, §§ 110(d) and 111(a).
Pursuant to Article 20(b)(v) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[t]he perfidious use of … recognized protective signs” is a war crime.
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(vii), “[m]aking improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform … of the United Nations, … resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that it is an example of perfidy “to make use of the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations … so as to simulate a protected status”.
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 1.05(2)(4).
The manual adds that “the perfidious use of … recognized protective signs” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 826(d) (naval warfare) and § 902(d) (land warfare).
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 703(d) (land warfare); see also §§ 635(d) and 636(a) (naval warfare).
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations (UN)”.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.3.
In its chapter on “Maritime Operations”, the manual states that warships and auxiliary vessels are prohibited at all times from actively simulating the status of “vessels protected by the United Nations (UN) flag”.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 6.35.
The manual further states: “Perfidious acts also include the launching of an attack while feigning: … UN status”.
In its chapter on “Compliance”, the manual states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include “the perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal and other Red Cross societies, or of other protective signs recognised by the Conventions or the Protocol”.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) lists “feigning to have protected status by utilizing the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” as an example of perfidy.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides that “feigning having a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of perfidy.
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, pp. 63 and 64, § 234.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “feigning having protected status by using the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” constitutes an “act of perfidy”.
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 183, § 494.A.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(d) (land warfare); see also p. 7-2, § 17(d) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(e) (naval warfare).
The manual also considers it an act of perfidy in air warfare if a hostile act is committed while “using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … United Nations aircraft”.
The manual further states that “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [Additional Protocol] I” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.d (land warfare), 706.2.d (air warfare) and 857.2.e (naval warfare).
In the chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … United Nations aircraft”.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Colombia’s Directive on IHL (1993) considers “the perfidious use of … protective signs recognized under the law of war” as a punishable offence.
d. protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 48.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 62.
The manual specifies that the use of UN emblems and uniforms with a view to commit hostile acts is criminalized.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 115.
Generally, the manual considers that “the perfidious use of any protective sign recognized by international law constitutes a war crime”.
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 118; see also p. 115.
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 1209.
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 15(h).
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides that “the misuse of emblems or uniforms of an international organization” constitutes perfidy.
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) gives as an example of perfidy “to falsely claim protected status, thereby inviting the confidence of the enemy”, inter alia, by using the UN flag.
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 56.
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “It is also forbidden to pretend to be members of the United Nations Organization … as it is forbidden to use [UN] uniforms, flag or symbols”.
Under Italy’s IHL Manual (1991), grave breaches of international conventions and protocols, including “the perfidious use … of international protective signs”, constitute war crimes.
-UN personnel, equipment and facilities.
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “gives a number of examples of treacherous behaviour: feigning to possess a protected position by using signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations”.
- the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0414.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 502(5) (land warfare) and § 713(2) (naval warfare); see also § 1905.
The manual further states that “perfidious use of … protective signs recognised by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) gives the following example of “perjury” (perfidy): “feigning protection status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the UN”.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) , Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 42 and 43, § 12(e).
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of perfidy.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.e.(9).(e).
The manual further states that the “perfidious use of … recognized protective emblems” is a war crime.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.a.(8).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 135.c.(1).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “the feigning of status of a protected person by using signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of perfidy.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(e)(2)(e), p. 239.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 126(c)(2), p. 319.
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “feigning the status of a protected person by abusing the signs and emblems of … the UN” is an act of perfidy.
- a protected status by the use of emblems, signs and signals, or uniforms of the United Nations.
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 8.
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 41.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) considers “feigning to possess a protected status by using the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” as an example of perfidy.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 3.3.b.(1); see also § 5.3.c.
The manual also states that it is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime “to make a perfidious use … of … recognized protective signs”.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) prohibits the act of perfidy and states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of such an act.
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.3.b.(3); see also §§ 3.3.b.(1).(d) and 5.3.c.
The manual also states that it is a war crime to make “[deliberate] misuse of … recognised protective emblems ([an] act of perfidy), causing death or seriously endangering physical health or integrity”.
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) emphasizes that, pursuant to Article 37 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “the feigning of protected … status … of a member of the armed forces … of the United Nations” constitutes perfidious conduct.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) considers the “perfidious use of … distinctive signs recognized by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], in violation of Article 37 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”, as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
224 Wearing enemy uniforms or feigning protected status by using the insignia, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral States or States that are not party to the conflict is prohibited.
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 224.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that an example of perfidy is “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations”.
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.2.44.
According to the UK LOAC Manual (2004), “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of prohibited perfidy, “if done with intent to betray the enemy’s confidence”.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.9.2.
In its chapter on maritime warfare, the manual states that launching an attack while feigning protected United Nations status is an example of perfidy.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 13.83.
The parties to an armed conflict are prohibited to make use of the emblem of the United Nations except as authorized by the United Nations. In addition, it is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations and to do so constitutes the war crime of perfidy.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 14.13.
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2010), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, states: “One may commit an act of treachery or perfidy by, for example … feigning a protective status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of the United Nations”.
United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of Chapter 47A of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, 10 U.S.C, §§ 948a, et seq., 27 April 2010, § 5(17)(c)(4), p. IV-15.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states that feigning protected status by using UN symbols, emblems, signs or uniforms is an act of perfidy.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 104(3).
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the United Nations … [when] the perpetrator’s conduct results in death or serious personal injury”, in international armed conflicts.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.43.
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the misuse of … the flag, the sign or clothes of the United Nations, … which as a result caused death or serious injury to body of a victim” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 119(2).
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), in an article entitled “Perfidy”, imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, with intent to harm or attack the adversary, … uses improperly … the flag of the United Nations or of other intergovernmental organizations”.
any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach.
Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), it is a punishable offence to abuse any “protective device recognized in public international law, … with intent to prepare or to commit hostile acts”.
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 294(b).
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “the perfidious use of … protective signs and signals recognized by international humanitarian law” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a crime.
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “makes improper use … of the flag … or of the uniform … of the United Nations, thereby causing a person’s death or serious injury”.
It adds that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 37(1), is also a punishable offence.
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “Making perfidious use of … any … protective emblems”.
Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, considers that the improper use of emblems of international organizations is a war crime.
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 344.
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “using … the flag or military insignia or uniform … of the United Nations Organization, … and thereby, causing loss of human lives or serious injuries” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than ten and not more than twenty years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she improperly uses … the flag … of the United Nations with the result set out in Article 33, paragraphs 16 and 17 [of the present code, namely causing serious injury or death].
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “making improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the United Nations … resulting in death or serious personal injury”.
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict … uses … in a perfidious manner the flag, uniform, insignia or distinctive emblem … of the United Nations”.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995 Article 612(5).
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, the misuse of the insignia of the UN or “the killing or injuring of an opponent by means of some other form of treacherous behaviour” constitutes a crime against international law.
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes “the perfidious use of … protective signs and signals recognized by international humanitarian law” in an international or internal armed conflict.
Under Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998), the “perfidious use of … international protective emblems provided for in international conventions” is a war crime.
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1997, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”.
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1997, Section 3(1).
International humanitarian law in force treats these cases in a relatively complete manner, binding non-State and State actors alike. Feigning to have protected civilian status or another protected status (e.g. … member of the UN) in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary constitutes an act of perfidy contrary to international law.
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council demanded that “there should be no aerial bombings and the use of United Nations markings on aircraft used in such attacks”.
UN Security Council, Res. 1779, 28 September 2007, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
If it can be established that named individuals in the [Bosnian Serb army] used or authorized the use of vehicles which carried UN markings, this could be viewed as perfidious conduct and, if persons were killed or wounded as a result of this action, a grave breach of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] could be established.
The misuse of United Nations signs, emblems or uniforms would be perfidious in cases where the United Nations and its personnel enjoyed a neutral protected status, but not, of course, in situations where the United Nations forces were involved as combatants in a conflict.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/236/Rev.1, 21 April-11 June 1976, p. 382, § 18.
The perfidious use … of emblems, signs, signals or uniforms referred to in Article 37 … of the Protocol [among which the UN emblem], for the purpose of killing, wounding or capturing an adversary, constitutes a grave breach under [Article 85(3)(f) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I].
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 3499.
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “to pretend having protected status by the use of flags, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an act of perfidy.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 409(e).
Delegates also teach that “the perfidious use of the … distinctive signs marking specifically protected persons and objects … [and of] other protected signs recognized by the law of war” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 779(a) and (b).
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC included “the perfidious use of the … protective signs and signals recognized by international humanitarian law”, when committed in an international armed conflict, in its list of war crimes to be subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.

References: § 1
 § 826
 § 902
 § 703
 § 7
 § 6
 § 234
 § 494
 § 9
 § 17
 § 81
 § 1209
 § 0414
 § 502
 § 713
 § 1905
 § 12
 § 27
 § 31
 § 135
 § 28
 § 126
 § 8
 § 41
 § 3
 § 5
 § 2
 § 224
 § 1
 § 5
 § 13
 § 14
 § 5
 § 104
 § 268
 § 18
 § 3499
 § 409
 § 779