Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65_sectionj
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 08:57:44+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning the use of flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not party to the conflict which does not amount to perfidy, see Rule 63.
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 neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict” as an act of perfidy.
Under Article 85(3)(f) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “the perfidious use, in violation of Article 37, … of … protective signs recognized by the Conventions or this Protocol” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. Article 85(5) adds: “Without prejudice to the application of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes”.
(d) protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral or other States not involved in the conflict.
It is illegal to use in battle emblems, markings or clothing of a neutral or enemy. Combatants wearing civilian clothing or otherwise pretending to be a member of a neutral nation violate LOAC and diminish the enemy’s ability to identify neutrals and distinguish civilians.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 507.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 703(d).
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 … neutral or other states not involved in the conflict”.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) lists “feigning to have protected status by utilizing the signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral States” as an example of “perfidy”.
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 95.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) notes that “feigning to have a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral States or States not parties to the conflict” is an example of perfidy.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “feigning having protected status by using the signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral States or other States not parties to the conflict” 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), p. 7-2, § 17(d) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(e) (naval warfare).
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that the use of the emblems or uniforms of third States for hostile purposes is criminalized.
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides that “the misuse of … the uniform and insignia of other states” constitutes perfidy.
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 States which are not parties to the conflict”.
- the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of States not parties to the conflict.
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).
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) gives the following example of “perjury” (perfidy): “feigning protection status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms … of a neutral [state] or state not being a party to the conflict”.
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 … neutral States” is an example of perfidy.
The manual also prohibits the following acts as being perfidious: “Carrying out hostile operations of any kind, even aerial reconnaissance, under cover of aircraft registration numbers or markings belonging to neutral countries”.
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral States” 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, § 126(c)(1), p. 319.
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 156(b)(2), p. 339.
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “feigning the status of a protected person by abusing the signs and emblems of … neutral States or States which are not party to the conflict” is an act of perfidy.
When planning and conducting combat operations it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between perfidy and ruses of war. Perfidy means committing a hostile act under the cover of a right to protection by feigning: … a protected status by the use of emblems, signs and signals, or uniforms … of neutral or other states not parties to the armed conflict.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides that “simulating possession of a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral States or other States which are not Parties to the conflict” is an example of perfidy.
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 … neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict” is an example of such an act.
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers as an example of perfidious conduct “the feigning of protected status … of a member of the armed forces of a neutral state”.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) prohibits perfidy. Thus, “it is notably forbidden … to abuse a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms … of nations not involved in the conflict”.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 39.
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 … neutral or other States not Parties to the international armed conflict”.
According to the UK LOAC Manual (2004), “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict” is an example of prohibited perfidy “if done with intent to betray the enemy’s confidence”.
Article 19 of the Hague Rules 1923 prohibited the use of false external marks on aircraft. Additional Protocol I now prohibits the use at any time by any party to a conflict of the flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other states not party to the conflict. The use of flags, military emblems, insignia or uniforms of an adverse party is prohibited “while engaging in attacks or in order to shield, favour or impede military operations”.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 12.10.4.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 12.54–12.54.1.
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 protected status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of … a neutral State or a State not party to the conflict”.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states that feigning a protected status by the use of symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms of neutral States or other States not parties to the conflict is an act of perfidy.
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 … flags or uniforms of neutral States”.
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 neutral States … or of other States which are not parties to the conflict”.
The perfidious use … of emblems, signs, signals or uniforms referred to in Article 37 … of the Protocol [among which the signs, emblems or uniforms of neutral States or other States not parties to the conflict], for the purpose of killing, injuring or capturing an adversary, constitutes a grave breach under [Article 85(3)(f) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I].
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 neutral States” is an act of perfidy.

References: § 507
 § 703
 § 494
 § 9
 § 17
 § 81
 § 502
 § 713
 § 12
 § 126
 § 156
 § 12