Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cou_us_rule5
Timestamp: 2019-04-25 17:09:32+00:00

Document:
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 5-3; see also § 1-2.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 5.3; see also § 11.1.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 11.3.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 5.4.3.
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 5.4.2.
Applying this definition to the accused, the Commission finds, for the purposes of this motion, that the accused meets the initial, broad definition of a “protected person” in that he “at any given moment and in any manner whatsoever, [finds himself] … in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which [he is] not [a] national.” But the second paragraph excludes nationals of a neutral state (such as Yemen) who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent state (such as Afghanistan) “while the state of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic relations” with the State in whose hands they are (such as the United States) … .
… [T]he Commission concludes that the accused is not a “protected person” within the meaning of Article 4 because Yemen then had and continues to have diplomatic relations with the United States.
… [T]he Commission concludes that the Defense has not shown, by a preponderance of the evidence, that the United States presence in Afghanistan was an occupation within the meaning of GC IV or traditional International Law of military occupation. This conclusion reinforces the Commission’s determination that the accused is not a protected person under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and that the relief he seeks, which applies only in occupied territory, should be denied.
The general rule is clearly as the Defense describes it: every person on the battlefield is intended to be protected by one of the Conventions. But this is true only if they meet the requirements of Article 4. The Commission concludes that the accused does not meet those requirements, because he is a citizen of Yemen, which has full diplomatic relations with the United States, and because the United States did not occupy Afghanistan. If the Commission has erred with respect to this conclusion, it likewise appears that his status as an unlawful combatant permits derogation from those rights that would otherwise apply to civilians not engaged in hostilities. He is among that unusual class of persons not protected by either GC III [1949 Geneva Convention III] or GC IV, but entitled to the minimal protections of Common Article 3 [to the 1949 Geneva Conventions].
United States, Guantánamo Military Commission, Hamdan case, Ruling, 24 March 2008, pp. 2–5.
The Geneva Conventions restrict the conduct of the President in armed conflicts; they do not enable it. And the absence of any language in Common Article 3 and  Additional Protocol II regarding prisoners of war or combatants means only that no one fighting on behalf of an enemy force in a non-international armed conflict can lay claim to the protections of such status, not that every signatory to the Geneva Conventions must treat the members of an enemy force in a civil war or transnational conflict as civilians regardless of how important the members in question might be to the command and control of the enemy force or how well organized and coordinated that force might be. Id.
This Court agrees that the lack of combatant status in non-international armed conflicts does not, by default, result in civilian status for all, even those who are members of enemy “organizations” like al Qaeda.
United States, District Court for the District of Columbia, Hamlily case, Judgment, 19 May 2009, pp. 12–15.

References: § 5
 § 1
 § 5
 § 11
 § 11
 § 5
 § 5