Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65_sectione
Timestamp: 2019-04-18 19:49:56+00:00

Document:
Article 37(1)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I lists “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce” 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 85(3) and (5). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.
Article 21(1) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided that “when carried out in order to commit or resume hostilities, … the feigning … of a humanitarian negotiation” was considered as perfidy.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 114.
Article 117 of the 1863 Lieber Code considers it “an act of bad faith, of infamy or fiendishness, to deceive the enemy by flags of protection”.
Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 117.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 703(a); see also § 910.
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or surrender”.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.3; see also § 9.10.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “Perfidy consists of committing a hostile act under the cover of legal protection (e.g. … feigning the intention to negotiate under the cover of the flag of truce …)”.
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. 32; see also Part I bis, pp. 46, 95 and 115.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states that “feigning to negotiate under the flag of parlementaires” is a perfidious act.
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, p. 30, § 131.1 and p. 90, § 222; see also p. 63, § 234.
Furthermore, the manual states that “abuse of the flag of parlementaires to surprise the enemy” is also an act of perfidy.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “the abuse of the flag of truce to surprise the enemy” 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 59, § 251; see also p. 85, § 341 p. 183, § 494.A and p. 222, § 222.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(a) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(a) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(a) (naval warfare).
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 14-1, § 8.
The manual further states that “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.a (land warfare), 706.2.a (air warfare) and 857.2.a (naval warfare).
Colombia’s Directive on IHL (1993) punishes “the perfidious use of … protective signs recognized under the law of war (the white flag of parlementaires, for example)”.
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book I (Basic instruction): “The following acts are regarded as perfidy: … The misleading use of … the white flag of truce”.
- feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce.
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) provides that the “perfidious use of distinctive protective signs” is a grave breach and a war crime.
Using a protective sign in order to deceive the enemy and attain an operational goal constitutes an act of perfidy. In some cases, this may be a war crime. It is notably prohibited to feign an intention to negotiate under the cover of the flag of parlementaires.
Under Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “the feigning of the intention to negotiate under a flag of truce” constitutes a perfidious act.
Misusing the flag of truce constitutes perfidy and hence a violation of international law … The flag of truce is being misused, for instance, if soldiers approach an enemy position under the protection of the flag of truce in order to attack.
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, § 230; see also § 1019 (naval warfare).
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides that “the pretentious waving of a white flag in order to propose a truce” constitutes perfidy.
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states that “to falsely claim protected status, thereby inviting the confidence of the enemy: e.g. misuse of: … flag of truce” is an act of perfidy.
The manual further states that the “perfidious use of distinctive protective signs” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime.
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War , Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states that “it is prohibited to feign a protected status thereby inviting the confidence of the enemy”, such as abuse of the white flag.
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “gives a number of examples of treacherous behaviour: feigning intent to negotiate under the flag of parlementaires”.
- the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 42 and 43, § 12(a).
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce” 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).(a).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce” 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)(a), p. 239.
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “feigning an intent to negotiate under the cover of a flag” 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: … an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce.
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, § 2.6.c.(1); see also § 7.5.c.
Likewise, according the manual, “feigning the intent to negotiate under a flag of parlementaires” is regarded as an act 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) and 5.3.c; see also § 7.3.c.
Moreover, the manual states that it is a grave breach and a war crime “to make a perfidious use … of … recognized protective signs”.
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, § 2.6.c.(1); see also § 7.5.c.
The manual further states that “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce” is an example of a perfidious act.
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) notes that “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce” is defined as perfidious conduct by Article 37 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) forbids perfidy. Thus, “it is notably prohibited … to feign a desire to negotiate by misusing the flag of parlementaires”.
As an example of “murder by treason”, the manual lists firing at the enemy while approaching them under the protection of a white flag.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 18, commentary.
The manual also 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.
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that an example of perfidy is “the feigning of an intention to negotiate under a flag of truce”.
The UK Military Manual (1958), in connection with the requirements for being granted the status of combatant, notes in particular that irregular troops “should have been warned against the employment of treachery [and] improper conduct towards flags of truce”.
The manual considers it a legitimate ruse “to utilise an informal suspension of arms for the purpose of collecting wounded and dead … to execute movements unseen by the enemy”. For instance, it notes an incident during the Russo-Japanese War of 1905, in which a group of Russians under the protection of the white flag and the red cross emblem advanced towards the Japanese army and asked for a suspension of arms to collect the wounded and the dead. It then used the occasion to withdraw completely.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 319, including footnote 1.
The manual condemns as unlawful the use of a “white flag for the purpose of making the enemy believe that a parlementaire is about to be sent when there is no such intention, and to carry out operations under the protection granted by the enemy to the pretended flag of truce”.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 416.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 10.10.1.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states that “feigning an intention to negotiate under a flag of truce” is an act of perfidy.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides that “every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence”.
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 white flag of parlementaires”.
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 of truce, … thereby causing a person’s death or serious injury”.
Under Mali’s Penal Code, “using the flag of parlementaires … and thereby, causing loss of human lives or serious injuries” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Myanmar’s Defence Services Act (1959) punishes any person who “treacherously … sends a flag of truce to the enemy”.
Myanmar, Defence Services Act, 1959, Section 32(f).
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict … uses … in a perfidious manner the flag of parlementaires”.
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, misuse of flags of parlementaires or “the killing or injuring of an opponent by means of some other form of treacherous behaviour” constitutes a crime against international law.
Tajikistan, Criminal Code (1998), Article 403(1).
A training video on IHL produced by the UK Ministry of Defence emphasizes that it constitutes treachery to fire under the cover of protection of the flag of truce.
The perfidious use … of emblems, signs, signals or uniforms referred to in Article 37 … of the Protocol [among which the flag of truce], 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 an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce” is an act of perfidy.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 409(a).

References: § 703
 § 910
 § 7
 § 9
 § 131
 § 222
 § 234
 § 251
 § 341
 § 494
 § 222
 § 9
 § 17
 § 81
 § 8
 § 230
 § 1019
 § 12
 § 27
 § 28
 § 2
 § 7
 § 7
 § 2
 § 7
 § 319
 § 416
 § 10
 § 409