Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule46
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:48:41+00:00

Document:
Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 23(d).
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 40.
Article 38 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 40) submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH included the prohibition “to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith and to conduct hostilities on such basis” in the article concerning the safeguarding of the enemy hors de combat.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 13.
In view of its importance, the prohibition was the subject of a separate article on the basis of a proposal by Afghanistan, supported by Algeria, Belarus, Belgium, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.29, 7 March 1975, p. 277, § 38 (Afghanistan), p. 279, § 51 (Algeria), p. 280, § 54 (Belarus), p. 282, § 64 (Belgium), p. 284, § 73 (United Kingdom), p. 283, § 66 (USSR), p. 280, § 55 (Venezuela) and p. 284, § 71 (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).
This separate article (now Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I) was adopted by consensus.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 4(1). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.
Draft Article 22 was adopted by consensus in Committee III of the CDDH.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/SR.49, 4 June 1976, p. 108, § 6.
Eventually, however, the prohibition to order that there shall be no survivors was placed, and adopted, in another article and the rest of draft Article 22 was deleted by consensus in the plenary.
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xii) and (e)(x) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[d]eclaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(xii) and (e)(x).
Article 13(d) of the 1874 Brussels Declaration states that “[t]he declaration that no quarter will be given” is especially forbidden.
Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874. Article 13(d).
Article 9 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides: “It is forbidden … (b) to declare in advance that quarter will not be given, even by those who do not ask it for themselves”.
The Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations between Belligerents, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 August 1913, Article 17(3).
Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including “directions to give no quarter”.
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, § 43.
Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 6.5.
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xii) and (e)(x), “[d]eclaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(xii) and (e)(x).
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 416.
It is prohibited to order that no prisoners will be taken, threaten an enemy that such an order will be given or conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken. Ambiguous orders, such as, “take that objective at any cost” should be avoided.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 905.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 706 (land warfare); see also § 835 (air warfare).
7.7 It is prohibited to order that no prisoners will be taken, threaten an enemy that such an order will be given or conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken. Ambiguous orders, such as, “take that objective at any cost”, should be avoided.
• to declare that no quarter will be given.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 7.7 and 13.29; see also § 8.39.
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states that it is prohibited “to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on such a basis”.
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
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. 16; see also Part I bis, pp. 32, 41, 81 and 94.
The Regulations also states: “Prohibited methods of combat: … [include] denial of quarter”.
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten the adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on such a basis. Such a prohibition has existed since the establishment … of Christian morality, through the doctrine of International Humanitarian Law, to the recent international diplomatic conferences.
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. 63, § 233; see also p. 30, § 132 and p. 149, § 531.
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, § 493.A; see also p. 103, § 371, p. 147, § 432, p. 256, § 612, and p. 323.
It is prohibited to deny quarter. In other words, it is unlawful to order, imply or encourage that no prisoners will be taken; to threaten an adversary party that such an order will be given; or to conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 15 (land warfare); see also p. 7-3, § 20 (air warfare).
The manual also considers that “declaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 20(d).
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-3, § 20.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 433.3.
It is prohibited to deny quarter. In other words, it is unlawful to order, imply or encourage that no prisoners will be taken; to threaten an adverse party that such an order will be given; or to conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 608.1.
It is prohibited to deny quarter. In other words it is unlawful to order, imply or encourage that no prisoners are to be taken; to threaten an adverse party that such an order will be given; or to conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 707.1.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that “declaring that no quarter will be given” constitutes a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1712.
The “denial of quarter” is prohibited. In other words, it is unlawful to refuse to accept someone’s surrender or to order that no PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees will be taken. It is also illegal as well as operationally unsound to make threats to opposing forces that no PWs or detainees will be taken.
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police): “The following prohibitions must be respected: … ordering that there should be no survivors, threatening the enemy therewith or conducting operations on this basis”.
The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states: “During combat, it is also prohibited for servicemen to … refuse unconditional surrender”.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “giving orders that there is no quarter” is prohibited and that to do so is a war crime.
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that it is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 49.
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
It is prohibited not to give quarter. In other words, it is not lawful to order or to make understood that one will take no prisoners, to threaten an adversary with such an order, or to conduct hostilities on the basis of the principle that no prisoners will be taken.
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, pp. 31, 33, 45 and 49.
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “It is prohibited for combatants to … refuse unconditional surrender or declare that no quarter will be given”.
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended in 1982, provides that, under international conventions, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 4.5.
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. 103.
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, § 450.
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 15(c).
[T]he prohibition of the methodology that there shall be no mercy for those captured during the hostilities or threats that none shall be captured alive serve the need to restrict casualties to the lowest possible level dictated by military necessity, even under the harsh conditions of armed conflict, avoiding exaggerations and outrages with a view to achieve a humane dimension against the inherent barbaric nature of war.
Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 5, § 7.
Guinea’s Disciplinary Regulations (2012) states: “Military personnel in combat are prohibited from … refusing an unconditional surrender”.
A war of annihilation without compromise leaves the other side no alternative but to fight to the bitter end. A soldier confronted with a cruel enemy will prefer to fight to the death rather than surrender to someone who will put him to death in any case. A country fighting a brutal and violent enemy will choose to invest all of its resources in the war effort, rather than putting a stop to it. In fact, the military interest tends towards getting the enemy to surrender and breaking it instead of war “to the bitter end”, even regardless of the morality thereof, since, from the military point of view, it is clearly more desirable for the enemy’s soldiers to surrender rather than continue fighting an enemy soldier against whom additional effort has to be invested in order if he is to be overcome.
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 9.
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 8.
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 389(B).
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(m).
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
- The life of an enemy who surrenders must be spared.
0408. Quarter means that an opponent must be given the opportunity to surrender and thereby survive. It is thus forbidden to order that no one shall survive, to threaten an opponent with this, or to wage war on this basis.
An adversary should be given the opportunity to surrender, even if there is doubt whether the person concerned is a combatant. Moreover, in the particular situation where combatants are taken as prisoners of war under battle conditions, when evacuation is not practicable, they should be released, and the necessary precautions taken to ensure their safety. One example might be a small reconnaissance unit which has ventured far into enemy territory.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0408 and 0709.
It is prohibited at all times to refuse quarter to the sick, wounded and shipwrecked no longer participating in the combat, or to persons who have laid down their arms and wish to surrender. It is also prohibited to give or carry out an order in this sense.
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1050.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 503(1) (land warfare); see also § 612(1) (air warfare).
The manual also provides that “declaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1704(2)(d).
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1811.
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) provides that it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 40, § 5(l)(vii).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War considers that “informing soldiers of the enemy that they will not be protected unless they surrender immediately” is an “illegitimate tactic”.
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 14(a)(4).
Nigeria’s Soldiers’ Code of Conduct states that it is “prohibited … to declare that no mercy will be shown”.
Nigeria, Code of Conduct for Combatants, “The Soldier’s Rules”, Nigerian Army, undated, § 12(g).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.d.(5).
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(d)(5), p. 238; see also § 28(b), p. 43.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) states that “ordering that there shall be no survivors, threatening the adversary therewith or conducting the hostilities according to this decision” is a prohibited method of warfare.
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 5(p).
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that it is prohibited to order that there will be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on this basis.
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, § 2.3.b.(3); see also §§ 3.3.b.(5) and 7.3.a.(6).
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.(5), 5.4.7, and 7.3.a.(6).
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that the prohibition on ordering that no quarter shall be granted as contained in Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I is part of customary international law.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 20.
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states that it is prohibited “to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on such a basis”.
1.3.2. The following methods of warfare shall be prohibited: … ordering that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith.
1.8.5. Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include: … declaring that no quarter will be given.
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.3.2 and 1.8.5.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 117.
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Section 4, p. 12, § 2(c).
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.5; see also §§ 12.23 (air operations) and 13.29 (maritime warfare).
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.11.
d. to declare that no quarter will be given.
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, § 103.
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), giving, during an armed conflict, the “order … not to spare anyone’s life” constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind.
Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 391(3).
Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) considers “any war crime within the meaning of the instrument of appointment of the Board of Inquiry [set up to investigate war crimes committed by enemy subjects]” as a war crime, including directions to give no quarter.
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.50, p. 334.
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.91, p. 366.
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including declaring or ordering that there are to be no survivors with the intention of threatening an adversary or conducting hostilities on this basis, both in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.50 and 268.91.
Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), whoever “orders that there be no surviving enemy soldiers in a fight, or whoever fights against the enemy on such basis” commits a war crime.
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 158(3).
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 438(3).
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 177(3).
j) declaring that no quarter will be given.
Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(l) and (D)(j).
10°. Declaring that no quarter is given.
Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(12°) and (5)(10°).
China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “ordering wholesale slaughter” constitutes a war crime.
China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(14).
Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), whoever “orders that in a battle there shall be no surviving members of the enemy or whoever engages in a battle against the enemy with the same objective” commits a war crime.
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 161(3).
Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by whomever “in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war or armed conflict, orders that in a battle there shall be no surviving members of the enemy or who engages in a battle against the enemy with the same objective”.
Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 161(3).
Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), it is a punishable offence to order to kill or wound enemies who have surrendered or laid down their arms or, for any other reason, are incapable of defending or have ceased to defend themselves.
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 287(a) and (d).
Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “announces that no mercy shall be given … or uses other means of warfare prohibited in international law” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”.
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-8.
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute which is not explicitly mentioned in the Code, such as “declaring that no quarter will be given” 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 a non-international armed conflict, “orders or threatens, as a commander, that no quarter will be given”.
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 11(1)(6).
Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(M) and (4)(J).
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 40, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 4(1), are punishable offences.
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides that it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 35.
Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the “order to kill … persons who have surrendered by giving up their arms or having no means to put up resistance, the wounded, sick persons or the crew of a sinking ship” during an international armed conflict or occupation is a war crime.
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 333.
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “declaring that there shall be no quarter” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(12).
The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “directions to give no quarter” in its list of war crimes.
Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “declaring that no quarter will be given” constitutes a crime, whether in time of international or non-international armed conflict.
Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 5(5)(s) and 6(3)(g).
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xii) and (e)(x) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 106(h).
6. As a superior orders or threatens to order that no quarter will be given.
6. As a superior orders or threatens to order that no quarter shall be given.
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 91(6).
The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of “[t]hreatening or ordering, as a commander, that no quarter will be given” in both international and non-international armed conflicts.
Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(1)(6).
10. declaring that no quarter will be given.
Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(11) and (d)(10).
Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “whoever orders … that there be no survivors among the aggressor’s soldiers, or … whoever wages war against the aggressor on this basis” commits a war crime.
Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 377(2).
Spain’s Royal Ordinance for the Armed Forces (1978) provides that it is prohibited to declare that a war will be waged without quarter.
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states: “Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict … orders that no quarter will be given, shall be punished with ten to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to a penalty for the results of such acts”.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 610.
f. orders, by virtue of their power of command, that no quarter be given or threatens the enemy therewith.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and Article 112c (1)(f).
Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264g (1)(f).
Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (e)(x) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
20. Declaring that no quarter will be given.
Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.20.
Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, “a person who orders … that no enemy troops should survive combat or who fights the enemy for that purpose” commits a war crime.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 146(3).
The commentary on the Penal Code specifies that “in the case of an armed conflict, it is irrelevant for this act whether it is international in nature or whether it is a civil war”.
In the Abbaye Ardenne case in 1945, the Canadian Military Court at Aurich convicted a German commander of having incited and counselled his troops to deny quarter to Allied troops.
Canada, Military Court at Aurich, Abbaye Ardenne case, Judgment, 28 December 1945.
In a case concerning conscientious objection in 1992, Colombia’s Constitutional Court considered that a superior’s order that would cause “death outside combat” would clearly lead to a violation of human rights and of the Constitution and as such could be disobeyed.
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. T-409, Judgment, 8 June 1992.
In 1995, in its examination of the constitutionality of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, Colombia’s Constitutional Court considered that Article 4 of the Protocol, including the prohibition on ordering that there shall be no survivors, perfectly met constitutional standards. The Constitution contained provisions on the protection of human life and dignity.
In 1995, in its examination of the constitutionality of a military regulation which provided that subordinates were obliged to obey a superior’s order that they considered unlawful if the order was confirmed in writing, Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated that an order that would cause death outside combat would clearly be a violation of human rights and of the Constitution.
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-578, Judgment, 4 December 1995.
All the prisoners are to be massacred; the wounded, armed or not, are to be massacred; even men captured in large organised units are to be massacred. No enemy must remain alive behind us.
[He] acted in the mistaken idea that General Stenger, at the time of the discussion near the chapel, issued the order to shoot the wounded. He was not conscious of the illegality of such an order, and therefore considered that he might pass on the supposed order to his company, and indeed must do so.
So pronounced a misconception of the real facts seems only comprehensible in view of the mental condition of the accused … But this merely explains the error of the accused; it does not excuse it … Had he applied the attention which was to be expected from him, what was immediately clear to many of his men would not have escaped him, namely, that the indiscriminate killing of all wounded was a monstrous war measure, in no way to be justified.
In the Eck case (The Peleus Trial) before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1945, the commander of a German submarine was charged with ordering the killing of survivors of a sunken Greek merchant vessel. He was found guilty and the Judge Advocate ruled that it must have been obvious to the most rudimentary intelligence that it was not a lawful command.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Hamburg, Eck case (The Peleus Trial), 20 October 1945.
In the Von Falkenhorst case before the UK Military Court at Brunswick in 1946, the accused, Commander-in-Chief of the German armed forces in Norway, was found guilty of having incited, in two orders of October 1942 and June 1943, members of the forces under his command not to accept quarter or to give quarter to Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen taking part in commando operations. Furthermore he had ordered that, in the event of the capture of any Allied soldiers, sailors or airmen taking part in such operations, they should be killed after capture.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Brunswick, Von Falkenhorst case, Judgment, 2 August 1946.
In the Wickman case before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1946, the accused was found guilty of “committing a war crime … in that he … in violation of the laws and usages of war gave orders to [his] platoon that no prisoners were to be taken and that any prisoners taken were to be shot”.
United Kingdom, Military Court at Hamburg, Wickman case, Judgment, 26 November 1946.
In the Von Ruchteschell case before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1947, the accused was charged, inter alia, of having ordered that survivors on life-rafts be fired at. He was found not guilty of this charge.
In the Le Paradis case before the UK Court at Hamburg-Altona in 1949, a German officer was convicted of the killing by his troops, on his orders, of members of a UK regiment which had surrendered.
United Kingdom, Court No. 5 of the Curiohaus, Hamburg-Altona, Le Paradis case, 25 October 1948; see also cases cited in Lassa Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, Disputes, War and Neutrality, Longmans, Green and Co., London/New York/Toronto, Seventh edition, Hersch Lauterpacht (ed.), 1952, §§ 69 and 109; Eric David, Principes de droit des conflits armés, Bruylant, Brussels, Second edition, 1999, § 2.167; Christopher Greenwood, The Customary Law Status of the 1977 Geneva Protocols, in Astrid J. M. Delissen and Gerard J. Tanja (eds.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead. Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1991, p. 106.
Australia, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 30 October 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/22, p. 52.
At some point during the Chinese civil war, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) headquarters made an announcement stating that the PLA would not kill any officers or soldiers of the Nationalist Army who laid down arms. According to the Report on the Practice of China, the policy was implemented in practice.
China, Announcement of the People’s Liberation Army, 10 October 1947, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 4, The People’s Press, Beijing, p. 1238; Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 2.1.
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) do not conduct a policy of “no quarter”.
In 1990, in a letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General in the context of the Gulf War, Kuwait condemned the instructions given and measures taken by the Iraqi authorities, inter alia, “the execution of every Kuwaiti military man should he fail to surrender to Iraqi forces”. These were qualified as “savage practices”.
Kuwait, Letter dated 24 September 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21815, 24 September 1990.
75. Somalia has not ratified AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II] and it is therefore not directly applicable to Somalia as a matter of treaty law. The Government is aware that many provisions of AP II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia. Such provisions include Article 4 providing guarantees to persons taking no active part in hostilities … due to the fact that these norms are reflected in Common Article 3 of the  Geneva Conventions.
76. The Government forces are also bound to respect customary IHL rules relating to the prohibited methods and means of warfare including … denial of quarter.
Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, 11 April 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, §§ 75–76.
In 1995, during a debate in the House of Lords in 1995, the UK Minister of State, Home Office, criticized the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill introduced by a private member for categorizing as grave breaches certain acts not treated as such in the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including threatening an adversary that there shall be no survivors.
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Minister of State, Home Office, Hansard, 25 May 1995, Vol. 564, cols. 1083–1084.
The Commission has likewise found no evidence that the executions were ordered by higher levels of command, or that they were carried out in accordance with an ERP [Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo] or FMLN policy of killing prisoners. FMLN acknowledged the criminal nature of the incident and detained and tried the accused.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 399.
In a report submitted to the 21st International Conference of the Red Cross in 1969, the ICRC considered that the rule prohibiting the declaration that no quarter will be given was implicit in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It stated, however, that the Conventions focused on the protection of combatants once they had fallen into enemy hands, whereas the prohibition of denial of quarter applied from the time the intention to surrender had been declared.
ICRC, Report on the Reaffirmation and Development of Laws and Customs Applicable in Armed Conflicts, May 1969, submitted to the 21st International Conference of the Red Cross, Istanbul, 6–13 September 1969, p. 78.
Any order of “liquidation” is prohibited, whether it concerns commandos, political or any other kind of commissars, irregular troops or so-called irregular troops, saboteurs, parachutists, mercenaries or persons to be considered as mercenaries, or other cases.
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 1595.
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § II, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 504.
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § II, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1309.
In 1997, in a working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC proposed that “to declare that there shall be no survivors” be listed as a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts, subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.
ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, §§ 2(vii) and 3(xv).
1. Orders to combatants that there shall be no survivors, such threats to combatants or direction to conduct hostilities on this basis.
A. Orders to combatants that there shall be no survivors, such threats to combatants or direction to conduct hostilities on this basis.

References: § 38
 § 51
 § 54
 § 64
 § 73
 § 66
 § 55
 § 71
 § 6
 § 43
 § 416
 § 905
 § 706
 § 835
 § 8
 § 233
 § 132
 § 531
 § 493
 § 371
 § 432
 § 612
 § 15
 § 20
 § 20
 § 20
 § 433
 § 608
 § 707
 § 1712
 § 4
 § 450
 § 7
 § 8
 § 389
 § 14
 § 1050
 § 503
 § 612
 § 1704
 § 1811
 § 5
 § 14
 § 12
 § 27
 § 28
 § 28
 § 5
 § 2
 § 2
 § 117
 § 2
 § 5
 § 15
 § 103
 § 268
 § 268
 § 11
 § 106
 § 2
 § 399
 § 1595