Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule63
Timestamp: 2019-04-26 08:52:02+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 as an act considered perfidious, see Rule 65, Section J.
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 39(1). Article 39 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
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, § 109.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 904.
The clothing of neutral nations must never be worn by the forces of a belligerent. Nor should flags, symbols and military markings of a neutral nation be used by a belligerent. While naval ships may use such markings in operations that do not involve actual combat, no similar rule applies to military aircraft or land operations.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 510.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 705.
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.6.
Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Officers (1994) stipulates that the use of flags, symbols, insignia and uniforms of neutral or other States not parties to the conflict is prohibited “in all circumstances”.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “[i]t is … prohibited to utilize the distinctive flags, emblems or uniforms of neutral States”.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) states that “using fraudulently the emblems and uniforms of neutral States” is an unlawful deception.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) lists “fraudulently using the emblems or uniforms of neutral States” as one of several “unlawful deceptions”.
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. 103, § 371; see also p. 147, § 431, p. 222, § 222 and p. 323.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 12.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 606.
Certain types of ruses are not permitted. Warships and auxiliary vessels are prohibited from opening fire while flying a false flag. They may, however, display the enemy flag or a neutral flag during pursuit. Such conduct at sea is accepted or at least tolerated, whether the ship in question is pursuing an enemy ship or is trying to escape from it.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 856.4.
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “making use in armed conflict of flags, symbols, emblems or uniforms of the military forces of neutral States or of other States that are not party to the conflict” is prohibited and that to do so is a war crime.
At Sea. Under the customary international law of naval warfare, it is permissible for a belligerent warship to fly false colours and disguise its outward appearance in other ways in order to deceive the enemy into believing the vessel is of neutral nationality or is other than a warship. However, it is unlawful for a warship to go into action without first showing her true colours. Use of neutral flags, insignia, or uniforms during an actual armed engagement at sea is, therefore, forbidden.
On Land. The law of armed conflict applicable to land warfare has no rule of law analogous to that which permits belligerent warships to display neutral colours.
Belligerents engaged in armed conflict on land are not permitted to use the flags, insignia, or uniforms of a neutral nation to deceive the enemy.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 12.3.
Indonesia, The Basics of International Humanitarian Law, Legal Division of the Indonesian Armed Forces, 1982, § 104.
Under Italy’s IHL Manual (1991), it is prohibited, without qualification, “to use any flag, insignia or military uniforms other than the country’s own”.
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, § 9(1).
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands provides that it is prohibited “to use insignia and uniforms … of neutral States”.
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.(6).
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)(6), p. 318.
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) considers that the improper use of national signals and flags is a prohibited method of warfare.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) prohibits the use of flags, emblems or uniforms of neutral States.
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.(3) and 5.3.c.
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, § 3.3.b.(3); see also § 5.3.c.
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that the “prohibition of improper use of … emblems of nationality”, as contained in Article 39 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, is part of customary international law.
There was a consensus in favour of introducing a rule forbidding this type of abuse on the part of belligerents. It should be noted that Article 39:1 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] prohibits any form of use in armed conflict. The rule relates not only to the uniforms etc. of neutral states, but also to those belonging to states that – without being neutral – are not parties to the conflict. By this are meant states that have the status of non-belligerents.
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.1.b, pp. 31 and 32.
It is prohibited … to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict … The prohibition of use of such items of states not party to the conflict is absolute.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.11.
Algeria’s Code of Military Justice (1971) punishes the unauthorized use of the insignia of foreign armed forces.
Algeria, Code of Military Justice, 1971, Article 298.
Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), “the use during military actions of … the flag or insignia of … a neutral State … in breach of international treaties and international law” constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind.
(f) such … emblems, identity cards, signs, signals, insignia or uniforms as are prescribed for the purpose of giving effect to [the 1977 Additional Protocol I].
The war crimes provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act (1995).
(f) such other emblems, identity cards, signs, signals, insignia or uniforms as are prescribed for the purpose of giving effect to [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I or [the 2005 Additional] Protocol III.
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2009, § 15(1)(f).
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that it is a war crime to “use intentionally, during hostilities, in violation of international treaties, … the national flag or distinctive signs … of a neutral State”.
The Czech Republic’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1999, punishes any “person who, in time of war, misuses … the flag … or military emblem, or the insignia or uniform of a neutral country or another country … which is not a party to the conflict”.
(j) such other flags, emblems, designations, signs, signals, designs, wordings, identity cards, information cards, insignia or uniforms as are prescribed for the purpose of giving effect to the Conventions or Protocols.
Under Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1961), as amended in 1998, any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 39(1), is a punishable offence.
Under Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, it is prohibited, without qualification, “to use any flag, insignia or military uniforms other than the country’s own”.
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 36(2).
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) punishes anyone who uses improperly the flag, insignia or military uniforms of a State other than his/her own.
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 180.
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any soldier who, in time of war and in an area of military operations, “unlawfully displays … the flags or emblems … of neutral [States]”.
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 50(1).
Under the Philippines’ Diplomatic Immunities Act (1946), it is a punishable offence “with intent to deceive or mislead, within the jurisdiction of the Republic, [to] wear any naval, military, police, or other official uniform, decoration or regalia of any foreign State, nation or government with which the Republic of the Philippines is at peace”.
Philippines, Diplomatic Immunities Act, 1946, Section 3.
Poland’s Penal Code (1997) punishes “any person who, during hostilities, uses … flags or military emblems of a … neutral State … in violation of international law”.
Slovakia’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended, punishes any “person who, in time of war, misuses … the flag … or military emblem, or the insignia or uniform of a neutral country or another country … which is not a party to the conflict”.
Slovakia, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended, Article 265(2).
Somalia, Military Criminal Code, 1963, Article 364.
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes any soldier who “displays improperly … neutral flags and emblems”.
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 75(1).
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict … uses improperly … the flag, uniform, insignia or distinctive emblem … of neutral States … or States that are not parties to the conflict”.
Under the Syrian Arab Republic’s Penal Code (1949), the wearing by any person of an official uniform or insignia of the Syrian State or of a foreign State is a punishable offence.
Syrian Arab Republic, Penal Code, 1949, § 381.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 405.

References: § 109
 § 904
 § 510
 § 705
 § 7
 § 371
 § 431
 § 222
 § 12
 § 606
 § 856
 § 12
 § 104
 § 9
 § 27
 § 28
 § 3
 § 5
 § 5
 § 15
 § 381
 § 405