Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule65_sectiond
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 15:12:00+00:00

Document:
Note: For practice concerning the improper use of the white flag of truce which does not amount to perfidy, see Rule 58.
Article 37(1)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I lists “the feigning … of a surrender” 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 37(1)(a). Article 37 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
Under Article 85(3) 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.
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). 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 surrender” was considered as perfidy.
Under Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[m]aking improper use of a flag of truce, … resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Article 8 of the 1880 Oxford Manual prohibits the making of “treacherous attempts upon the life of an enemy; as for example … by feigning to surrender”.
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, § 111(b).
The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(vii), “[m]aking improper use of a flag of truce, … resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 826(a) (naval warfare) and § 902(a) (land warfare).
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 505.
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1305(r).
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 703(a) (land warfare); see also § 636(b) (naval warfare) and § 910.
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 1315(r).
In its chapter on “Maritime Operations”, the manual states: “Perfidious acts … include the launching of an attack while feigning … surrender or distress, eg by sending a distress signal or by the crew taking to life rafts”.
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) lists “[f]eigning to surrender” 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. 24; see also Part I bis, p. 95.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides that “feigning to surrender” is an example of perfidy.
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) lists “feigning to surrender” as 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. 103, § 371; see also p. 147, § 431 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) and p. 7-2, § 17(a) (air warfare); see also p. 8-11, § 81(b) (naval warfare).
The manual also considers that “feigning surrender of an aircraft and then firing on an unsuspecting adversary after such surrender was accepted” constitutes perfidy in air warfare.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(b).
The manual further identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare and air warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: a. feigning an intent … to surrender”.
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) and 706.2.a (air warfare).
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … b. feigning surrender of an aircraft and then firing on an unsuspecting adversary after such surrender was accepted”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.b.
In its chapter on naval warfare, the manual states: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … b. feigning distress or surrender (e.g., by sending a distress signal or by the crew taking to the life rafts)”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 857.2.b.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 87; see also p. 108.
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 32.
… IHL prohibits recourse to perfidy with the aim to kill, injure or capture an enemy.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 12.7.
In addition, the manual states: “The following acts constitute war crimes: … treacherous request for quarter (for example, feigning surrender in order to gain a military advantage)”.
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 6.2.5(12).
Furthermore, the Summary Notes states that “the perfidious use of protected signs and signals” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime.
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states that the recourse to perfidy is prohibited, “notably the abuse of the white flag”.
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. 105.
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, § 1019.
Under Hungary’s Military Manual (1992), feigning surrender constitutes an example of perfidy.
It also states that the “perfidious use of distinctive protective signs” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime.
[I]n order to ensure that a combatant party will indeed respect those who have surrendered and will not hurt them, a ban has been imposed on pretending to surrender, i.e., to wave a white flag as deception while continuing to fight.
It is forbidden to make false use of the white flag (pretending to surrender or to be willing to negotiate while the true intention is to obtain a military advantage) so that soldiers from the other side will not fear allowing fighter[s] to live and grant them the status of prisoner-of-war.
In order to protect the “sanctity” of defence under the rules of war, a combatant is forbidden (whether on the losing side or on the side accepting the surrender) to breach the conditions of surrender by resuming combat or by breaching the agreed rules of surrender.
Under Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994), feigning surrender is prohibited.
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “gives a number of examples of treacherous behaviour: … feigning to surrender”.
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands provides that it is a prohibited method of warfare “to perform treacherous acts (for example, feigning … to surrender and then suddenly resume fighting)”.
- the feigning of an intent to … surrender.
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) gives the following example of “perjury” (perfidy): “feigning surrender”.
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 42 and 43, § 12(b).
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War considers that “feigning submission for the purpose of misleading the enemy” is an “illegitimate tactic”.
It adds that “treacherous request for quarter” constitutes a war crime.
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “the feigning of an intent to surrender” 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).(b).
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 135.c.(2).
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “the feigning of an intent to surrender” 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)(b), p. 239.
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), feigning surrender 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: … surrender.
The manual considers “the perfidious use of … the white flag” to be a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
In addition, the manual provides that “treacherous requests for mercy” are also grave breaches of the law of war and war crimes.
South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, §§ 39(b) and 41.
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “It is not permissible to attempt to deceive the enemy by abusing the LOAC or misusing the various protections it affords. For example, it is forbidden to feign surrender …”.
The manual further provides that “[t]reacherous requests for mercy” constitute a grave breach of the law of armed conflict and a war crime.
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 61(b).
According to the manual, feigning surrender is an example of a perfidious act.
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), 5.3.c and 7.3.c.
The manual also states that it is a grave breach and a war crime “to make a perfidious use of recognized protective signs”.
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) prohibits the act of perfidy and states that “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under [the simulation of] surrender” is an example of such an act.
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.(1).(a), 5.3.c and 7.3.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, § 8.3.a.(3).
The manual 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 surrender”.
The UK Military Manual (1958), in connection with the requirements to be 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”.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 115, footnote 2.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 318.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 417.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(a).
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) gives “the feigning of an intent to surrender” as an example of treachery.
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, Annex A, p. 46, § 5.
According to the UK LOAC Manual (2004), “the feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of surrender” is an example of prohibited perfidy, “if done with intent to betray the enemy’s confidence”.
It is forbidden to make improper use of a flag of truce. Thus, a feigned intention to negotiate or surrender with the intention of using the white flag as cover for the collection of information might amount to the war crime of perfidy whatever the consequences. It would amount to a grave breach of Additional Protocol I if it resulted in death or serious injury. A parlementaire who abuses his position in this way can be taken as a prisoner of war and tried.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 10.5–10.5.2 and 10.10.1.
In its chapter on maritime warfare, the manual states that launching an attack while feigning surrender is an example of perfidy.
According to the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988), “feigning an intention to … surrender” is an act of perfidy.
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, § 104(1).
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “improper use of a flag of truce … in order to feign an intention to negotiate when there is no such intention on the part of the perpetrator … [and which] results in deaths or serious personal injury”, in international armed conflicts.
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.41.
Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.41, p. 329.
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the misuse of the white flag, … which as a result caused death or serious injury to body of a victim,” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act , 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
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 surrender”.
The Act adds that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 37(1), is also a punishable offence.
A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than ten and not more than twenty years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she improperly uses … the white flag … with the result set out in Article 33, paragraphs 16 and 17 [of the present code, namely causing serious injury or death].
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict, … uses … in a perfidious manner the flag … of surrender”.
Coalition commanders have expressed considerable concern about the practice – which we have seen on more than one occasion – of Iraqi soldiers apparently surrendering but then attacking the forces to whom they appeared to be surrendering. That is clearly a serious breach of the Geneva convention and one that we will continue to highlight when appropriate.
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Secretary of State for Defence, Hansard, 26 March 2003, Vol. 402, Debates, col. 298.
The perfidious use … of emblems, signs, signals or uniforms referred to in Article 37 … of the Protocol [including 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 the rule that “to pretend surrender” is an act of perfidy.
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 409(b).

References: § 111
 § 826
 § 902
 § 505
 § 1305
 § 703
 § 636
 § 910
 § 1315
 § 371
 § 431
 § 222
 § 9
 § 17
 § 81
 § 18
 § 706
 § 857
 § 12
 § 6
 § 1019
 § 12
 § 27
 § 135
 § 28
 § 61
 § 2
 § 8
 § 115
 § 318
 § 417
 § 626
 § 5
 § 104
 § 268
 § 268
 § 409