Source: https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/customary-ihl/rus/docs/v2_rul_rule64
Timestamp: 2020-06-04 12:09:35
Document Index: 199210694

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 7', '§ 472', '§ 237', '§ 77', '§ 79', '§ 70', '§ 237', '§ 308', '§ 314', '§ 316', '§ 459', '§ 626', '§ 10', '§ 493', '§ 504', '§ 5', '§ 2']

Customary IHL - Practice Relating to Rule 64. Conclusion of an Agreement to Suspend Combat with the Intention of Attacking by Surprise the Adversary Relying on It
2. Практика\Заключение соглашения о временном прекращении боевых действий с намерением неожиданно напасть на неприятеля, полагающегося на это соглашение
Норма 64 (current)
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 cease-fire” was considered as perfidy.
Article 15 of the 1863 Lieber Code states:
Military necessity admits … of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.
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 15.
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “To demand a cease-fire and then to break it by surprise, or to violate a safe conduct or any other agreement, in order to kill, wound or capture enemy troops would be perfidious.”
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.4.
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
- to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured or with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded.
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, provides that, under ratified international conventions, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) gives as an example of an act of perfidy the conclusion of a “humanitarian agreement to suspend combat with the intention of attacking by surprise the enemy relying on it”.
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, § 472.
The manual also states: “During an armistice, it is … definitely forbidden to move the forces in contact with the enemy forward or to employ reconnaissance patrols.”
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, § 237.
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “It is forbidden for members of the armed forces: … To maltreat, injure or kill the enemy … with whom a truce has been agreed.”
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 15(a).
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that in case of a violation of an armistice, the local commander can react as circumstances require. Only the supreme commander, with the consent of the government, can denounce an armistice or order the resumption of hostilities.
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, § 77.
Hostile acts committed by individuals on their own initiative are not considered as violations of the armistice agreement, but punishment and indemnity can be demanded.
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, § 79.
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands provides that it is prohibited “to violate an agreement concluded with the adverse party (for example concerning a cease-fire to search for and collect the wounded and dead)”.
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states that “informing the enemy that there is an armistice in order to make him leave his position” is an “illegitimate tactic”.
The manual also states that “violation of surrender terms” is a war crime.
Under the Republic of Korea’s Military Regulation 187 (1991), acts committed in violation of the terms of a capitulation agreement constitute a war crime.
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The use of the armistice agreement to inflict destruction (to rout) the enemy is considered as perfidy.”
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 70.
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states that the violation of an armistice is prohibited and the “carrying out of hostilities after the conclusion of an armistice or the violation of its provisions” are war crimes.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 194(2) and 200(2)(g).
237 The following in particular are criminal offences: … violation of a ceasefire or peace [.]
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, § 237.
The UK Military Manual (1958) states: “Good faith, as expressed in the observance of promises, is essential in war, for without it hostilities could not be terminated with any degree of safety short of the total destruction of one of the contending parties.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 308.
The manual also states: “In general, it is contrary to modern practice to attempt to obtain advantage of the enemy by deliberate lying, for instance, by declaring that an armistice has been agreed upon when in fact that is not the case.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 314.
The manual further specifies: “To demand a suspension of arms and then to break it by surprise, or to violate a safe conduct or any other agreement, in order to obtain an advantage, is an act of perfidy and as such forbidden”.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 316.
The manual also provides: “It would be perfidy to denounce an armistice for a motive or under a pretext more or less specious and to surprise the enemy without giving him time to put himself on his guard.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 459.
Lastly, the manual states: “In addition to the ‘grave breaches’ of the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions, … the following are examples of punishable violations of the laws of war, or war crimes: … violation of surrender terms.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(n).
It would be perfidy to denounce an armistice for a specious motive or pretext and to surprise the adverse party without giving him time to put himself on his guard. On the other hand, the existence of an armistice is no reason for relaxing either vigilance or the readiness of troops for action, or for revealing positions to the enemy that he could not detect during combat.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 10.28.
The US Field Manual (1956) provides: “To broadcast to the enemy that an armistice has been agreed upon when such is not the case would be treacherous.”
It would be an outrageous act of perfidy for either party, without warning, to resume hostilities during the period of an armistice, with or without a formal denunciation thereof, except in case of urgency and upon convincing proof of intentional and serious violation of its terms by the other party.
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 493.
The manual further states: “In addition to the ‘grave breaches’ of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (‘war crimes’): … violation of surrender terms.”
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 504(n).
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states that “the feigning of a cease-fire” is an example of perfidy.
The Pamphlet adds: “A false broadcast to the enemy that an armistice has been agreed upon has been widely recognized to be treacherous. [This] language … expresses the customary and conventional law in this area.”
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides that “in addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: … violating surrender terms”.
Argentina’s Penal Code (1984) punishes any person “who violates treaties concluded with foreign nations, truces and armistice agreements between the Republic and an enemy power”.
Argentina, Penal Code, 1984, Article 220.
Argentina’s Code of Military Justice (1951), as amended in 1984, punishes any soldier “who continues hostilities after having received the official notice that peace, a truce or an armistice has been concluded”.
Argentina, Code of Military Justice, 1951, as amended in 1984, Article 741.
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “violations of temporary armistice agreements or agreements about the stopping of military actions with the aim of removing, exchanging or transporting the dead and wounded” constitute war crimes in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(9).
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that any “violation of truces, agreements on the suspension of hostilities or local arrangements concluded for the removal, exchange or transport of the wounded and dead left on the battlefield” is a war crime.
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(9).
Bolivia’s Penal Code (1972), as amended in 1997, provides that “anyone who violates treaties, truce or armistice concluded between the Nation and the enemy or between belligerent forces” commits a “crime against international law”.
Bolivia, Penal Code, 1972, as amended in 1997, Article 137.
Chile’s Code of Military Justice (1925) punishes “anyone who, without justification, continues hostilities after having received the official information that peace, armistice or truce has been agreed with the enemy, violates any of these agreements or a capitulation”.
Chile, Code of Military Justice, 1925, Article 260.
Costa Rica’s Penal Code (1970), as amended in 2002, punishes any person “who violates the truce or armistice agreed with between the nation and an enemy country or belligerent forces”.
Costa Rica, Penal Code, 1970, as amended in 2002, Article 283.
Ecuador’s National Civil Police Penal Code (1960) punishes the members of the National Civil Police “who breach or violate a treaty, truce or armistice”.
Ecuador, National Civil Police Penal Code, 1960, Article 117(6).
Ecuador’s Penal Code (1971) punishes “anyone who violates a truce or armistice concluded with the enemy, after it has been formally rendered public”.
Ecuador, Penal Code, 1971, Article 123.
El Salvador’s Code of Military Justice (1934) punishes any “soldier who … violates a truce, armistice, capitulation or other agreement concluded with the enemy”.
El Salvador, Code of Military Justice, 1934, Article 67.
El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), as amended to 2008, which contains a section on the violations of the laws or customs of war, states:
Anyone who violates treaties concluded with foreign States, truces or armistices agreed between El Salvador and an enemy State or between its warring factions, or a duly issued laissez-passer, will be sanctioned with one to three years of prison and a special disqualification from the exercise of his or her function or employment for the same length of time.
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, as amended to 2008, Article 359.
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957) punishes “whosoever, having been officially informed of an armistice or peace treaty duly concluded, contrary to orders given continues hostilities, or in any other way knowingly infringes one of the agreed conditions”.
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 289.
Guatemala’s Penal Code (1973) punishes “anyone who violates a truce or armistice concluded between Guatemala and a foreign power or between their belligerent forces”.
Guatemala, Penal Code, 1973, Article 373.
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, “the person who infringes the conditions of armistice” is guilty, upon conviction, of a war crime.
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 162(1).
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides that in case of a violation of an armistice, the local commander can react as circumstances require. Only the supreme commander can denounce an armistice or order to resume hostilities.
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 81.
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, Article 82.
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) punishes any commander who, without justification, commits hostile acts against the enemy during a truce or an armistice, except in case of necessity.
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 170.
Mexico’s Code of Military Justice (1933), as amended in 1996, punishes “anyone who, without justification … violates a truce, armistice, capitulation or other agreement concluded with the enemy, if, because of his conduct, hostilities are restarted”.
Mexico, Code of Military Justice, 1933, as amended in 1996, Article 208(II).
Under the Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands, the “commission, contrary to the conditions of a truce, of hostile acts or the incitement thereto” constitutes a war crime.
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any “soldier who, without justification and after official notification, violates peace, armistice, truce or capitulation agreements”.
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 49.
Peru’s Code of Military Justice (1980) punishes any soldier who “violates an armistice, a truce, … a capitulation or any other legitimate agreement concluded with another nation, or prolongs the hostilities after having received official notice of peace, truce or armistice”.
Peru, Code of Military Justice, 1980, Article 91(2).
Peru’s Penal Code (1991) punishes any person who violates a truce or armistice.
Peru, Penal Code as amended, 1991, Article 340.
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes any soldier “who violates a suspension of arms, an armistice, a capitulation or another agreement concluded with the enemy”.
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 72.
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who violates a truce or an armistice concluded between the Spanish Nation and the enemy or between their belligerent forces”.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 593.
9. Violating a cease fire, the terms of an armistice, capitulation or any other agreement concluded with the adverse party.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(9).
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended, punishes “anyone who continues hostilities, after having official knowledge of the conclusion of an armistice or of peace, [and] anyone who, in any other way, violates the conditions of an officially known armistice”.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended, Article 113.
Any person who has continued hostilities after having received official notification of the conclusion of an armistice or a peace agreement,
any person who in any way has violated the conditions of an armistice that have been officially brought to his or her attention,
is to be punished with three years’ or more imprisonment or a monetary penalty or, in less serious cases, a year imprisonment or less.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended in 2007, Article 113.
a. continues military operations after receiving official notification of an agreement on a ceasefire or a peace agreement, or violates the conditions of the ceasefire in some other way.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 113(a).
Venezuela’s Code of Military Justice (1998), as amended, punishes “those who violate … truces or armistices”.
Venezuela, Code of Military Justice, 1998, as amended, Article 474(7).
Venezuela’s Revised Penal Code (2000) punishes “nationals and foreigners who, during a war between Venezuela and another Nation, violate a truce or armistice”.
1. Venezuelan or foreign nationals who, during a war between Venezuela and another nation, violate truces or armistices … , without prejudice to military laws which shall be specially applicable to these matters.
According to the Report on the Practice of China, the conduct of the Nationalist Government after a truce agreement was concluded with the Chinese Communist Party in January 1946 was perfidious. At the time, Mao Zedong reported that “Chiang Kai-Shek used [the] agreement as a disguise with a view to arranging a large scale military offensive”.
Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Mao Zedong, To Shatter the Offensives of Jiang Jieshi by Way of Self-defence, 20 July 1946, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 4, The People’s Press, Beijing, p. 1189.
In 1984, during the Iran–Iraq War, the two belligerents concluded an agreement under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General not to attack cities and villages.
UN Secretary-General, Note verbale dated 26 June 1984 addressed to Member States and Observer States that are States parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, UN Doc. S/16648, 26 June 1984.
However, Iraq alleged in a letter to the UN Secretary-General that the Islamic Republic of Iran was using the agreement to concentrate armed forces in border towns.
Iraq, Letter dated 28 June 1984 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/16649, 28 June 1984.
According to the Report on the Practice of Iraq, in a military communiqué issued during the Iran–Iraq War, Iraq stated that it regarded as perfidious an attack on its defensive line after the Iranian armed forces had announced that their military operations had come to an end.
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 2.4, referring to Military communiqué, 1 March 1987.
In 1991, in a document entitled “Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia”, the Ministry of Defence of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated: “Members of the so-called armed forces of Slovenia have used [each agreed upon cease-fire] to attack the Yugoslav People’s Army units, by bringing their own units in a more advantageous position, thus performing similar faithless procedures.”
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic, Ministry of Defence, Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia, 10 July 1991, § 5.
In 1995, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia denounced the violation of an agreement whereby Serb troops, after handing over their heavy weapons, were to be allowed free passage by the Croatian army but were attacked instead.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Appeal by the Yugoslav Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, 7 August 1995.
According to the Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav People’s Army cited attacks against its soldiers during an armistice as examples of perfidious conduct.
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to The Truth about the Armed Conflict in Slovenia, Narodna armija, Belgrade, 1991, p. 60.
In 1984, with regard to the Iran–Iraq War, the UN Secretary-General stated that he was
deeply concerned that allegations have been made that civilian population centres are being used for concentration of military forces. If this were indeed the case, such actions would constitute a violation of the spirit of my appeal and of basic standards of warfare that the international community expects to be observed.
UN Secretary-General, Messages dated 29 June 1984 to the President of Iran and to the President of Iraq, UN Doc. S/16663, 6 July 1984, p. 1.
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC included the “violation of armistices, suspensions of fire or local arrangements concluded for the removal, exchange and transport of the wounded and the dead left on the battlefield”, when committed in international and non-international armed conflicts, in its list of war crimes to be 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(ix) and 3(xvii).