Talk:International humanitarian law

message: I disagree with some information published under this heading
1) Regarding the definition of reprisals it should be added that it is forbidden to use reprisals against protected persons and objects.
2) Regarding whether a soldier is still entitled to POW status in case he violates IHL, I totally disagree with your interpretation of the law.
Additional Protocol I (Art. 43 and 44) makes it clear that all members of the armed forces are combatants and that all combatants upon capture are entitled to POW status and treatment. "While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or, if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a prisoner of war" (Additional Protocol I, Art. 44§2).
The notion of "unlawful combatant" does not exist in IHL (nor in LoW); it is a by-product of the so-called war against terrorism.  person is either a combatant (if they fill all the criteria of the definition) or a civilian. There is nothing in between such as "unlawful combatants"
3) "Terrorist" do not exist under IHL; I mean that there is no definition as to what is terrorism and what is not. There is more than 20 international treaties about terrorism each providing its own definition of terrorism.
4) IHL makes it an obligation to prosecute war crimes "without any delay" (Additional Protocol I, Art. 80§1, see also Geneva Convention III, Art. 129) and not only at the end of hostilities. Ppolar 14:58, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Violations and punishment

message: I came here from RfC. Does this article still have a dispute? Maurreen 05:16, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There hasn't been any recent activity here, so I suppose the dispute isn't very active. The dispute arose mainly from redirecting already existing redirects such as Law of war here under the contention that IHL is a neologism for the terms Law of war, Laws of land conflict, etc., while other (including myself) pointed out how these concepts have overlap, but are not the same thing. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 18:04, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll remove the listing. Maurreen 05:02, 19 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC?

message: In the first sentence of the section "Non-uniformed guerrillas and Protocol 1", I think something is missing (gramatically).  I'm having trouble understanding.  Are points a-d the criteria for determining if a person has lawful combatant status?  Lex 17:28, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-uniformed guerrillas and Protocol 1 

message: The article states "the UN charter (1945) Art 2, and some other Arts in the charter, curtails the right of member states to declare war..."  Article 2 of the UN Charter deals with the responsibilities of UN members to seek peaceful means for the solution of international disputes and the avoidance of the threat or use of force against any state.  But Article 2 does not prevent the use of force in cases of breaches of the peace and acts of aggression as indicated in Chapter 7 and member nations can be required to assist the Security Council in its efforts to restore peaceful conditions.  The proper reading seems to be that member nations defer to the Security Council when hostile circumstances arise but this does not prevent a member from acting in self-defense while the Security Council is considering matters.  There is nothing in Article 2 or Chapter 7 that would prevent a Security Council declaration concerning the use of force.   --Jbergquist 07:02, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Curtailment of declaration of war 

message: As promised I have begun to do some work on this.  I hope the para on convergence helps understand the terminology.  I have added references, and rewrote the basic rules using the direct ICRC refs.  More is to be done, but I put this in now so that others might also pick up the baton.  Work also needs to be done on the Laws of war site. --Joel Mc (talk) 10:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: References and Historical Convergence

message: I think the article is missing a section on humanitarian law (its developments) pre-Geneva Conventions and WWII). I did some work on War rape and the section "Humanitarian law prior to World War II" might provide some inspirations. It appears that some of the great philosophers and jurists that helped establish humanitarian law, as well as some of the pre-Geneva Conventions War Codes already have their own Wikiarticles, so a pre-Geneva Conventions section in the humanitarian law article would pull this all together nicely...--SasiSasi (talk) 12:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Good idea.  I hope to have some time in the next week or so to do some work on this article. --Joel Mc (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggestions for Extension 

message: As I indicated above, I have been wanting to do some work on this.  I hope that that the organization makes sense.  I also hope that I have thrown any of the baby out with the bathwater.  I have focused on the the law of geneva since there is a separate article on the law of war.  I have removed parts such as extensive discussion of the ICRC which are more extensively covered on subject pages; the discussion on non-uniformed guerillas etc is of course important but belongs elsewhere. Punishments and particularly examples need more work, etc.--Joel Mc (talk) 16:42, 2 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rewrite and reorganization 

message: Isn't the Bush Doctrine more relevant than the war over who gets the state? Northern Ireland falls into the same category of civil unrest as the Israel vs Palestine conflict. This article is specific to military conflicts & POW treatment per Geneva. Isn't it?
The United Nations Millennium Declaration states, "Human beings must respect one other, in all their diversity of belief, culture and language. Differences within and between societies should be neither feared nor repressed, but cherished as a precious asset of humanity."http://daccessdds.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N00/559/51/PDF/N0055951.pdf?OpenElement]
    
That should be law, but it's just hope. :) Romanfall (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  The UN 2000 and W 

message: Nitpicking to find violations committed by western countries is ridiculous.
How about a section that discusses efforts on what to do with the non-compliant countries?  Most of Africa, nearly the entire Middle East, some parts of Asia and South America don't strike me as particularly conforming when it comes to adhering to the IHL.  Regardless of whether they signed on to any of the IHL versions or not.
Opinions on this?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Krigsmakten (talk • contribs) 19:48, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section suggestion - Continued Relevance? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on International humanitarian law. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100419104833/http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2083 to http://ihl.ihlresearch.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=page.viewpage&pageid=2083
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:16, 15 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just want to offer a technical correction: jus ad bellum and jus in bello are philosophical components of the Just war theory. They might find themselves encapsulated in various laws, but they are not the laws themselves, or even the legal frameworks. Best regards, George Custer's Sabre (talk) 06:24, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Jus in bello may or may not be a component of “Just War” theory, but it is primarily “the body of legal norms governing battle and occupation - the 'conduct of individuals and units toward combatants, non-combatants, property, and the environment.' Violations are punishable under customary international law and international legal instruments.” In this case, jus means a right, not justice. Joel Mc (talk) 16:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

text: Perhaps, “Just War philosophers”(whoever they are) might use the term jus in bello. the concept was formulated and extensively developed by international jurists in the 20th century, Josef Kunz being if not the first, was at least an early user. --Joel Mc (talk) 15:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just war theory