Talk:Geneva Conventions/Archive 1

message: that has not signed the geneva convention(s). who is that? is it mentioned in an article somewhere? is there a list of members? McKzzFizzer 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Republic of Nauru is an independent state since 1968 and a member of the United Nations since 1999, but has not yet signed the Geneva Conventions. A list of signatory states can be found at the website of the ICRC, check this link. --Uwe 18:29, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: Correction: the Republic of Nauru acceded to the Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols on June 27, 2006. So right now, there is actually no country which is not a state party to the Geneva Conventions. --Uwe 09:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's true - even Montenegro is now also a party of the conventions.62.142.46.22 22:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I just heard on the news that there is one country 

message: Another guy requested it, but i am starting the translation of the german article.
Have a closer look to the project page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Translation/Geneva_Conventions if you want to participate.
By now i finish the main translation work. i need some native english speakers with a good proficiency of german if possible, for proof reading
- Yamok 13:57, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Translation Project

message: I think a complete reorganization of the pages covering the conventions is in order. Here are several concerns:
*This page, which talks a little about what the conventions are before going on to give half a dozen links to their various parts, is boring, uninformative, and needlessly inconvenient. Users who wish to have a basic understanding of all the provisions in the conventions/protocols should be able to view them together to get a better understanding of their breadth and implications. This is a large and complex topic, and it shouldn't be relegated to this type of small page that just links to various other pages, where all of the pertinent information is scattered.
*Additionally, the pages on each of the Conventions and Protocols either have a sentence or two about the convention/protocol, or they list the full text thereof. The full-text ones need to be consolidated into a summary, with links to the full texts. In either case, none of these pages provide enough raw or unique information to warrant an individual page, which again suggests that a merge is necessary.
*The link to Protocol III goes to a redirect which goes to information about the recent Red Crystal symbol and flag. This linking problem can be fixed immediately without debate, although I think the Red Crystal deserves its own page and shouldn't have to share one with information about the third protocol. This would also be solved by merging Protocol III info here.
Rodeosmurf 15:33, 29 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reorganizing convention/protocol pages. 

message: The article is weak because it does not cover a critical element of the GC's AND this omission is important because many are confused on the issue. Please improve upon the text below. The idea is to clarify a common area of confusion. Most people think that soldiers captured in combat should get a trial. The point is to clarify that they don't get a trial when they have not violated any law.
The Geneva Conventions guarantee soldiers the right to not be put on trial for fighting in a war - unless they commit a war crime (a grave breech). This protection against a fair trial is fully consistent with human rights law because human rights law prohibits putting people on trial when there is no crime to try them for. The Geneva Conventions however guarantee that anyone charged with a war crime will get a fair trial.
67.169.229.2 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 18:48, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Right to a Fair Trial When No Crime is Alleged

message: I deleted this text: "These laws may not be entirely harmonious with their national constitution or their cultural values. Despite the advantages offered by the Conventions to individuals, political pressures may cause the governments to be reluctant in accepting its responsibilities."
Treaties generally must be consistent with the laws of the nations that sign them. If there is an exception and above is factual this requires support. 
The article claims that this treaty has advantages for individuals, but treaties are always about sovereign governments and their relationships and are never applicable to individuals (except perhaps monarchs and absolute dictators). I deleted this because I don't believe that any treaty has ever guaranteed any individual any right. Treaties often compel sovereign government to ensure human rights. Either it needs to be deleted or it needs to be supported. 
Is there any example anywhere of a treaty that guarantees any individual anything?
Within the EU many human rights are guaranteed by treaties, but EU treaties are only temporary agreements to observe the treaty in how that national government ensures the rights of individuals.
For example, Treaty of Lisbon arguably diminished the human rights of EU citizens in three nations via the The British Protocol. If the treaty guaranteed anything then a British citizen could ask the ECHR to enforce their right, but the ECHR has no jurisdiction unless the government of the UK wishes for it.
Whenever a nation decide to abrogate any treaty, legally it may. The EU may not compel the UK to observe any of the EU's human rights protections. The UK legally may (and might) withdraw partially or completely from the ECHR.
Is there any example anywhere of a treaty that guarantees any individual anything? If so, please restore this text and reference that example.
67.169.229.2 (talk) 21:47, 3 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Treaty protections for individuals rather than states

message: ===ICC===
Text: "In the 1999 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic judgement, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ruled that grave breaches apply not only to international conflicts, but also to internal armed conflict."
While this is true is it relevant to a discussion of the Geneva Conventions? The UN, the ICJ, and the UN Charter take precedence over all ICC law. All three of these have the broad international jurisdiction that comes with being accepted by almost every nation on earth. 
This finding was made under UN proprietorial authority, but did the UNSCR grant interpretive authority for the Geneva Conventions broadly that were to set precedent? If it did, this requires a supporting reference.
The ICC or the ECHR and even national courts hold opinions, but are any of these so relevant that they should be included here? Less than half of the world's population is subject to the ICC or the ECHR. Virtually all are subject to the UN Charter and Article 25 which assures that the UN always has precedence over the ICC or ECHR.
00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have no problem with discussion of the ICC and the Geneva Conventions on a relevant page. The ICC does not normally have any international authority or jurisdiction over any body of law and particularly over the GCs. All of the ICC jurisdiction for the GCs comes from their requirement that national laws reflect the GCs. This authority and jurisdiction is generally not transferred to the ICC even in nations that have signed the Treaty of Rome unless their domestic judicial system is in total failure mode. This is too complex for summary on this page. It is better to refer it to appropriate ICC related pages. I recommend an appropriate edit. 71.202.48.48 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Protections today

message: Text: "In the 1999 Prosecutor v. Dusko Tadic judgement, the International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia ruled that grave breaches apply not only to international conflicts, but also to internal armed conflict."
While this is true is it relevant to a discussion of the Geneva Conventions? The UN, the ICJ, and the UN Charter take precedence over all ICC law. All three of these have the broad international jurisdiction that comes with being accepted by almost every nation on earth. 
This finding was made under UN proprietorial authority, but did the UNSCR grant interpretive authority for the Geneva Conventions broadly that were to set precedent? If it did, this requires a supporting reference.
The ICC or the ECHR and even national courts hold opinions, but are any of these so relevant that they should be included here? Less than half of the world's population is subject to the ICC or the ECHR. Virtually all are subject to the UN Charter and Article 25 which assures that the UN always has precedence over the ICC or ECHR.
00:10, 4 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. I have no problem with discussion of the ICC and the Geneva Conventions on a relevant page. The ICC does not normally have any international authority or jurisdiction over any body of law and particularly over the GCs. All of the ICC jurisdiction for the GCs comes from their requirement that national laws reflect the GCs. This authority and jurisdiction is generally not transferred to the ICC even in nations that have signed the Treaty of Rome unless their domestic judicial system is in total failure mode. This is too complex for summary on this page. It is better to refer it to appropriate ICC related pages. I recommend an appropriate edit. 71.202.48.48 (talk) 04:37, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: ICC

message: Starting on April 1st, this page has been repeatedly vandalized, for ex. adding a new protocol "Protocol IV (2006) all chapters of Java Methods must be taught over the course of one to two weeks." If you check the revision history, you can see the issues. It's been unresolved for 18 days now.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.208.73.109 (talk) 09:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  This page has been vandalized 

message: Currently (01:49, 15 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious 

message: I think the word "other" should be capitalized in the full title of the Geneva Protocol (found in the second introduction paragraph), but I don't want to change it myself because I don't know if this is the official title.
Protocol for the Prohibition of the Use in War of Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases, and of Bacteriological Methods of Warfare
Computergeeksjw (talk) 14:27, 20 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Capitalization of the Geneva Protocol 

message: In the prologue to "the conventions and their agreements", which 'conflict in Vietnam' is being refered to?173.58.253.195 (talk) 23:54, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vietnam 

message: I think this page should be moved to (for instance) Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and that Geneva Convention should be changed to a disambiguation page listing Geneva Conventions for the protection of war victims and Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 
Although this is not an issue of semi-protection, I used the "Edit semi-protected" template because I could not find a more appropriate one.
Apokrif (talk) 16:05, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: page move requests should be made at Wikipedia:Requested moves.  I also left a note on your talk page.  RudolfRed (talk) 01:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Renaming for disambiguation 

message: Are all (or some) obligations unconditional or otherwise, subject to the constraint of reciprocity?
Could this be explained in the article?
--Netol (talk) 18:00, 22 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Reciprocal

message: A reader interested in this current issue may be unable to easily answer it, since the following external link leads to a page that says it is out of service: 
[broken external link] States party to the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols
Perhaps a POV-neutral page that answers the question might be added?  A short page entitled "Did the United States sign the Geneva Conventions?" is to be found at http://ask.yahoo.com/20020212.html
: The fact that the US indeed is a state party to the Geneva Conventions can easily be verified by a number of different sources, and therefore it can be considered an established and undisputed fact. In my humble opinion, there is no need to add a weblink to the article just for this single issue - remember that selection of weblinks should follow a "best of the best" approach. And if anything, either the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs as the body who accepts signatures and ratifications, or the ICRC as the supreme guardian of International Humanitarian Law, should be used as the most competent, accurate and neutral source for this information. --Uwe 22:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No one challenges the assertion that the United States signed the Geneva Conventions. Before the question may be asked here some basis for the relevance of the question must be supported.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.48.48 (talk) 04:45, 14 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The United States signed the 1949 Geneva Conventions, it did not agree to the Protocols that came later. The appropriate Wikipedia articles contain links showing what the US Senate agree to. The joke goes that Hitler was the last honourable enemy of the USA. Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:15, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Did the United States ratify the Geneva Conventions?

message: ===Countries recently in breach of the Geneva Conventions===
Countries which have recently breached the Geneva Conventions include:
*United Kingdom (shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland)
*United States of America (failure to prevent massacre of POWs in Afghanistan; systematic human rights abuses in treatment of prisoners)
*Israel (systematic human rights abuses; systematic maltreatment of prisoners)
*Russia (systematic and routine maltreatment of prisoners in Chechnya)
*Burundi (attacks on International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC))
*Zaire (attacks on ICRC)
*Rwanda (attacks on ICRC)
Could someone reference this?  I don't ever recall reading this in the Geneva Conventions.
:In the field, soldiers of a signatory who carry prohibited equipment or perform prohibited actions are subject to summary field execution without a trial.  This is usually carried out on prisoners of war who are captured with prohibited equipment.  It may be ordered by the senior officer of a group that observed an atrocity and can recognize participating individuals.
::You may need to look in the Hague Declaration. Rmhermen 04:32, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
 Like the case of USA, a good reference would be this guys advice  that ended up on this story 
A couple of corrections.  First, alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions are not heard by the International Court of Justice; it has no jurisdiction over criminal acts.  For those states which have joined the International Criminal Court (ICC), war crimes including breaches of the Geneva Conventions can be heard there; the United States is not a party to the ICC.  Second, on the above comment about summary execution, the 1907 Hague Regulations have been modified by the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 to prohibit any kind of summary execution.  A good place to consult is Crimes of War.  Ken 20 November 2004
goto www.genevaconventions.org for more results
:: Is it appropriate to have a section on the so-called "War on Terror" in this article? The very definition is extreemly biased towards the American viewpoint, and the article uses heavily prejudicial language against the other side. Both sides are clearly comitting war crimes in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.
What worry me is why this list is so limited. Are some transgressions permitted? Iran violated something when they took American hostages in 1979, didn't they? And there was that little war in Israel in 1967. I didn't see any names on the list, except Israel. 
If there is suppose to be no bias, then let's list everything. What about the civil wars throughout the world where both sides did some rather nasty things? Are militias involved in a civil war suppose to abide by the convention since the country for which they are fighting about is a signator? Hezbollah says they represent Lebanon, so should they be forced to abide by the convention based on the fact that Lebanon is a signator? Then again, if a militia is taking its orders from a third country that is a signator, shouldn't they still be required based on that fact that third country is a signator? Will we allow countries to get around the Geneva Convention that uses militas as proxies. I thought that one of the rules is that one must be affiliated with a country and wearing a uniform of that country. Is it now the rule that everyone gets protection regardless of thier own actions in following the convention rules? Can Americans now wear civilian clothes in Iraq so that they are less noticable to the insurgants and not be considered to be in violation? 
 
user:mnw2000 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a matter of national honour. A country is honour and treaty bound to arrest, put on trial and punish any politicians, officers and enlisted men who have dishonoured their country by committing war crimes. Should a country have no honour then the enemy forces can prosecute people they capture for war crimes - a double national dishonour. (A government that is both evil and weak.) Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed

message: Countries which have recently breached the Geneva Conventions include:
*United Kingdom (shoot to kill policy in Northern Ireland)
*United States of America (failure to prevent massacre of POWs in Afghanistan; systematic human rights abuses in treatment of prisoners)
*Israel (systematic human rights abuses; systematic maltreatment of prisoners)
*Russia (systematic and routine maltreatment of prisoners in Chechnya)
*Burundi (attacks on International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC))
*Zaire (attacks on ICRC)
*Rwanda (attacks on ICRC)
Could someone reference this?  I don't ever recall reading this in the Geneva Conventions.
:In the field, soldiers of a signatory who carry prohibited equipment or perform prohibited actions are subject to summary field execution without a trial.  This is usually carried out on prisoners of war who are captured with prohibited equipment.  It may be ordered by the senior officer of a group that observed an atrocity and can recognize participating individuals.
::You may need to look in the Hague Declaration. Rmhermen 04:32, Oct 24, 2003 (UTC)
 Like the case of USA, a good reference would be this guys advice  that ended up on this story 
A couple of corrections.  First, alleged violations of the Geneva Conventions are not heard by the International Court of Justice; it has no jurisdiction over criminal acts.  For those states which have joined the International Criminal Court (ICC), war crimes including breaches of the Geneva Conventions can be heard there; the United States is not a party to the ICC.  Second, on the above comment about summary execution, the 1907 Hague Regulations have been modified by the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 to prohibit any kind of summary execution.  A good place to consult is Crimes of War.  Ken 20 November 2004
goto www.genevaconventions.org for more results
:: Is it appropriate to have a section on the so-called "War on Terror" in this article? The very definition is extreemly biased towards the American viewpoint, and the article uses heavily prejudicial language against the other side. Both sides are clearly comitting war crimes in contravention of the Geneva Conventions.
What worry me is why this list is so limited. Are some transgressions permitted? Iran violated something when they took American hostages in 1979, didn't they? And there was that little war in Israel in 1967. I didn't see any names on the list, except Israel. 
If there is suppose to be no bias, then let's list everything. What about the civil wars throughout the world where both sides did some rather nasty things? Are militias involved in a civil war suppose to abide by the convention since the country for which they are fighting about is a signator? Hezbollah says they represent Lebanon, so should they be forced to abide by the convention based on the fact that Lebanon is a signator? Then again, if a militia is taking its orders from a third country that is a signator, shouldn't they still be required based on that fact that third country is a signator? Will we allow countries to get around the Geneva Convention that uses militas as proxies. I thought that one of the rules is that one must be affiliated with a country and wearing a uniform of that country. Is it now the rule that everyone gets protection regardless of thier own actions in following the convention rules? Can Americans now wear civilian clothes in Iraq so that they are less noticable to the insurgants and not be considered to be in violation? 
 
user:mnw2000 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a matter of national honour. A country is honour and treaty bound to arrest, put on trial and punish any politicians, officers and enlisted men who have dishonoured their country by committing war crimes. Should a country have no honour then the enemy forces can prosecute people they capture for war crimes - a double national dishonour. (A government that is both evil and weak.) Andrew Swallow (talk) 18:27, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Countries recently in breach of the Geneva Conventions

message: Since we talking about not wearing insignia when fighting the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 apply. Since Russia is officially not part of this war and the men are not members of the Ukrainian army then they are members of a militia or volunteer corps. Consequently under Article 1 of the Hague Convention 1907 they are required "2. To have a fixed distinctive emblem recognizable at a distance;" and "4. To conduct their operations in accordance with the laws and customs of war". Their officers and commanders can probably be prosecuted for failing to provide such insignia. This is not a grave breach of the Geneva Convention. IMHO being minor war crimes permits the men to be treated as POWs and court marshalled under the appropriate section of the Ukrainian military code for wearing an incorrect uniform. Without insignia officers need to prove their rank.
Ref: Hague Convention of 1907 Andrew Swallow (talk) 19:12, 26 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:   Ukraine (Crimea) fighters not wearing insignia 

message: The diagram (Geneva Conventions 1864-1949.svg) illustrating the relationship between the Conventions is factually incorrect. I am going to remove it in a few days unless someone wants to object. 
* The Second Geneva Convention was first adopted in 1906, not 1927.
* The Third Geneva Convention was first adopted in 1927
* The Hague Conventions did not get incorporated into the Geneva Conventions. These are separate treaties.
Morrillonline (talk) 11:37, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed Morrillonline (talk) 18:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I was digging across the Hague Conventions and when I stumbled across the Geneva Conventions and this talk page. Actually, the diagram is correct. Although the name 'second Geneva convention' is chosen rather poorly, it was the second convention qua subject matter (dealing with prisoners of war). The 1906 and other 1929 conventions merely elaborated upon the first (1864) convention, concerning war on land. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 20:54, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagram is incorrect 

message: There seems to be some sort of mix-up between the first, second, third, and fourth revisions of the Geneva Convention signed in 1864, 1906, 1929, and 1949 respectively, and the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Geneva Conventions that comprise the 1949 version. This mix-up seems to be present on this page as well as the individual pages for each of the separate Conventions. This is most clearly apparent on the page Second Geneva Convention, where it refers to it being first adopted in 1906. While the First and Third Geneva Conventions appear more closely related to the first version and the code relating to prisoners of war introduced at the Geneva Convention of 1929 (at the same time as the third revision of the original Geneva Convention) respectively, the second version of the Geneva Convention that was adopted in 1906 makes no mention of warfare at sea, which is the primary topic of the Second Geneva Convention. According to the Red Cross' website, the source for the adaption of the provisions of the Geneva Convention to warfare at sea is Convention X of the Second Peace Conference of The Hague in 1907. However, I only noticed this misconception as I went about writing a paper related to the subject, and I'm not about to implement radical changes to all of these pages without further input.98.166.92.36 (talk) 10:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, until an IP changed this in 19 July 2008, this page stated correctly that GC 2 was the successor to the tenth Hague Convention of 1907. This also follows from the preambule to the Second Geneva Convention of 1949: "The undersigned Plenipotentiaries of the Governments [...] for the purpose of revising the Xth Hague Convention of October 18, 1907 [...] have agreed as follows". I'll try to clarify it. Regards, Perudotes (talk) 21:34, 5 March 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Distinction between versions of the Geneva Convention, and sections of the 1949 version 

message: Currently under the common article 3 subhead, a sentence states that, "It is the only article of the Geneva Conventions that applies in non-international conflicts."  In that sentence "non-international conflicts" links to the wiki article "civil wars."  The U.S. Supreme Court has rejected this narrow claim that non-international conflicts means only civil wars, so this article is inaccurate.  If there are editors here, I'll let them figure out whether or not the link should be removed or the sentence reworded, as I don't know enough about law outside the US.  But if no one has an alternative, I'll remove the link in a couple days. WoodDraw (talk) 06:20, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The link to civil wars does not really imply that "non-international conflicts means only civil wars".  However, I have adjusted the link to go directly to the section of the civil war article Civil_war#Further_definitions which clarifies the issue, I believe.--Joel Mc (talk) 08:47, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Article 3 

message: Hello, in light of recent developments in the Russo-Ukrainian war, where in the Geneva specifically is it mentioned that thermobaric bombs are explicitly banned? I have the pdf open but I cannot for my life find it. Any help would be appreciated. Obama gaming (talk) 01:43, 1 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thermobaric Bombs 

message: Under the header "History" is the list of countries that signed the Convention in 1864. Belgium is one of them. This list shows a variant of the Belgian flag, allegedly the "1858 version". This is false. Belgium has never changed its flag since its adoption in 1831. For more info and sources, check Flag of Belgium: "On 23 January 1831, the stripes changed from horizontal to vertical, and on 12 October, the flag attained its modern form, with the black placed at the hoist side of the flag.". No further changes have been made since. Takk (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Belgian "variant" flag 

message: New user so comments welcome and please forgive any etiquette mistakes. I am trying to incorporate the U.S. jurisprudence on Common Article 3 in the War on Terror context. The text says, "The interpretation of the term armed conflict and therefore the applicability of this article is a matter of debate." It cites Jean Pictet's 1958 Commentary, but it seems the applicability of Common Article Three has settled down quite a bit since then. Is it ok to delete that sentence? Checkpoint42 (talk) 16:34, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armed conflict definition as a matter of debate 

message: The quotation by added by Luke.firewalker1 in this edit at the end of this section appears to be from a self-published work by Sumanatilake. I've been reverted twice after removing it, and won't do so again, but am posting here for others to review. MichaelMaggs (talk) 08:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common Article 3 relating to non-international armed conflict