Protocol II

While Protocol I was related to the protection of victims of international armed conflicts, Protocol II, also added in 1977, was related to the protection of non-international armed conflicts.

After all those Conventions many rules existed, related to international warfare, but somehow, before the Protocol II was added, nobody thought much about internal conflicts even though many countries had them. So, even since the last Geneva Convention, some delegates wanted to make laws and set a new bar for minimal humanitarian standards in cases when the situation had all the properties and characteristics of war whilst not being an international conflict.

Even before the addition of Protocol II Geneva Conventions of 1949 had Article 3 related to non-international conflicts taking place in bounds of a single country. However, it wasn’t enough. Article 3 had only few basic things to protect victims of non-international conflicts, like:

• Persons taking no active part in hostilities should be treated humanely (including military persons who have ceased to be active as a result of sickness, injury, or detention).

• The wounded and sick shall be collected and cared for.

Since Article 3 was too brief and didn’t cover many important aspects, many diplomats wanted to clarify it all in a new Protocol and to extend the scope of international law to cover additional humanitarian rights in the context of internal conflicts. However, the debate around this new protocol had two totally different ideas:

1. First said that for victim of a conflict there is no difference if that conflict is international or not, so all the distinction for those people can only be artificial.

2. And another one said that in case of internal conflict international laws should not apply, meaning that country had all rights to do whatever it wants inside its boundaries.

As for now, Protocol 3 had been ratified by governments of 165 countries. Even though The United States was among few countries who just signed the protocol with the intention of ratifying it, the International Committee of the Red Cross made an appeal in 1997, saying that a number of the articles contained in both protocols are recognized as rules of customary international law valid for all states, whether or not they have ratified them.

Protocol III

The third and the last additional protocol of Geneva Conventions was added in 2005. It was devoted to the Adoption of an Additional Distinctive Emblem. It was really needed in cases of war for soldiers to know who they should not attack. Actually, the emblem itself was established much earlier, during the first Geneva Convention of 1864. It was really needed, because weapons at those times already were quite deadly, and often medics and people of other supporting professions were shot right on the battlefield while trying to help wounded soldiers. So a part of the first Geneva Convention was just right about creating a distinctive emblem for people of those professions.

However, it wasn’t easy. The first symbol was just a red cross on the white background, but it looked very similar to the Christian Cross. That was the reason why Muslim nations totally rejected it. But in 1876 the Ottoman Empire introduced another symbol – the Red Crescent, as more neutral and less Christian emblem. After that additional emblems were proposed by the Red Cross Society of Eritrea, such as sun of Persia or the red lion. At the same time Magen David Adom of Israel proposed the Red Shield of David as another alternative emblem. After all, the world needed the new symbol for medics to be:

• Neutral and free of religious, cultural or political connotations. Otherwise it would conflict with the whole idea of giving the medical personnel neutral humanitarian status in armed conflicts.

• Officially acclaimed. Even if the Red Shield of David was used in some places after Magen David Adom’s efforts, it wasn’t officially acclaimed by the National Societies. And without membership in one of those people were not eligible for certain protections under the Geneva Conventions.

Fortunately a comprehensive solution was found at last with the adoption of Protocol III in 2005. For Magen David Adom there was a nice alternative – the Red Crystal, so they should’ve just displayed it in the context of international conflict to have all protection needed. All three emblems are appointed the same legal status, which means they are totally equal.

Emblems can have a protective use, as well as an indicative use. Medical and religious personnel may mark themselves, their vehicles, ships and buildings as a sign of their humanitarian mission and protected status under the Geneva Conventions. Members of armed forces can also use it to show that they are protected by Geneva Conventions. However, the misuse of the emblem may be considered as a war crime.

Conclusion

Thanks to all these conventions and their protocols, world is safer and more civilized nowadays, even I the times of war. People feel themselves protected, which means better future for all of us!

Bibliography

Books:

Bernett, Angela. The Geneva Convention: The Hidden Origins of the Red Cross. The History Press, Stroud, 2006.

Borch, Fred L., and Solis, Gary. Geneva Conventions. Kaplan Publishing, New York City, 2010.

Grossman, Dave. On Killing: The Psychological Cost of Learning to Kill in War and Society. Back Bay Books, New York City, 2009.

Byers, Michael. War Law: Understanding International Law and Armed Conflict. Grove Press, New York City, 2007.

Web Sites:

http://supportgenevaconventions.org/. “Citizens Interfaith Coalition to Reaffirm and Extend the Geneva Conventions”. Dennis Rivers. 11/11/2011.

http://en.wikipedia.org/. “Geneva Conventions”. Multiple authors. 11/23/2011.

http://www.icrc.org/. “The Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols”. International Committee of the Red Cross. 11/12/2011.