I just got done reading most of the text for the Geneva Convention established in 1949 and I have a few questions. If a country violates the Geneva Convention who exactly investigates the violations and more importantly who enforces the rules of the convention? If the U.S. violated the Geneva convention who as a matter of law would enforce the rules of the Geneva Convention? The Geneva Convention mentions that complaints regarding the mistreatment of prisoners are to be made to and investigated by a “Protecting Power.” What is a “Protecting Power?” Who in a conflict involving the Geneva convention would be a “Protecting Power?”
I find it interesting that the Geneva Convention has alot of guidelines and rules but very little information on how these rules should be enforced. Several people on this board have mentioned that there are Geneva inspectors (like by Lekatt) that make sure countries comply with the rules of the Geneva Convention, but I could find no such mention of any “inspectors” or anything that suggests that these “Geneva inspectors” actually exist.
Like all treaties, countries are assumed to comply with them in good faith. After all, they ratified the treaty voluntarily. Now, if a country refuses to comply there’s not much other countries can do, except go to war. . . which they already did. In other words, “pacta sunt servandi” and all that. A country that just refuses to comply with the terms of treaties it has signed just loses international credibility and not much else. If there are legitimate disagreements or misunderstandings they can be subjected to arbitration or adjudication by a body as a greed in the terms of the treaty or as agreed by the parties in dispute.
But if a country decides to just not comply with the terms of a treaty, there is not much others can do axcept call names.
Someday someone will explain to me why the brain makes typos changing vowels. That would be “except” not “axcept” and “pacta sunt servanda”
The “Geneva Inspectors” were mentioned in this thread and it was quite clearly demonstrated no such thing exists.
I am not sure about the “protecting power” but I imagine it is a neutral power not participating in the war and who undertakes to represent each other’s interests.
The main disincentive to violating the Geneva Conventions would be loss of reputation in the international community, i.e. a political not legal penalty. As parties in conflicts seem quite eager to publish any claims of violations by the other side, the propaganda value of the other side behaving badly seems to be estimated as high.
Also if the persons responsible for violations end up on the losing side, or are citizens of a nation that values the rule of law even when applied against their nationals, they risk being tried as war criminals.
BTW a good overview of international humanitarian law can be found on the ICRC’s site
There are no such things as ‘Geneva inspectors’ in the same way that there are UN inspectors, this is something that has appeared on Straight Dope. Here are the three main ways of enforcement of the Geneva Convention(s):
“The High Signatouries”: Nations which sign the Geneva Convention(s) do not only agree to comply by it, but to enforce it and prosecute breaches of it. This means that they may and should pursue and prosecute those responsible for it. Also occasionally they meet, recently the high signatouries of the 4th Geneva Convention met to affirm that the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Territories were illegal.
The UN: Not specifically mentioned in the Geneva Convention(s), however by signing the UN Charter, nations agree to abide by the descisions of the UNSC and aid the UN in it’s enforcement of International Humanitarian law.
The International Court of Justice at the Hague: This court receives it’s mandate from the UN, IIRC correctly though cases are done on a country vs country basis, not against individuals.
To see how international law is enforced perhaps it is best to look at one of the more famous cases, the trials of Milosevic et al at the International Crimnal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia (ICTY). The Tribunal was set up by UNSC resolution 827 in 1993 and is situated at the Hague to try the following: Grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Violations of the laws or customs of war, Genocide, Crimes against humanity in the Former Yugoslavia since 1991.
Oh come on now Sailor, not only are you interjecting opinion into GQ, but Political opinion- and you’re wrong to boot.
The ICRC is specifically authorized under the GC to “inspect”. They send out “inspectors” who inspect under the authority of, and for violations of- the Geneva convention. In WWII, they were popularly known as “the geneva boys” or “geneva inspectors”. Nowadays, a better term for them would be “Red Cross” or “ICRC” Inspectors, I’ll admit. Semantics. Whatever you call them, they are “inspectors” and they are clearly mentioned in various of the Geneva treaties, etc. I quote: “Rule 6 of the Rules of Detention provides for regular and unannounced inspections of the detention unit by qualified and experienced inspectors appointed (under this Accord)”. And “The role of the ICRC shall be to inspect and report upon all aspect of conditions of detention… to ensure their compliance with internationally accepted standards of human rights or humanitarian law”. Thus, they are legally authorized to make said inspections. They are the “geneva inspectors” referred to.
In fact in a news article I found under “epx news” (it won’t link, see the AI thread in GD) for 1/22/02 they said " A team of Red Cross Inspectors has told the US that it should improve conditions for al Qaeda suspects regardless of whether or not they are categorized as POWs". (and we made these improvements). Over there in GD we have linked to, and quoted sections of the ICRC report on Guantanamo bay. see www.icrc.org for their home page. Note that the USA has allowed the ICRC full access to the Guantanamo Bay “internees”.
However, altho the ICRC has the right to “inspect” and “report”- it does NOT “enforce”. That, indeed is up to each member nation, or in a worse case scenario- the Hague. The ICRC does report violations to the Hague. Sometimes, the ICRC does report such violations to the press or on their web site.
I’m sorry Dr Deth but they we’re never known as the “Geneva inspectors”, or the “Geneva boys” even as a colloquialism during World War II.
The ICRC is not as important in terms of bringing to attention of human rights abuses as the UN High Commison on Human Rights as it has to maintain it’s absolute neutrality and impartiality and does not like to jeopardise access to detainees.