This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsPreview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
Article 1 common of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, 12 August, 1949 (hereafter: First Geneva Convention); Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, 12 August, 1949 (hereafter: Second Geneva Convention); Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, 12 August, 1949 (hereafter: Third Geneva Convention); Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, 12 August, 1949 (hereafter: Fourth Geneva Convention)).
See supra n. 1.
Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, 6 July 1906 (hereafter: 1906 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Wounded and Sick), Article 26; Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, 27 July 1929 (hereafter: 1929 Geneva Convention for the Protection of Wounded and Sick), Article 27.
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (hereafter: Additional Protocol I), Article 83; Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts, 8 June 1977 (hereafter: Additional Protocol II), Article 19.
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May, 1954 (hereafter: Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property), Article 25.
Second Protocol to the Hague Convention of 1954 for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 26 March, 1999 (hereafter: Second Protocol to the Hague Convention on Cultural Property), Article 30.
Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May be Deemed to be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 10 October, 1980 (hereafter: Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons), Article 6; its Second Amended Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices specifies that each State must require its armed forces to issue relevant military instructions and operating procedures and to provide training for armed forces personnel that is commensurate with their respective duties and responsibilities (Art. 14). Protocol IV on Blinding Laser Weapons stipulates that the States shall provide training for their armed forces (Art. 2).
See Jean-Marie Henckaerts/Louise Doswald-Beck, Customary International Humanitarian Law, Volume I: Rules (2005), p. 502 with the references of practice that could be collected.
See id. with the references of practice that could be collected.
See Henckaerts/Doswald-Beck, supra n. 11, p. 504 with the references.
Id.
Jean S. Pictet (ed.), Commentary on the First Geneva Convention, Geneva, International Committee of the Red Cross, 1952, p. 349.
See Henckaerts/Doswald-Beck, supra n. 11, p. 506 with the references of practice that could be collected.
See id.
See supra Henckaerts/Doswald-Beck, n. 11, pp. 506 et seq. with the references of practice that could be collected.
Yves Sandoz/ Christophe Swinarski/ Bruno Zimmermann (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, p. 1488, § 4909.
See generally and with specific references François Bugnion, The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Protection of War Victims, 2003, pp. 847 et seq.
Switzerland represented British and French interests in Egypt, whereas India represented Egyptian interests in the United Kingdom and France. There was no Protecting Power representing Egyptian interests in Israel or Israeli interests in Egypt. (See more in: Keesing’s Contemporary Archives, 1956, p. 15181.)
Sweden protected Tunisian interests in France and Switzerland protected French interests in Tunisia. (See id., p. 18343)
Egypt protected Indian interests in Portugal and Brazil protected Portuguese interests in India. (See id., p. 18635.)
Both states appointed Switzerland as Protecting Power. (See id., p. 25054.)
Switzerland represented British interests in Argentina and Brazil represented Argentine interests in the United Kingdom. (See Sylvie-Stoyanka Junod, Protection of the Victims of Armed Conflict Falkland/Malvinas Islands (1982): International Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Action, ICRC, Geneva, 1984, p. 20.)
Articles 52/53/132/149 common of the Geneva Conventions of 1949 (see supra n. 5).
Commentary to Article 149 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, ICRC, Geneva, 1958, p. 604.
Report of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission: 1991–1996, p. 2. and accordingly the Report of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission: 1997–2001, p. 1.
Article 5 (2) c) Movement Statutes. For a comprehensive overview, see Yves Sandoz, The International Committee of the Red Cross as Guardian of International Humanitarian Law, ICRC, 1998, available at: http://www.icrc.org/WEB/ENG/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/p0700?OpenDocument&style=Custo_Final.4&View=defaultBody2; Toni Pfanner, Le rôle du Comité International de la Croix-Rouge dans la mise en oeuvre du droit international, in: Le droit face aux crises humanitaires: de l’efficacité du droit international humanitaire dans les conflits armés, Luxemburg, Office des publications officielles des Communautés européennes, 1995, pp. 177–248.
Annual Report 2004, ICRC, June 2005, p. 45.
Action by the International Committee of the Red Cross in the event of violations of international humanitarian law or of other fundamental rules protecting persons in situations of violence, International Review of the Red Cross, No, 858, pp. 393–400.
See for example the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights’s Report on Human Rights and Terrorism, OEA/Ser.L/V/II.116, Doc. 5 rev. 1 corr., 22 October 2002 see in particular para. 29, (http://www.cidh.oas.org/Terrorism/Eng/toc.htm). Liesbeth Zegveld, The Inter-American Commission on human Rights and International Humanitarian Law — A Comment on the Tablada Case, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 324, 1998, pp. 505–512; Fanny Martin, Application du droit international humanitaire par la Court interaméricaine des droits de l’homme, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 844, 2001, pp. 1037–1066; Christina M. Cerna, Extraterritorial Application of the Human Rights Instruments of the Inter-American System, in Menno T. Kamminga and Fons Coomans, Extraterritorial Application of Human Rights Treaties, 2004, pp. 141–174.
For further detail see Improving Compliance with International Humanitarian Law, ICRC Expert Seminars, Report prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross, Geneva, October 2003, (www.icrc.org/Web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/5TAM64/ $File/Improving%20compliance%20with%20ihl-Oct%202003.pdf).
Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Nicaragua v. United States of America), Merits, ICJ Reports 1986, p. 14, para. 115; see also Article 16 Draft Articles on Responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts (International Law Commission, 53rd Sessions, 2001); Marco Sassòli, State responsibility for violations of international humanitarian law, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 846, p. 412 et seq.
Advisory Opinion of the International Court of Justice on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 9 July, 2004, General list No. 131., paras. 158, 163; The Prosecutor v. Zoran Kupreskic and others, ICTY Trial Chamber, Judgment, The Hague, 14 January 2000, Case No. IT-95-16-T, para. 519: “[as] a consequence of their absolute character, these norms of international humanitarian law do not pose synallagmatic obligations, i.e. obligations of a State vis-à-vis another State. Rather (...) they lay down obligations towards the international community as a whole, with the consequence that each and every member of the international community has a ‘legal interest’ in their observance and consequently a legal entitlement to demand respect for such obligations”. See also Theodor Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary Law, 1989, pp. 30–31; Laurence Boisson de Chazournes and Luigi Condorelli, Common Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions revisited: Protecting collective interests, International Review of the Red Cross No. 837 (2000), pp. 67–87; François Bugnion, The International Committee of the Red Cross and the Protection of War Victims, 2003, p. 924, with further references; Yves. Sandoz, “Droit” or “devoir d’ingérence” and the right to assistance: the issues involved, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 288, 1992, pp. 215–227; Yves Sandoz, Appel du C.I.C.R. dans le cadre du conflit entre l’Iran et l’Irak, Annuaire Français de Droit International 1983, p. 167; Hans-Peter Gasser, Ensuring Respect for the Geneva Conventions and Protocols: The Role of Third States and the United Nations, in: Hazel Fox/Michael A. Meyer, Effecting Compliance, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1993, p. 32; Umesh Palwankar, Measures available to States for fulfilling their obligation to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, International Review of the Red Cross, No. 298, 1994, pp. 9–25.
The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, UK Ministry of Defence, 2004, p. 410.
Declaration “Protecting human dignity”, adopted by the 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Geneva, 2–6 December 2003.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2007 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dörmann, K. (2007). Dissemination and Monitoring Compliance of International Humanitarian Law. In: von Heinegg, W.H., Epping, V. (eds) International Humanitarian Law Facing New Challenges. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49090-6_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-540-49090-6_14
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-540-49089-0
Online ISBN: 978-3-540-49090-6
eBook Packages: Humanities, Social Sciences and LawLaw and Criminology (R0)