In reviewing the ICRC's webpage on civilians in the power of the enemy, I took a look at the Fourth Geneva Convention (1949), particularly Article 4 (because that's what the webpage said to do). I've decided I don't really understand Article 4. It states the following:
"Art. 4. Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals.Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it. Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are."
I interpret the "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it," to mean that if your state has not signed the Fourth Geneva Convention, then you are not a protected civilian. I further see "Nationals of a neutral State who find themselves in the territory of a belligerent State, and nationals of a co-belligerent State, shall not be regarded as protected persons while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are," to mean that if your state is neutral, and you happen to be in a belligerent state, and another state invades, you are also not protected by the Geneva Conventions against the invading state.
Absolutely none of this makes sense. Can someone clarify? I'm quite positive I'm misreading this passage.
Thanks.
1 comment:
You raised a great question. I’m also wondering the logic behind this article after reading your blog, but I don’t have an answer. These provisions were concluded in 1949, the notion of sovereignty was relatively strong then. Compared with the Additional Protocol II of 1977, there is no such limitation for the scope of application in Protocol II. I guess "Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention are not protected by it" just because treaties only bind states those who are parties to them. For the latter one, I guess they’re trying to emphasize the purpose of this convention: to protect civilians “under enemy control.” It places emphasis on the condition of war. I noticed these words: “while the State of which they are nationals has normal diplomatic representation in the State in whose hands they are.” Does it imply that if their national state is having some sort of “abnormal” diplomatic relation with the state in whose hands they are, they shall be protected? In other words, the question is whether or not their national state recognizes the condition of war.
Post a Comment