Debate of International Humanitarian Law

8/9/2019 Debate of International Humanitarian Law

1/5

Arming the ICRC

ProBy seeing ICRC as humanitarian aid then it might regarded as medical personnel, andtherefore; here are the findings;Geneva Convention (1906)

Article 8(1) of the 1906 Geneva Convention lists among the conditions not depriving mobilesanitary formations and fixed establishments of the protection guaranteed by Article 6 of theConvention the fact that the personnel of a formation or establishment is armed and uses itsarms in self defense or in defense of its sick and wounded.Geneva Convention (1929)

Article 8(1) of the 1929 Geneva Convention lists among the conditions not depriving mobilemedical formations and fixed establishments of the protection guaranteed by Article 6 of theConvention the fact that the personnel of the formation or establishment is armed, and thatthey use the arms in their own defence or in that of the sick and wounded in charge.Geneva Convention I

Article 22(1) of the 1949 Geneva Convention I lists among the conditions not depriving fixedestablishments and mobile medical units of the protection guaranteed by Article 19 of the1949 Geneva Convention I the fact that the personnel of the unit or establishment are armed,and that they use the arms in their own defence, or in that of the wounded and sick in theircharge.

Additional Protocol IUnder Article 13(2)(a) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the fact that the personnel of the unitare equipped with light individual weapons for their own defence or for that of the woundedand sick in their charge shall not be considered as an act harmful to the enemy, depriving amedical unit of its protected status.

Additional Protocol II (draft) Article 17(2) and (3)(a) of the draft Additional Protocol II, adopted by consensus in CommitteeII of the CDDH, provided:2. The protection to which medical units and transports are entitled shall not ceaseunless they are used to commit, outside their humanitarian function, acts harmful to theadverse Party.3. The following shall not be considered as harmful acts:(a) that the personnel of the unit or the transport are equipped with light individual weaponsfor their own defence or for that of the wounded and sick for whom they are responsible.

to be opened: https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v1_cha_chapter7_rule25 https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_rul_rule25_sectionb https://www.icrc.org/customary-ihl/eng/docs/v2_cha_chapter7_rule25_sectionb
https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icrc.org%2Fcustomary-ihl%2Feng%2Fdocs%2Fv2_cha_chapter7_rule25_sectionb&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGIgeEmQIkFqCNE05LFGBsjvUwCRQhttps://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icrc.org%2Fcustomary-ihl%2Feng%2Fdocs%2Fv2_cha_chapter7_rule25_sectionb&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGIgeEmQIkFqCNE05LFGBsjvUwCRQhttps://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icrc.org%2Fcustomary-ihl%2Feng%2Fdocs%2Fv2_rul_rule25_sectionb&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFTvmb-w98JYOXYP22QSON9EkQqzwhttps://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icrc.org%2Fcustomary-ihl%2Feng%2Fdocs%2Fv1_cha_chapter7_rule25&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE_pBAEhVdV5kuDGsjofJaUhWd2WA


2/5

Contra-ICRC endeavours to prevent suffering by promoting and strengthening humanitarian law and universal humanitarianprinciples-ICRC Protection Policy"The permanent concern of the ICRC to ensure that its action does not have an adverse impact on, or create newrisks for, individuals or populations (the precept to "do no harm")"-Arming the ICRC could lessen their impartiality nature (?) as although their intention is for protecting themselves orthe wounded people, if they attack a certain party involving in the conflict, international society could regard it asbeing partial.( https://www.icrc.org/casebook/doc/case-study/icrc-protection-policy-case-study.htm )

Include terrorists as legal combatants

Contra

First, it dignifies criminality by according terrorist killers the status of soldiers. Under the lawof war, military service members receive several privileges. They are permitted to kill theenemy and are immune from prosecution for doing so. They must, however, carefullydistinguish between combatant and civilian and ensure that harm to civilians is limited.By treating such terrorists as combatants, however, we accord them a mark of respect anddignify their acts. And we undercut our own efforts against them in the process. Al Qaedarepresents no state, nor does it carry out any of a states responsibilities for the welfare of itscitizens. Labeling its members as combatants elevates its cause and gives Al Qaeda anundeserved status.to deny legitimacy to their aims and means, and gain legitimacy for ourselves.

A great danger in treating operatives for Al Qaeda as combatants is precisely that itsmembers are not easily distinguished from the population at large. The government wieldsfrightening power when it can designate who is, and who is not, subject to indefinite militarydetention. At the core of the courts reasoning is the belief that civilians and combatants aredistinct. Had Ali al-Marri fought for an enemy nation, military detention would clearly beproper. But because he is accused of being a member of Al Qaeda, and is a citizen of afriendly nation, he should not be treated as a warrior.In order to be recognized as legitimate combatants, the Hague regulations required irregularunits to "be commanded by a person responsible for his subordinates; to have a fixeddistinctive emblem recognizable at a distance; to carry arms openly; and to conduct theiroperations in accordance with the laws and customs of war." [24] The drafters of the ThirdGeneva Convention adopted this four-part test as part of the criteria to determine eligibility forPOW status. The delegates drafting the convention made quite clear in their debates that theydid not want to confer automatic POW status on irregular forces. After much negotiation, aspecial committee of the conference resolved this question by crafting article 4(A) so as todifferentiate between regular armed forces, constituent volunteer corps, and militias on onehand, from irregular resistance movements, on the other. The drafters agreed to apply theHague four-part test to the latter. ? this would take away the relevance of this 4 part test
https://www.google.com/url?q=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.icrc.org%2Fcasebook%2Fdoc%2Fcase-study%2Ficrc-protection-policy-case-study.htm&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNF09HeqJzHSWc-LSPM3csguAgsKkQ


3/5

Pro

treating terrorists like criminals takes away vital tools that can be used to prevent attacks,such as interrogating detainees for intelligence and launching drone strikes.holding suspects without charge and denying them the ability to defend themselves in courtgoes against UN values and eventually erodes the freedoms of law-abiding citizens.Persons not covered by either the Third or the Fourth Geneva Convention in internationalarmed conflict are entitled to the fundamental guarantees provided for by customaryinternational law (as reflected in Article 75 of Additional Protocol I), as well as by applicabledomestic and human rights law. All these legal sources provide for rights of detainees inrelation to treatment, conditions and due process of law.

addition (dio): According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the word 'TERRORISM' means:'The unofficial or unauthorized use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims'.Under that definition I strongly beleive that the following people are therefore 'TERRORISTS'.and thus, if the legallity of humanitarian intervention and it only can be authorized by theUNSC, the military or humanitarian intervention of US in Syria, Kosovo, can be defined asterrorism.

Drone Debate

ContraNew America puts the civilian death total in Pakistan and Yemen between 276 and 368, ofwhich 118-135 were under the Bush administration. The Bureau of Investigative Journalismputs the number between 446 and 978, increasing to 993 if you include Somalia. Of those,179 to 209 were children, BIJ estimates. A Stanford/NYU study suggests that the strikes haveinflicted considerable psychological trauma on residents of Pakistan, and deterred reliefworkers from serving areasWithin the affected areas, the destruction of precious infrastructure by drone strikes and theresulting delegitimization of the regional governments significantly empowers non-stateactors . In turn, this fosters extremism and hostility toward the United States and its allies,often complicating rather than advancing U.S. regional interests.Drones violate national sovereignty of countries that have never attacked or harmedus in any way. They also are a way for the executive branch to usurp the powers of the

judicial and legislative branches of our government, giving way too much power to thepresident.


4/5

We may save a few lives when we use high-tech weapons to kill our enemies, but then we are just asking for other countries to treat us the same. Can no one look ahead andsee the launching of drones into our cities? When our enemies kill more than ourmilitary, will we cry and scream that the killing of innocents is not acceptable collateraldamage in war? Robert Quinn added: If any other nation were employing suchnondiscriminatory weapons Americans would be appropriately outraged. We do it andits justified?-Drone strikes create more terrorists than they kill. People who see their loved ones injuredor killed in drone attacks become motivated to join actions against the United States. According to authorJeremy Scahill, the vast majority of militants operating in Yemen today are "people who are aggrieved byattacks on their homes that forced them to go out and fight." [49] Support for al Qaeda in Yemen is"indigenously spreading and merging with the mounting rage of powerful tribes at US counterterrorismpolicy" as the drone strikes have "recruited thousands." [49] The number of Al Qaeda in the ArabianPeninsula (AQAP) core members grew from 300 in 2009 (when US drone strikes resumed after aseven-year hiatus) to 700 in 2012, resulting in an exponential increase in the number of terrorist attacks in

the region. [50] Both the "Underwear Bomber," who tried to blow up an American airliner in 2009, [51] and the"Times Square Bomber," who tried to set off a car bomb in New York City in 2010, [52] cited drone strikes inPakistan, Yemen, and Somalia as motivators for the plots.

-US drone strikes give cover for other countries to engage in human rightsabuses. America's use of drones in foreign countries makes it all but impossible to demand that othercountries self-impose limitations on their own drone use. Just as the United States justifies its drone strikeswith the argument that it is at war with al Qaeda and its affiliates, drone strikes may be used by othercountries to target what they consider terrorists and what Americans would consider as cover for humanrights abuses against non-combatants. [11] China could justify drone strikes against Tibetan separatists inIndia, Russia could justify attacks against rebels in Chechnya, or Turkey could target Kurdish insurgents inIraq. Philip Alston, former UN Special Rapporteur on extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions, said that

an "arms race" spurred by the widespread use of drones by the US government is already well under way.[78]

( http://drones.procon.org/#background )

Promany more civilians were killed by the United States during their invasions and occupationsof Iraq and Afghanistan; many others continue to struggle and perish as a result ofsecond-order effects of these wars.

It is up to the individual countries who allow these terrorists to use their soil as their bases of operations to fight them, with the help of willing partners. To fail to do so is toalign themselves with the terrorists.-Drone strikes make the United States safer by decimating terrorist networksacross the world. Drone attacks in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia have killed upwards of3,500 militants, including dozens of high-level commanders implicated in organizing plots against the UnitedStates.According to President Obama, "dozens of highly skilled al Qaeda commanders, trainers, bomb
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2F%23background&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNExj5aUgLnTDN2ukUuYnmTtr6LAoQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2378&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNFQ14PGY4gExmoPnPLl1bNLdmBKbAhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2311&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNE_QVzvR6rymh9XtEuzicRQ0Of19Qhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2352&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEZeAicFbpGudLNxPNb5Mlqr74pgghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2351&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGqjXh31ZDCWIXbXn6omDgAWnI6_whttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2350&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGZX_TI-55KbEUKAzYS1iIk_-1Yighttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2349&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEZSu5EsNmFH_i1hmY0cMQHaFk1zAhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2349&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEZSu5EsNmFH_i1hmY0cMQHaFk1zA


5/5

makers and operatives have been taken off the battlefield. Plots have been disrupted that would havetargeted international aviation, US transit systems, European cities, and our troops in Afghanistan. Simplyput, these strikes have saved lives."David Rohde, a former New York Times reporter held hostage by theTaliban in Pakistan for several months in 2009, called the drones a "terrifying presence" for militants.OnNov. 1, 2013 drone strikes killed Pakistani Taliban leader Hakimullah Mehsud.

-Drone strikes are carried out with the collaboration and encouragement of localgovernments, and make those countries safer. US drone strikes help countries fight terroristthreats to their own domestic peace and stability, including al Qaeda and the Taliban in Pakistan, alShabaab in Somalia, al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula in Yemen, and al Qaeda in the Maghreb in Algeriaand Mali. Yemens President, Abdu Rabbu Mansour Hadi, has openly praised drone strikes in his country,stating that the "electronic brains precision is unmatched by the human brain." [34] In a 2008 StateDepartment cable made public by Wikileaks, Pakistani Chief of Army Staff General Ashfaq Kayani asked USofficials for more drone strikes, [35] and in Apr. 2013 former Pakistani president Pervez Musharrafacknowledged to CNN that his government had secretly signed off on US drone strikes. [36] In Pakistan,where the vast majority of drone strikes are carried out, drones have contributed to a major decrease inviolence. The 41 suicide attacks in Pakistan in 2011 were down from 49 in 2010 and a record high of 87 in

2009, which coincided with an over ten-fold increase in the number of drone strikes.[37]

-Drone pilots have a lower risk for post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) thanpilots of manned aircraft and other battlefield soldiers. Drone pilots suffer less thantraditional pilots because they do not have to be directly present on the battlefield, can live a normal civilianlife in the United States, and do not risk death or serious injury. Only 4% of active-duty drone pilots are at"high risk for PTSD" compared to the 12-17% of soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan. [46] ( http://drones.procon.org/#background )
http://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2F%23background&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNExj5aUgLnTDN2ukUuYnmTtr6LAoQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2346&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNHB---OzydOICJfBzzfOdPbR4rdIghttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2337&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGH2BSpiJVWk6T64riDu9OiFbefCwhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2336&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEM-y3S-hxY_fLcXxmuQM20L4gYFQhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2335&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNGhvBoVfWuD12iwgd8I4o-o-qSspAhttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2334&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEH0GmblyjOeh_12TvWooI0HRdr3whttp://www.google.com/url?q=http%3A%2F%2Fdrones.procon.org%2Fview.resource.php%3FresourceID%3D005498%2312&sa=D&sntz=1&usg=AFQjCNEXRMJz_hfZFCYlvMnq1yOU5w5Ogg

Documents

Debate of International Humanitarian Law