PROTOCOL I ADDITIONAL TO THE 1949 GENEVA CONVENTIONS AND CUSTOMARY INTERNATIONAL LAW

Israel Yearbook on Human Rights

Volumn 31, Issue , 2002, Pages 145-159

  Pocar, Fausto ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MILAN   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85180769327     PISSN: 03335925     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book Series    
DOI: 10.1163/9789004423152_007     Document Type: Chapter

References (44)

1. Text in Resolutions ofthe 1974-77 DiplomaticConference, Extractsfrom the FinalAct of the 1974-77 DiplomaticConference (ICRC, 1977).
2. Protocol I entered into force on 7 December 1978. By 1980, only 16 States had become parties to the Protocol. These included Bahamas, Bangladesh, Botswana, Cyprus, Ecuador, El Salvador, Finland, Gabon, Ghana, Jordan, Laos, Libya, Niger, Sweden, Tunisia, and Yugoslavia.
3. The number of States parties to Protocol I was 159, as at 21 August 2001.
4. India, Indonesia, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Japan, Pakistan, Turkey and the United States are some of the States which have not ratified the Protocol so far.
5. Emphasis added.
6. See R.R. Baxter, "Treaties and Custom", 129 R.A.D.I. 36 et seq. (1970/I);
7. K. Zemanek, "Die Bedeutung der Kodifizierung des V61kerrechts fir seine Anwendung", in Festschrift Verdross 565 (1971);
8. R. Ago, "La Codification du Droit International et les Problames de sa R6alisation", in Recueil d'ttudes du Droit International en Hommage a Paul Guggenheim 93 (1968).
9. According to Art. 34 of the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties (1155 U.N.T.S. 331), "A treaty does not create either obligations or rights for a third State without its consent".
10. F. Kalshoven, "Applicability of Customary International Law in Non-International Armed Conflicts", in Current Problems of InternationalLaw 274 (A. Cassese ed., 1975).
11. An example could be found in some provisions of the 1958 Geneva Conventions on the law of the sea, which codified customary rules, and were later contradicted by provisions of the 1982 Montego Bay Convention on the Law of the Sea, should the latter be regarded as reflecting customary law.
12. Case Concerning Military and Paramilitary Activities in and against Nicaragua (Merits), [1986] I.C.J. Rep. 4, at 94-95; hereinafter: Nicaraguacase.
13. See G. Abi-Saab, "The 1977 Additional Protocols and General International Law: Some Preliminary Reflections", in Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts: Challenges Ahead, Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, at 120 (A.J.M. Delissen & G.J. Tanja eds., 1991), who mentions in this regard the rules concerning the protection of the civilians against aerial bombardments in Protocol I.
14. See North Sea Continental Shelf Cases (1969), [1969] I.CJ. Rep. 3, at 44.
15. See T. Meron, "The Geneva Conventions as Customary Law", 81 Am. J. Int'l L. 367 (1987),
16. F. Capotorti, "Sul valore della prassi applicativa dei trattati secondo la convenzione di Vienna", in InternationalLaw at the Time of its Codification: Essays in Honour of Roberto Ago, at 197 et seq. (1987);
17. F. Pocar, "Codification of Human Rights Law by the United Nations", in Perspectiveson International Law 153 (N. Jasentuliyana ed., 1995).
18. See e.g., Prosecutor v. Blaskic, Case No. IT-95-14-T, Judgement, 3 March 2000 (hereinafter: Blaskic case), para. 172,
19. Prosecutor v. Kordid and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-PT, Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Portions of the Amended Indictment Alleging "Failure to Punish" Liability, 2 March 1999, para.13, where it is stated that "both the Republic of Croatia and Bosnia and Herzegovina are bound by Additional Protocol I as successor States of the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia, which had ratified the Protocol on II June 1979".
20. See in this context also Prosecutor v. Delalic etal., Case No. IT-96-21A, Appeal Judgement, 20 February 2001, paras. 111-13,
21. See T. Meron, Human Rights and Humanitarian Norms as Customary International Low 43 (1989).
22. C. Greenwood, "Customary Law Status of the 1977 Geneva Protocols", in Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts
23. See Prosecutor v. Kupreskic et al., Case No. IT-95-16-T, Judgement, 14 January 2000 (hereinafter: Kupreskic case), para. 542.
24. See the Letter of Transmittal of Protocol II by President Reagan to the Senate, dated January 29, 1987, and H.-P. Gasser, "An Appeal for Ratification by the United States", 81 Am. J. Int'l L. at 910-12 and 912-25 respectively (1987).
25. G.H. Aldrich, "Prospects for United States Ratification of Additional Protocol I to the 1949 Geneva Conventions", 85 Am. J. Int'l L. 1-20 (1991), where the difficulties encountered by the United States are discussed with a view to overcoming them, also by means of reservations.
26. E.K. Kwakwa, The InternationalLaw of Armed Conflict: Personaland Material Fields of Application 26 (1992);
27. T. Meron, War Crimes Law Comes of Age 179-80 (1998).
28. See H. Meyrowitz, "The Principle of Superfluous Injury or Unnecessary Suffering. From the Declaration of St. Petersburg of 1868 to Additional Protocol I of 1977", 76 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 103 (1994), where it is stated that "while this rule derives from the principle expressed in HR, Article 23(e), international legislation was required to make it positive law".
29. See, among others, J.-M. Henckaerts, "Study on Customary Rules of International Humanitarian Law: Prupose, Coverage and Methodology", 81 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 663 (1999).
30. See in particular L.R. Penna, "Customary International Law and Protocol 1: An Analysis of Some Provisions", in Studies and Essays on International Humanitarian Law and Red Cross Principles, in Honour of Jean Pictet, at 214-15 (C. Swinarski ed., 1984);
31. As to the role of the Protocol in clarifying pre-existing customary law see H.-P. Gasser, "Negotiating the 1977 Additional Protocols: was it a Waste of Time?", in Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts, 85-86.
32. Prosecutor v. Kordid and Cerkez, Case No. IT-95-14/2-PT, Decision on the Joint Defence Motion to Dismiss the Amended Indictment for Lack of Jurisdiction Based on the Limited Jurisdictional Reach of Articles 2 and 3, 2 March 1999, para. 31.
33. R. Ticehurst, "The Martens Clause and the Laws of Armed Conflict", 79 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 125-34 (1997). On the origin of the "Martens clause"
34. P. Benvenuti, "La clausola Martens e la tradizione classica del diritto naturale nella codificazione del diritto dei conflitti armati", in Scritti Degli Allievi in Memoria di Giuseppe Barile 173 (1995).
35. Prosecutor v. KupreIkid et al., Case No. IT-95-16-A, Appeal Judgement, 23 October 2001.
36. See in particular F. Kalshoven, "Reaffirmation and Development of Humanitarian Laws Applicable in Armed Conflicts", 9 Netherlands Y.B. Int'l L. 12 (1978).
37. P. Rowe, "Kosovo 1999: The Air Campaign. Have the Provisions of Additional Protocol I Withstood the Test?", 82 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 160 (2000).
38. See N. Ronzitti, Diritto Internazionaledei Conflitti Armati 161 (2nd ed., 2001).
39. F. Kalshoven, Belligerent Reprisals 375 (1971),
40. See Prosecutor v. Milan Martic, Case No. IT-95-11-R61, Review of Indictement Pursuant to Rule 61, 8 March 1996, paras. 10-18.
41. T. Meron, "The Humanization of Humanitarian Law", 94 Am. J. Int'l L. 250 (2000).
42. See however, for a different view, F. Kalshoven & L. Zegveld, Constraintson the Waging of War 101 (2001).
43. Step Forward or Backwards?", 33 YB. World Affairs 269 (1979);
44. "Commentaires au Sujet du Protocole I", 79 Int'l Rev. Red Cross 553 (1997).