Geneva Conventions Additional Protocol I: Difference between revisions
imported>Howard C. Berkowitz No edit summary |
mNo edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by one other user not shown) | |||
| Line 9: | Line 9: | ||
| journal = Washington Post | | journal = Washington Post | ||
| date = February 18, 1987}}, p. A18</ref> The argument was shared by many major powers. | | date = February 18, 1987}}, p. A18</ref> The argument was shared by many major powers. | ||
==References== | ==References== | ||
{{reflist}} | {{reflist}}[[Category:Suggestion Bot Tag]] | ||
Latest revision as of 16:01, 20 August 2024
Offered for signature in 1977, Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions extended prisoner of war protection to fighters that do not wear insignia and hide in a civilian population, which its proponents argued were a military necessity for insurgent groups such as the Palestine Liberation Organization. Extending POW coverage was consistent with the views of international human rights activists, and also fit a "no gaps" model that appealed to the Red Cross. Its Part IV does contain language forbidding attacks against civilians.[1]
U.S. opposition, in the Reagan Administration but also in much of the press, reflected Reagan's observation that Protocol I was "fundamentally and irreconcilably flawed" and would "endanger citizens in war." The Washington Post editorialized "we must not, and need not, give recognition and protection to terrorist groups as a price for progress in humanitarian law."[2] The argument was shared by many major powers.
References
- ↑ Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977, International Committee of the Red Cross
- ↑ "Hijacking the Geneva Conventions", Washington Post, February 18, 1987, p. A18