Understanding the Geneva Conventions

Since the beginning of Operation Iraqi Freedom, our so called “war” against Iraq, the media has extensively mentioned the Geneva Conventions with regard to certain incidents which have occurred during this conflict. Unfortunately, a popular misconception occurs throughout this reporting. A fundamental understanding of the history and actual text of the Geneva Conventions will help to dispel some of this misperception.

To begin with, the Geneva Convention is actually the Geneva Conventions, since there have actually been four convention since the First Geneva Convention in 1864. However, the movement for the Geneva Conventions occurred several years before this.

In 1859, Henry Dunant traveled through Normandia after the battle of Solferino and witnessed thousands of soldiers left to die in the fields. Dunant then appealed to the local inhabitants to render aid to the sick and injured of both sides. In 1862, Dunant wrote a book recounting his experiences in Solferino. In the book, he called for the creation of relief organizations consisting of volunteer nurses to care for the battle wounded and for an international agreement to protect these volunteer nurses. Shortly thereafter, the International Committee for Relief to the Wounded was formed. This organization later became the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).

In 1863, the ICRC sponsored a conference in Geneva, Switzerland to which sixteen countries attended. In 1864, the Swiss government convened a diplomatic conference involving twelve governments which produced a treaty called the “Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded in Armies in the Field” (now known simply as the Geneva Convention). It is important to note that the first Geneva Convention was solely concerned with protecting medical providers on the battlefield. The protection of the forerunners of our present day EMS was paramount.
The second Geneva Convention was adopted in 1907 to extend protection to wounded or shipwrecked sailors. The third Geneva Convention was held in 1929. This convention specifically dealt with the humane treatment of prisoners of war. In 1949, the fourth Geneva Convention was held to revise the previous conventions and address the rights of civilians in war time. This was the first time the issue of protection of civilians was addressed. In 1977, the Geneva Conventions were amended to include two Protocols which gave additional protection to civilians during wartime and addressed the issue of armed conflict within a nation.

As for the ratification of the Geneva Conventions by the United States, President Chester Arthur signed the treaty in 1882. The treaty was then ratified by the Senate, which has ratified all four of the Conventions but not the 1977 Protocols.
Iraq, on the other hand, adopted the Geneva Conventions on February 14, 1956, but has not signed the Conventions. The actual signature period for this treaty was a finite term after the treaty was drafted. However, countries can adopt the Geneva Conventions by the process of accession, which is essentially an adoption after the signature period has ended whereby the country proclaims to the world that it will abide by the Convention. This was the process Iraq utilized.

The Geneva Convention Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War contains one hundred and forty three articles. Part One of the document contains the general provisions of the Convention. Essentially, the following actions are prohibited: murder, mutilation, hostage-taking, “outrages upon personal dignity,” and executions without passing previous judgment. Additionally, Part One describes who is considered a prisoner of war. Within this category, war correspondents, civilian contractors, and crews of civilian aircraft are included.

Part Two of the Geneva Convention covers the general provisions for the protection of prisoners of war and Part Three covers the issues of captivity. Interestingly, under the Convention, prisoners of war may keep all personal effects including their metal helmets and gas masks. Under Article 23 of the Convention, prisoner of war camps shall be indicated in the daytime by the letters “PW” or “PG.” This insures that the camps will not be accidentally bombed. However, prisoners of war must be given the same type of bomb shelters as the civilian population. Lastly, Article 32 of the Convention provides that prisoners of war who are doctors, nurses or other medical specialists may be required by the detaining power to exercise their medical functions.

On the other hand, medical personnel and chaplains are not considered prisoners of war. In fact, they are given broad “power” within the Convention: they may leave the camp to visit work sites or prison hospitals, senior medical officers are given authority over all of the prison camp personnel, and these groups are exempt from the requirement of labor duties within the camp.

Part Three sub-Section Four of the Convention provides for the financial resources of prisoners of war. Essentially, all prisoners of war are given a monthly allowance: those below the rank of sergeant receive eight Swiss francs per month (approximately $11.20) while generals receive seventy-five Swiss francs per month (approximately $105.00). These monies are held by the detaining power in a commissary account for the benefit of each prisoner.

Part Three sub-Section Five of the Convention concerns prisoners of war and the “outside world.” Under this section, prisoners of war may immediately write their families to inform them of their capture and state of health. In addition, prisoners of war may send and receive letters and cards. A detaining power may limit the amount of mail sent by the prisoners of war, but in no case may this be limited to less than two letters and four cards monthly. Note that the mail can be censored by either the detaining country or the prisoner of war’s home country. Additionally, prisoners of war may receive relief parcels or “care packages” from home. Lastly, prisoners of war must be allowed to consult a lawyer for the purpose of drafting a will or similar document.

Relations between prisoners of war and their captors are governed by Part Three sub-section Six of the Convention. These sub-sections establish a mechanism for lodging complaints, appointing prisoner representatives, and disciplinary sanctions against prisoners of war. Prisoners of war may only be tried in military courts and cannot be tried in any court which lacks the “essential guarantees of independence and impartiality.” Disciplinary sanctions imposed upon prisoners range from a fine of fifty percent of a month’s allowance to fatigue duty (hard labor) up to two hours per day to confinement. While the Convention does not explicitly encourage prisoners to attempt to escape, it does provide that the prisoner, if caught, can only be subject to these sanctions, even if it is a repeated attempt.

Strikingly, a prisoner of war can be tried in a court of law, convicted, and sentenced to death. The conditions precedent to a death sentence are the following: the crime must be forbidden by law in the detaining country, the prisoner must be given due process, an appellate process must exist to appeal the conviction, and the sentence of death must be reported to the Protecting Power (e.g. the ICRC). Death sentences cannot be carried out until six months have expired from the time the Protecting Power receives notification under this sub-section.

The remaining sections of the Geneva Convention deal with issues such as death and burial of a prisoner of war during captivity, repatriation after hostilities have ended, and general provisions regarding implementation of the convention and violations of the articles of the convention.
Interestingly, the convention does not provide great detail as to how to deal with breaches of the articles of the convention, nor does it detail the consequences for breaching the convention. Rather, Article 130 simply describes what “grave breaches” are: murder, torture (including biological experiments), willfully causing great suffering or serious injury, compelling a prisoner of war to serve in the detaining powers’ armed forces, or willfully depriving a prisoner of war of the right to a fair trial. Following this article, the convention provides that any alleged violation should be investigated in a manner agreed upon between the countries. If the countries do not agree, then an umpire will be appointed. This is the extent of the convention’s treatment of alleged violations.

This last sub-section points out the limitations of the Geneva Convention. In essence, the Geneva Convention establishes ideals for the proper treatment of captured prisoners of war. These ideals are supposed to exist independently of the underlying conflict. However, these are merely ideals of law meant to operate in a time when the rule of law has presumably failed: that is, in times of war. During wartime, social, political, and religious forces suffer the maelstrom of a world in crisis. Morals, ideals, and the rule of law break down (witness Iraq at this very moment). Thus, one could conclude that the ideals underlying the Geneva Convention might suffer as well.

From another perspective, the conduct of war has dramatically changed since the adoption of the Geneva Conventions. One no longer sees the epic battles of wars past wherein masses of men marched on the battlefield. Nowadays, wars (from a United States perspective) tend to be directed and conducted by technology (witness “smart bombs” and their progeny). Moreover, wars are no longer “wars” in a classic sense. Operation Iraqi

Freedom is more akin to a surgical strike than an all out fight en masse.
Regardless of how one chooses to classify armed conflict, there must be an underlying recognition that these battles are waged by humans who deserve a measure of dignity regardless of the uniform they wear. This is the ideal to which the Geneva Convention subscribes: that irrespective of the origin or conduct of the conflict in question, prisoners of war are human beings entitled to the basic protection of their personal dignity, health, and welfare. To that end, most of the civilized nations of the world have pledged to protect these fundamental rights. One can only hope that these countries pay more than lip service to their commitments under the Geneva Convention when the bullets and bombs start flying.