The Geneva Conventions are inadequate to meet the developments in warfare in the post-1945 world. Do you agree?

Résumé du document

The world changes and evolves continuously. In such circumstances, few things remain as relevant or as useful as they originally were. The laws and rules that seek to cover the entire world within their jurisdiction, like the Geneva Conventions, tend to become irrelevant faster. However, before we can abandon the Geneva Conventions out of hand, we must analyze and examine the central values that have sustained them through more than a century of war and conflict, since the first convention in 1864. This paper seeks to examine the adequacy of the Geneva Conventions with reference to the developments in warfare in post-1945 or post-Second World War world. In order to do it, this paper will reveal the differences between the circumstances, conditions and types of warfare before and after 1945. It will attempt to analyze the effectiveness of the provisions of the Geneva Conventions with regard to the differences in warfare that they have passed through. The first task, however, will be to gain a good understanding of the scope and nature of the Geneva Conventions.

Extraits

[...] It is essentially this reference to objectively verifiable standards and processes rather than subjective assertions as to good and evil that enable credible distinctions to be drawn between those that abide by the rules of the international community and those, like the architects of 9/11, that conspire against them. (Duffy, H p.1-2) Even US Attorney General Alberto Gonzales has acknowledged that the ‘Geneva Conventions' basic principles regarding “decent treatment of human beings” remain unquestioned' (Nevers, p. 105). These fundamental systems of belief by themselves make the Geneva Convention adequate enough to meet the developments in warfare in the post-1945 war. Changes will have to be adapted to by broadening the scope of the Conventions. [...]

[...] New versions of warfare include: i. Armed internal conflicts as a result of ‘failed states' or states in which the major controlling power has collapsed, especially in the result of the end of the Cold War; ii. Ethnic struggles; iii. Asymmetric wars in which an overpowering state such as the US faces comparatively far weaker adversaries who resort to terror tactics. Fighting these new wars are new types of warriors such as warlords, mercenaries and private security companies. Terrorists and child warriors form a category of what can be described as illegitimate warriors. [...]

[...] They shall furthermore be bound by the Convention in relation to the said Power, if the latter accepts and applies the provisions thereof. By ‘power' the framers of the Geneva Conventions had implied a State. Do international terrorist organizations qualify to be given the status of a state? And even if they are taken to be ‘powers' would they respond by conforming to the provisions of the Geneva Conventions? Such a debate, however, cannot be carried forward without taking into account the Article 4.A. [...]

[...] What will however make the Conventions practically relevant is adherence and conformity to its provisions by the larger international community. References 1. Bassiouni, M. Cherif Crimes Against Humanity in International Criminal Law Nijhoff Publishers Duffy, Helen The on Terror' and the Framework of International Law Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press 3. Extract from "Basic rules of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols",1988, retrieved from: http://www.icrc.org/web/eng/siteeng0.nsf/htmlall/668BF Gonzales, A.R., January Decision reapplication of the Geneva Conventions on Prisoners of War to the Conflict with Al Qaeda and the Taliban, Draft proposal to the President of the United States Grabenwater, C., Helgesen, J., Nolte, G., European Commission for Democracy through Law, Venice Commission, December 2003, Opinion on the Possible Need for further Development of the Geneva Conventions, retrieved from http://www.venice.coe.int/docs/2003/CDL-AD(2003)018-e.pdf Nevers, R.d Modernizing the Geneva Conventions, The Washington Quarterly, Spring Nevers, R.d The Geneva Conventions and New Wars, The Academy of Political Science, Political Science Quarterly, Volume 121, Number Fall Schindler, D. [...]

[...] The Geneva Conventions would perhaps have adapted itself to this new challenge like they had done on many occasions before. That was however not to be. The September terrorist attacks blew things out of proportion. A sense of bewilderment is very evident in the Attorney General of the United States, Alberto Gonzales' argument on why the Geneva Conventions are not applicable in the case of the War on Terror in his January draft memorandum to the President: you have said, the war against terrorism is a new kind of war. [...]