The
laws of war and aimed conflict is a body of law concerning acceptable
justifications to engage in (jus ad bellum) right to wage war, and the limits
to acceptable war time conduct (Jus in bello). The law of war s considered an
aspect of public international law (the law of nations) and is distinguished
from other bodies of law, such as the domestic law of a particular belligerent
to a conflict that may also provide legal limits of the conduct or
justification of war. Among other issues, the laws of war addressed other vital
issues such as declaration of war,
acceptance of surrender, the treatment of prisoner of war, acceptance of
surrender, the treatment of prisoners of war, differentiation between
combatants and non combatants, the principle of military necessity along with
distinction and proportionality and the use of or prohibition of certain
weapons that may cause unnecessary suffering especially to the civilian
population.
Also referred
to as international humanitarian law, the laws of war or customs of war is the
legal corpus that comprises the Geneva. Conventions and the Hague conventions
as well as subsequent treaties, case laws and customary international law. It
defines the conduct and responsibility of belligerent nations, neutral states
and individuals engaged in war fare, in relation to each other and protected
persons usually civilians. The laws of war is mandatory for nations bound by
the appropriate treaties. There are other customary unwritten rules of war many
of which were explored at the nurembering trials. All these define the permissive rights of states as
well as prohibitions on their conduct in times of conflict.
Historical background: efforts to regulate the conduct of
individuals, nations and other agencies in war to mitigate the worst effects of
war have a long history. The earliest known instances are found in the old
testament of the holy Bible. In Deuteronomy 20:19-20, the following laid down
rules were put in place:
When thou shall besiege a city a long time
in making war against it, thou shall not destroy the trees thereof by forcing
an area against them, for thou mayest eat of them and thou shall not cut them
down (for the tree of the field Is man’s life) to employ them in the siege.
Only the trees which thou knowest that they be not trees for meat, thou shall
destroy and cut them down and thou shall build bulwarks against the city that
maketh war wit thee, until it be subdued…
Even in the midst of the carnage of history, there were expressions of
humanitarian worms to protect the victims of armed conflict comprising the
wounded, the sick and the ship wrecked. This attempt dates back to ancient
times. Again in the old testament, the king of Israel prevents the slaying of
the captured based on prophet Elisha’s admonition to spare the enemy. He
advised the king on the fate of prisoners of war.
You shall not slay them. Would you slay
those whom you have taken captive? set bread and go to their master….
Islamic law provides that “non combatants who did not take part in
fighting such as women, monks and hermits, the aged, the blind and insane” were
not to be molested.3‑
Stop, o’ people that I may give you ten rules for your guidance in the
battle field. Do not commit treachery or deviate from the path. You must not
mutilate dead bodies. Bring no harm to the trees, nor burn them with fire,
especially those which are fruitful. Slay not any of the enemy’s flock, save
for your food. You are likely to pass by people who have devoted their lives to
monastic service, leave them alone…4
Those rules were put
into practice during the early Muslim conquests of the 7th and 8th
centuries. From them onwards, Islamic legal treaties on international law
covered the application of Islamic military jurisprudence to hostages,
refrugees and prisoners of war, the right of asylum, conduct on the battle,
protection of women, children and civilians across the line of battle, the use
of poisonous weapons and the devastation of the enemy territory. These laws
were put into practice by Muslim armies during the crusades.
Islamic
jurists have held that a prisoners should not be killed as he cannot be held
responsible for mere acts of belligerency.5 Islamic law however did
not spare all non-combatants. In the case of those who refine to convert to
Islam or pay alternative case, were allowed in principle to kill any one of
them, combatants or non combatants provided they were not killed treacheranly
and with mutilation…6
In ancient India, there are
records for example the laws of Manu, describing the type of weapons that
should not be used in battle soldiers were given specific instructions.
….. When he fights with his foes in battle,
let him not strike with weapons concealed in wood, nor with such as are barbed,
poisoned or the points of which are blazing with fire….7
There
is also the command not to strike the eunuch nor the enemy who… folds his hands
in supplication… nor he who sleeps, nor one who has lost his coat of mail, nor
one who is naked, nor one who is disarmed, nor one who looks on without taking
part in the fight…8
In
medieval Europe, the roman catholic church also promulgated teachings on Jurt
War. This was reflected in the rise of peace movements such as the “ peace and
truce of hood” a medieval European movement of eth catholic church which
applied spiritual sanctions in order to limit the violence of private wars in
feudal societies. This movement constituted the first organized attempt to
control civil society in medieval Europe through non-violent means. This great
impulse to restrich the extent of warfare and especially protect the lives and
property of non-combatants continued with Hugo Grotius- philosopher,
theologian, Christian apologist, play Wright, poet etc. whose work laid the
foundation for international law and the laws of war.
Growth of modern laws of war:
Modern humanitarian international law is made up of
two historical streams. The law of the Hague referred to in the part as the
laws of war proper and the law of Heneva or Humanitarian law. The two streams
take their names from a number of international conferences which drew up
treaties relating to war and conflicts, in particular the Hague contentious of
1899 and 1917, and the Geneva conventions, the first of which was drawn up in
1863. both are branches of jus in Bello international law regarding acceptable practices while
engaged in war and armed conflict.
The
law of the Hague or the law of war proper “determines the rights and duties of
belligerents in the conduct of operations and limits the choice of means in
doing harm.9 in particular, it concerns itself with the definitions
of combatants, established rules relating to the means and methods of warfare
and examines the issue of military objectives. 10
The
long and systematic attempts to limit the savagery of warfare only began to
develop in the 19th century. Such concerns were able to build on the
changing view of warfare by states influenced by the age of enlightenment. The
purpose of warfare was to overcome the enemy state and this was obtainable by
disabling the enemy combatants. Thus, the distinction between combatants
civilians, the requirement that wounded and captured enemy combatants must be
treated humanly, and that quarter must be given some of the pillars of modern
humanitarian law all follow from this principle.
Codifications of humanitarian norms: It was not until the second half of the 18th
century that a more systematic approach was initiated. In the United States, a
German immigrant, Francis Lieber drew up a code of conduct in 1863 which came
to be called the Lieber code for the Northern army. The lieber code included
the humane treatment of civilian populations in the areas of conflict and also
for bade the execution of prisoners of war. At the same time, the involvement
of a number of individuals such as Florence nightingale during the Crimean war
and Henry Dunant, a Swiss business man who had worked with wounded soldiers at
the battle of solferino led to more systematic efforts to prevent the suffering
of war victims.
Dunant
wrote a book titled “a memory of solferino” in which he described the horrors
he had witnessed. His reports were so
shocking that they led to the founding of the international committee of the
Red Cross (ICRC) In 1864. the ICRC then drew up the “Genera Convention” for the
Amelioration of the condition of he wounded in Armies in the field.12.
The law of General is directly inspired by the principle of humanity. It
relates to those who are not participating in the conflict as well as military
personal horsed combat. It provides the legal basis for protection and
humanitarian assistance carried out by impartial humanitarian organization such
as the ICRC. 13
The Geneva convention: The Geneva conventions are the result of a process
that developed in a number of stages between 1864 and 1949, which focused on
the protection of civilians and those who can no longer fight in a conflict. As
a result of world war II, all former conventions were revised based on previous
revisious and partly on some of the 1907 Hague conventions. And re-adopted by
the international community in 1949. later conferences hacve added provisions
prohibiting certain methods of warfare and addressing issues of civil wars.
The
Geneva conventions are 13
1. First Geneva convention: for the
Ameciovation of the condition of wounded, sick in armed forces in the field
this was adopted in 1864.
2. Second Geneva convention: For eh Amehioration
of the condition of wounded sick and ship wrecked members of timed forces at
sea. This was adopted in 1949.
3. Third Geneva Convention: relating to
the treatment of prisoners of war, first adopted in 1929.
4. Fourth Geneva Convention: Relating to
the protection of civilian persons in time of war first adopted in 1949.
5. 1977 protocol 1: Relating to the
protection of victims of international armed conflict.
6 1977 protocol II: relating to the
protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts
7. Protocol III (2005): relating to the
adoption of an additional distinctive emblem.
While
the Geneva conventions of 1949 can be seen as the result of a process which
began in 1864, to day, they have achieved universal participation with 1941 parties.
This means that they apply to almost any international armed conflict14.
The
basic rules of international humanitarian law are summarized as follows:
1. Persons
“hors de combat” and those not directly taking part in hostilities shall be
protected and treated humanely.
2. It
is forbidden to kill or injure an enemy who his surrendered or who is “hors de
combat”
3. The
wounded and sick shall be cared for and protected by the party to the conflict
which has them in its power.
4. A
paraduction or soldier ceasing a plane
in distress is protected.
5. The
emblem of the ‘Red Cross” or ‘ Red
Crescent’ shall be respected as a sign of protection. It is inviolate.
6. captured
combatants and civilians must be protected against acts of violence and
reprisals. They shall have the right to correspond with their families and to
receive relief.
7. the
use of chemical biological or meteorological weapons is prohibited.
8. No
one shall be subjected to torture, corporal punishment or cruel or degrading
treatment.
9. parties
to a conflict and members of their armed forces do not have unlimited choice of
methods and means of warfare.
10. The
position of neutral states must be acknowledged and respected.
11. Parties
to a conflict shall at all times distinguish between the civilians population
and combatants.
12. Prisoners
of war should not be killed or subjected to torture or medical and biological
experiment.
13. Attacks
shall be directed solely against military objects, civilians centers such as
chamber, hospitals, school, museums must be protected.
14. An
attack on doctors or ambulances displaying a red cross emblem is prohibited.
15. it
is prohibited to fire at a person or vehicle or ship bearing a white flag,
since that, being considered the flag of trace, indicates an intent to
surrender or desire to communicate.
The
person or persons protected by the red cross or white
flag are expected to maintain neutrality
and they may not engage
in war like acts themselves. In fact,
engaging in war like activities
under a white flag or red cross is in
itself a violation, of the laws of
war. This is perfidy.
Purposes of the laws of war:
Some of the central principles underlying the laws of war are to ensure
that
1. Wars
should be limited to achieving the political goals that led to the war and
should not lead to unnecessary destruction.
2. Wars
should be executed with speed and brought to an end as quickly as possible.
3. Persons
and property that do not contribute to the war efforts should be protected
against unnecessary destruction and hardship.
4. Laws
of war are intended to mitigate the evils and atrociousness of war by
protecting both combatants and non combatants from unnecessary suffering.
5. Safeguarding
certain fundamental human rights of persons who fall into the hands of the
enemy particularly prisoners of war, the civilians the wounded and the sick.
6. Facilitating
the restoration of peace.
7. The
laws of war placed limits on the lawful exercise of the power and ability of
the belligerents or employing a level of violence considered unnecessary or
unreasonable for specific military purposed.
8. Belthgerents
must conduct hostilities with regard for the principles of humanity and
chivalry.
Application of Laws of War to States and
Individuals
The
laws of war is binding not only upon states as such but also upon individuals
and in particular the members of the armed forces parties are bound by the laws
of war to the extent that such compliance does not interfere with achieving
legitimate military goals. Combatants who deliberately bomb residential areas
are guilty of war crimes.
Similarly,
combatants who intentionally use protected people, areas and property as shield
or camouflage are guilty of violations of laws of war and we responsible to
those that should be protected.
Soldiers
who break specific provisions of the laws of war loses the protections and
status afforded as prisoners of war. They have by such acts become unlawful
combatants and they must be made to face a ‘competent tribunal. They must
however be treated with humanity and right to fair hearings and regular trial.
Spies
and terrorists may be subject to civilians or military tribunal for their acts
and in practice may be subjected to torturen or executions. They laws of war
neither approves nor condemns such acts. However, nations that are signatory to
the UN convention against torture are often more careful not to subject anyone
to torture.
Under
any condition. The controversy that surrounded America’s extra ordinary
rendition policy was a source of serious embarrassment to the bush
administration when it became known that governmental approved the idea of
subjected terror suspects to torture and in human treatment, but where he has
committed acts against the state, the court or tribunal will determine his
punishment. In war, all is not given. A nation and its army cannot just do all
it could to win victory. Actions must be regulated within the bounds of reason
and guided by what is permissible and acceptable under the laws of war. At the
cessation of hostilities, persons who have committed war crimes would be held
accountable for their actions. Officers and commanders and indeed politicians,
who have given orders that breached the laws of war are held individually
accountable. Those who commit atrocities are also made to face the consequences
of their action. Nations that have signed the Geneva conventions are expected
to search out and punish their own officers and men who have committed or given
orders that led to the commission of war crimes, crimes against humanity or
atrocities.
History
have shown that laws of war are traditionally more strictly applied to the
defeated as the victors are placed in the role of determining the rules of
engagement. There are strongly held views in many parts of the world that
George Bush and Tony Blair should be held accountable for the faulty premise
that spurned the Irag war of 2003. The argument is that the Iraqi people were
subjected to years of hardship and mayhem, not became Saddan Hussein was a danger to the world but simply to effect the
regime change policy of London and Washington.
Recently,
private corporation can now be held civilly liable for aiding and abetting war
crimes. Some corporations and MNC’s have be accused of knowingly providing
assistance in the commission of war crimes. Private security.
Effects of the laws of war on warfare.
There
are those who believe that the issue is not just giving warfare a human face
but outdating totally the idea of war. Some have suggested the establishment of
a world government or a collective security arrangement on the baris of one for
all and all for one. Unfortunately, this idea remain a utopian project. War is
an instrument of polities and will continue to play a vitals rule in inter
state relationship as a policy option when diplomacy fails. The desire to give
warfare a moderating human face is a recognition of this fact.
There
are evidence to show that the laws of men has gained relative success in the
effort to regulate human conduct in the field of battle. Some of these effects
include the following:
1. The
existence of the law of war has led to a degree of acceptance and observance of
certain valuable and baric ideas, for instance the protection of prisoners of
war.
2. That
a state is entitled to neutrality vis a vis a conflict situation involving
other states irrespective of the relationship between them. Such neutrality is
respected.
3. That
military invation / occupation of another country’s territory must be regarded
as provisional and involves duties as well as rights for the occupies and the
occupied respectively.
4. That
certain places eg. Hospitals churches, national centers and archives etc. are
normally spared as non legitimate targets of attack.
5. Persons
not taking active part in the conflict for instance women, children, the aged
and sick, are spared from the unpleasant consequences of war, as much as
possible.
6. Torture
has been accepted as a wrong weapon in war and even though it is still widely
employed, the awareness that torture is illegal has continued to gain immense
grand.
The
extent to which the laws of war are observed depends on the combatants being
aware of them. Most times, the laws of war are violated more out of ignorance
than a deliberate desire to do so. To this end the 1977 Geneva convention made it mandatory that
countries should educate their soldiers on the laws of war and provide
combatants with pamphlets and manuals while out on a military campaign. The
principles of reciprocity have also advanced the observance of the laws of war
and armed conflict.
War Criminals:
At
the end of a war, the following could be held accountable for their actions if
it violates the wars of other.
1. Persons
involved in conspiracies: industrialists, financiers soldiers, politicians etc
who were indicted for such crimes including policies, decisions, action and
inactions which could lead to aggression or the violations of te laws of war.
2. Members
of the enemy forces and civilians charged with ordinary offences against the
laws of war.
3. Collaborationists
found guilty of treason or treachery.
4. Person
guilty of gross failure to control subordinates responsible for atrocities.
5. Those
with the ability to influence public opinion who may have passed on late
massages responsible for genocide or crimes against humanity eg. Media
personnel, religions preachers, academicians etc.
Just and unjust wars
The
doctrine of just and unjust war has been one of the controversial issues that
history have had to contend with theologians in particular were concerned about
the increasing incidence of violence in the world. They raised several
questions which demanded clear answers.
Such
questions include the criteria upon which a prince or monarch could go to war.
On what basis could a war be proven to be North while considering other
related, consequences? Considering the light level of brutality and savagery
that war entails, it became necessary to protect the victims of the hostile
states.
For
many centuries, the attitude of the world power towards the legality of war
were dominated by the teachings of the Roman catholic church. One of the first
theologians to write on the subject was St. Augas time (354-430). He tried to
determine the basis under which a war could be described as just.
……
just wars are usually defined as those which avenge injuries, when the nation
or city against which warlike action warlike action is to be directed ahs
neglected either to punish wrongs committed by its own citizens or to restore
what has been unjustly taken by it. Further that kind of war is undoubtedly
just while God himself ordains……
These
ideas held sway for a period of over a thousand years. War was regarded as a
means o obtaining reparations for wrongs previously suffered. Wars against
unbelievers and genetics were also regarded as God’s war and such wars are
believed to be commended by God himself.
However,
from the late 16th century the distinction between just and unjust
wars began to break down theologians and scholars began to admit that each side
in a war could be blameless if it genuinely believed that it was on the right.
Other questions that arose include who has the right to declare a war. If they
wrong authority declares a war, is it a just war or not? Could issues be
determined on moral and immoral rounds? What role does plain human emotion play
on the incidence of war.
War
were said to be justified if they were fought for the defense of certain vital
interest but each state remained the sole judge of its vital interests without
a precise definition. The doctrine of
vital interests constituted, not a legal criterion of the legality of war, but
a source of political justification and excuses to be used for propaganda
purposes.
In an
unjust war the question of your tactics does
not arise since the war has been declared unjust. If a war in just, then the questions raised are whether
in pursuit of a just war one should use all the means of his disposal.
Secondly, when involved in a just war, the support of the international
community, (IPO) will be on the side of the belligerent.
Colonized
people, fighting to throw off a foreign colonical power may be called
terrorists or bandits by the colonial power but such war would be seen as a
just war. Such a war is just since war would be seen as a just war. Such a war
is just since it was not meant to disrupt international peace and tranquility.
Attempts by colonized people to free themselves through force of arms war
recognized by the Geneva protocol of 1977.
They were seen as legitimate
participants in armed conflict. They could not be described as terrorists or
bandits or crooks. However, was intended for economic reasons and expansionish
purposes and hegemonic or ideological influences are unjust wars. Those are
wars of aggression.
Principles of Combat.
The
most fundamental customary principles of international laws is that the rights of belligerents to
adopt means of injuring the enemy is not unlimited. There must be some of
thesie principles are explained below: fairness even in war.
1. The principles of proportionality:
which deals with the response of a belligerent in a conflict to grievance that has been committed in relation
to the activities of the opponent an in relation the response of the other
side. A state in other words, cannot use excessive force in responding to a
grievance beyond the proportion necessary. The infliction of disproportionate
injury or harm in life and property is regarded, as inhuman and therefore
illegal.
2. The principle of military necessity:
This principle demands that only that degree of force not otherwise prohibited
by the laws of aimed conflict required for the partial or complete submission
of the enemy and with millimum expenditure of time, life and physical resources
may be applied.
3. The Principle of humanity: The
employment of any kind of degree of force not required for the purpose of the
partial or complete submission of the enemy with a minimum expenditure of time,
life and physical resources is prohibited by the law of war. It is regarded as
going beyond acceptable human levels.
4. The principles of chivacry:
Dishonorable and treacherous means or conduct during armed conflict are
forbidden. Shooting a surrendered or wounded soldier is against the laws of
war. Such a solider has become incapacitated and should be placed at the mercy
of eh enemy. If on the other hand the one feigning injury or surrender turns
back to school the other person he would be held liable to treacherous conduct.
5. The principle of discrimination: This
principle demands that in war situations, distinctions has to be made between
combatants and non combatants. The target of attack must not include those who
are not involved in the fight. Civilians, woman and children, the aged and
infirm an patients in hospital, whether connected with the war or not, should
be spared the gory aspects of he conflicts. Non military targets must also not
be subjected to attack these include hospitals, churches, markets, schools,
measures, heritage and other establishment not connected with the war effort.
Contractors may also be held liable for having the knowledge that a crime is
being committed. The main idea behind the laws of war is to reduce, as much as
possible the resort to war in foreign policy engagement and when war becomes
inevitable, it must be fought with a human face.
The US military and the laws of war
IN
1863, American soldiers fighting the civil war
were given manuals on what they should or shall not do, and how to
conduct themselves in battle. This was followed by other countries assuring
their own military manuals on the conduct of combatants. This how become
acceptable as parts of the combatants. This has become acceptable as parts of
the corrections signed since after the America civil war. The US military is
guided by the Hague and genera conventions in the following terms:
1. Fight
only enemy combatants
2. Do not
harm enemies who surrenders-disarm the and hand them over to the chain of
command.
3. Do not
kill or torture detainees or degrade
them
4. Collect
and care for the wounded, whether friend or foe.
5. Do not
attack medical personnel, their facilities or equipment.
6. Destroy
no more than the mission required.
7. Treat
all civilians humanely no matter who the are
8. Do no
steal or deprive people of their legitimate possession.
9. Respect
private property and avoids all acts of vandal hisun
10. Do your
best to prevent the violation or the laws of war.
11. Report
all violations of the laws of war to superiors officers.
Violations of the laws of war
During
conflict, punishment for vidating the laws of war may consist of a specific,
deliberate and limited violation of the laws of war in reprisals. Soldiers who
break specific provisions of the law of war
but only after facing a “competent tribunal”. At that point they become
unlawful combatants but they must still
be treated with humanity and, in case at trial, shall not be deprived at the
rights of fair and regular trial.
Spies
and terrorists are only protected by the laws of war if the power which holds
them is in a state of armed conflict or war until they are found to be unlawful
combatants. Depending on the circumstance, they may be subject to civilian law
or military tribunal for their acts or in other cases subjected to fortune or
execution. The laws of war neither approves nor condemns such acts, which full
outside their scope. Countries that have signed the UN convention Against
torture have committed them selves not to use fortune on anyone for any
reasons.
After
a conflict has ended, person who have committed any breach of the law of war
and especially atrocities, may be held individually acceptable for war crimes
through the process of law.
If is
a violation of the laws of war to engage in combat without meeting certainties
uniform or other badge/attire that easily identifies than. Weapons are to be
carried openly. Impersonating soldiers of the other side by wearing the enemy’s
uniform is forbidden hostage taking is also prohibited by the laws of war.
International treaties of the laws of war
1. Paris declaration
respecting Maritime law which demolished privateering-private person or warship
authorised to attack foreign ship-1956.
2. First
Genera convention for the amelioration of the condition of the grounded and
sick in armed forces in the field-1864.
3. St
Petersburg Declare Removing the use, in time of war, of Explosive projectiles
under 400 grams weight-1968.
4. Project
of an international declaration concerning the laws and customs of war – 1874.
5. Geneva
committee proposals on manual of the laws and customs of war – 1880.
6. Hague
conventions consisting of four main sections 1889
(a) Pacific
settlement of international disputes
(b) Laws
and customs of war on land
(c) Adaptation
to maritime warfare of principles of Geneva convention of 1964.
(d) Prohibition
of the landing of projectiles and Explosives for Balloons.
(e) Declaration
on the use of projectiles the object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating
or Deleterious Gages.
7. Hague
conventions which hand 13 sections out of which 12 were ratified – 1917.
(a) The
pacific settlement of international disputes.
(b) The
limitations of employment of force for recovery of contract Debts.
(c) The
opening of Hostilities
(d) The
laws and customs of war on land.
(e) The
rights and duties of Neutral Powers and persons in case of war on land
(f) The
status of every merchant ship at the outbreak of hostilities
(g) The
laying of automatic submarine contact mines
(h) Bombardment
by Newal Forces in time of war
(i) adaptation
to maritime war of the principles of the genera convention.
5. Certain
restrictions with regard to the Exercise e of the right of capture in Naval
war.
k. The
creation of an international prize court (not ratified)
(j) The
rights and Duties of Neutral powers in naval war
8. London
Declaration concerning the laws of Naval war 1909.
9. Washington
newel Treaty (also known as the five power treaty-122
10. Hague
Draft rules of aerial warfare-1923
11. Geneva
protocol for the prohibition of the use in war of Asphyxiating, poisonous or
other cases, and of Bacteriohegical methods of warfare-1925
12. Greco-German
arbibunal – 1927-1930
13. Kellog-Briand
pact also known as the pact of Paris-1928
14. Geneva
convention negative to the treatment of prisoners of war – 1929
15. Geneva
convention on the treatment of wounded and sick-1929
16. London
Naval treat for the limitation and reduction of Naval Armament – 1930
17. Second
London naval treaty- 1936
18. Amsterdam
Draft convention for the protection of civilian population Against New engines
of war – 1938
19. League
of Nation declarationf or the protection of civilian opulation against bombing
form the air in time of war – 1938
20. United
nations charter - 1945
21. Judgement
of the international military tribunal at Nuremberg – 1946
22. Nuremberg
principles formulated under UN General Assembly resolution 177-1947.
23. United
Nations convention on the prevention and punishment of the crime of homicide –
1948
24. Geneva
convention I for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in
armed forces in the field 1949.
25. Geneva
convention for the Amelioration of the condition of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked
members of Armed forces of Sea – 1949.
26. Geneva
convention III relative to the treatment of prisoners of war – 1949
27. Geneva
convention IV relative to the protection of civilian persons in times of war –
1949
28. Hague
convention for the protection of cultural property in the Event of Armed
conflict – 1954
29. Zagreb
resolution of the institute of international law on conditions of application of
humanitarian rules o Armed conflict to hostilities in which the UN forces may
be engaged – 1971
30. UN
convention on the prohibition of military of any other Hostile use of
Environmental modification techniques – 1977.
31. Geneva
protocol I relating to the protection of victims of international armed
conflict – 1977
32. Geneva
protocol II relating to the protection of victims of NON-International armed
conflicts – 1977
33. Red
Cross foundational rules of International humanitarian law applicable in Armed
conflict – 1978
34. United
nations convention on prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain
conventional weapons which may be Excessively injurious or to Have
indiscriminate effect – 1980.
I Protocol
I on Non-Detectable fragments - 1980
II Protocol
II on prohibitions and restrictions on the use of wines, booby traps and other
devices – 1980
iii. Protocol
III on prohibitions and restrictions on the use of incendiary weapons - 1980
iv Protocol
iv on blinding laser weapons – 1995
v. Protocol
v on prohibition or restrictions on the use of mines, boody Tarps and other
Devices – 1996
vi. Protocol
on explosives remnants of war – 2006
v. 35. Reno manual on international law
applicable to armed conflict at sea – 1994.
36. ICRC/UNGA
guidelines for military manuals and instructions on the protection of the
environment in time of armed conflict – 1994.
37. UN
convention on the safety of UN and Associated personnel – 1994
38. ICJ
Advisory opinion on the legality of the threat or use of Nuclear weapons – 1996
39. Ottawa
convention on the prohibition of the use stockpiling and production and
transfer of anti-personnel mines and on their destruction – 1977.
40. Rome
statute of the international criminal court – 1998
41. Optional
protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict - 2002