| Unlawful Combatant |
Article Index for Unlawful |
Website Links For Combatant |
Information AboutUnlawful Combatant |
|
The term unlawful combatant (also '''unlawful enemy combatant''' or '''unprivileged combatant/belligerent''') denotes a person denied the privileges of Winter 2003 , published by the American Bar Association After a "competent tribunal" has determined his status, the "Detaining Power" may choose to accord the detained unlawful combatant the rights and privileges of the POW, as described in the Third Geneva Convention, but is not required to do so. An unlawful combatant who is not a national of a neutral State, and who is not a national of a co-belligerent State, retains rights and privileges under the Fourth Geneva Convention so that he must be "treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial". The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants (IRRC March 2003 Vol.85 No 849) The phrase "unlawful combatant" does not appear in the does describe categories under which a person may be entitled to POW status; and there are other international treaties which deny lawful combatant status for Mercenaries and Children . In the United States, the Military Commissions Act codified the legal definition of this term, and invested the U.S. President with broad Discretion to determine whether a person may be designated an unlawful enemy combatant. The assumption that such a category as unlawful combatant exists is not contradicted by the findings by the Delalic et al. (I.T-96-21) "Celebici" 16 November 1998 Part III B, Applicable law 2. Status of the Victims as "Protected Persons" See: Para. 271 : :In addition, the evidence provided to the Trial Chamber does not indicate that the Bosnian Serbs who were detained were, as a group, at all times carrying their arms openly and observing the laws and customs of war. Article 4(A)(6) undoubtedly places a somewhat high burden on local populations to behave as if they were professional soldiers and the Trial Chamber, therefore, considers it more appropriate to treat all such persons in the present case as civilians. :It is important, however, to note that this finding is predicated on the view that there is no gap between the Third and the Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protections of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war (or of the First or Second Conventions) he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Convention IV, provided that its article 4 requirements are satisfied. The Commentary to the Fourth Geneva Convention asserts that; :: person in enemy hands must have some status under international law: he is either a prisoner of war and, as such, covered by the Third Convention, a civilian covered by the Fourth Convention, or again, a member of the medical personnel of the armed forces who is covered by the First Convention. ''There is no'' intermediate status; nobody in enemy hands can be outside the law. We feel that this is a satisfactory solution – not only satisfying to the mind, but also, and above all, satisfactory from the humanitarian point of view." Jean Pictet (ed.) – [http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/380-600007?OpenDocument Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (1958) – 1994 reprint edition. because in the opinion of the ICRC "If civilians directly engage in hostilities, they are considered 'unlawful' or 'unprivileged' combatants or belligerents (the treaties of humanitarian law do not expressly contain these terms). They may be prosecuted under the domestic law of the detaining state for such action". Geneva Conventions Protocol I Artcle 51.3 also covers this interpretation "Civilians shall enjoy the protection afforded by this section, unless and for such time as they take a direct part in hostilities.". INTERNATIONAL LAW AND PRACTICE The term "unlawful combatant" has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law.Knut Dörmann: " The legal situation of unlawful/unprivileged combatants ". Article in the International Review of the ICRC , March 2003 However—unlike the terms "combatant", "prisoner of war", and "civilian"—the term "unlawful combatant", or similar, is not mentioned in either the Hague or the Geneva Conventions . So while the former terms are well understood and clear under international law, the term "unlawful combatant" is not. Warriors without rights? combatants , unprivileged belligerents, and the struggle over legitimacy by Kenneth Watkin for The Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research or HTML version At the archive at Yale Law School Prisoners of war See Also: Prisoners of war The Geneva Convention Relative To The Treatment Of Prisoners Of War , 12 August 1949 (GCIII) of 1949 defines the requirements for a captive to be eligible for treatment as a POW. A Lawful Combatant is a person who commits belligerent acts, and, when captured, is treated as a POW. An ''unlawful combatant'' is someone who commits belligerent acts, but does not qualify for POW status under GCIII Articles 4 and 5.
These terms thus divide people in a war zone into two classes. Those in armies and militias and the like (lawful combatants), and then those who are not. Those in armies and militias and the like have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture and those not in armies and militias do not have the right to be treated as prisoners of war upon capture. The critical distinction is that a "lawful combatant" (defined above) cannot be held personally responsible for acts prosecuting that combat, unless they commit war crimes or crimes against humanity. And if captured, they have to be treated as prisoners of war - basically they can be detained (more humane than killing them), but must be provided for, treated with respect, and so on. If there is any doubt about whether an alleged combatant is a "lawful combatant" then they must be held as a Prisoner of War until their status has been determined by "a competent tribunal". If that tribunal rules that the combatant is an "unlawful combatant" then their status changes to that of a civilian which may give them some rights under ''Fourth Geneva Convention''. Background Paper on Geneva Conventions and Persons Held by U.S. Forces by " Human Rights Watch Press" footnote 1: International Committee of the Red Cross, ''Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War'' (Geneva: 1958), p. 51 (emphasis in original). The International Criminal Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia, charged with prosecuting war crimes and crimes against humanity committed during the recent conflicts in the Balkans, has explicitly affirmed this principle in a 1998 judgment, stating that "there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Fourth Convention , provided that its article 4 requirements a protected person are satisfied." Celebici Judgment, para. 271 (1998). Persons who are not a prisoner of war in an international conflict A non-combatant civilian "in the hands" of an enemy or an Occupying Power often gains rights through ''Geneva Convention Relative To The Protection Of Civilian Persons In Time Of War'' , 12 August 1949 ( GCIV ), if he qualifies as a "'''protected person''".
If he fulfils the criteria as a protected person, he is entitled to all the protections mentioned in GCIV. It should be emphasised that, in a war zone, a national of a neutral state, with normal diplomatic representation, is not a protected person under GCIV. But what of a combatant who does not qualify for POW status? If he qualifies as a protected person, he receives all the rights which a non-combatant civilian receives under GCIV, but the Party to the conflict may invoke Articles of GCIV to curtail those rights. The relevant Articles are 5 and 42.
It is likely that if he is found to be an "unlawful combatant" by "a competent tribunal" under GCIII Article 5, and if he is a protected person under GCIV, that the Party to the conflict will invoke GCIV Article 5. In which case, the "unlawful combatant" does not have the "rights and privileges under the present Convention as would, if exercised in the favour of such individual person, be prejudicial to the security of such State." he does, however, retain the right "to be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention." If, after "fair and regular trial", he is found guilty of a crime, then the "unlawful combatant" can be punished by whatever lawful methods are available to the Party to the conflict. If the Party does not use Article 5 of GCIV, the Party may invoke Article 42 of GCIV and use "internment" to detain the "unlawful combatant". For those Parties that have ratified Protocol I of the Geneva Conventions, are also bound by Article 45.3 of that protocol which curtails GCIV Article 5. Persons who are not prisoners of war in an internal conflict Civilians are covered by GCIV Article 3:
Combatants who do not qualify for POW status A combatant who does not qualify for POW status can, under the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, expect to be treated humanely; and before he is punished, can expect to get a trial in "a regularly constituted court." The last time that American and British unlawful combatants were executed after "a regularly constituted court" was the Parole violation A combatant who is a POW, and who is subsequently paroled on the condition that he will not take up arms against the belligerent power (or co-belligerent powers) that had held him as a prisoner, is considered a parole violator if he breaks said condition. He is regarded as guilty of a breach in the laws and customs of war, unless there are mitigating circumstances such as coercion by his state to break his parole. As with other combatants, he is still protected by the Third Geneva Convention (GCIII), until a competent tribunal finds him to be in violation of his parole. The , 1929 The authors of GCIII, 1949, decided to include a reference with some modification to parole, because during the Second World War, some belligerent countries did permit such release to some extent. ICRC [http://www.icrc.org/ihl.nsf/COM/375-590027?OpenDocument Commentary on GCIII: Article 21 Article 21 of GCIII (1949) reproduces the Articles 10,11 of the ''Hague Convention IV: respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land'' , 18 October , 1907, but did not include Article 12 "Prisoners of war liberated on parole and recaptured bearing arms against the Government to whom they had pledged their honour, or against the allies of that Government, forfeit their right to be treated as prisoners of war, and can be brought before the courts." Laws and Customs of War on Land (Hague IV) ; October 18, 1907 Nevertheless, contained in the commentary on GCIII: The only safeguard available to a parole violator—who has been coerced into fighting, and who has been recaptured by the Power that detained him previously—is contained in the procedural guarantees to which he is entitled, pursuant to Article 85 of GCIII. In the opinion of Major Gary D. Brown, United States Air Force (USAF), this means that " Hague Convention specified that parole breakers would forfeit their right to be treated as prisoners of war if recaptured. The 1949 Geneva Convention is less direct on the issue. A recaptured parole violator under the Convention would be afforded the opportunity to defend himself against charges of parole breaking. In the interim, the accused violator would be entitled to P[o W status." Brown, Gary D.. '' Prisoner of war parole: Ancient concept, modern utility '' The Military Law Review, Vol 156 (June 1998) p.13 ( Major Gary D. Brown in June 1998 was Chief, International and Operational Law at Headquarters, United States Strategic Command, Offutt Air Force Base, Nebraska. Mercenaries Under Article 47 of Protocol I ( Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts) it is stated in the first sentence "''A mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war.''" On 1989 (UN Mercenary Convention) Entry into force: 20 October 2001 . Article 2 makes it an offence to employ a mercenary and Article 3.1 states that "''A mercenary, as defined in article 1 of the present Convention, who participates directly in hostilities or in a concerted act of violence, as the case may be, commits an offence for the purposes of the Convention.''" International Convention against the Recruitment, Use, Financing and Training of Mercenaries Child soldiers See Also: Military use of children The United Nations Convention On The Rights Of The Child , Article 38, (1989) proclaimed: "State parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of 15 years do not take a direct part in hostilities". In a 2003 briefing[http://hrw.org/reports/2004/childsoldiers0104/ Child Soldier Use 2003: A Briefing for the 4th UN Security Council Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict] by Human Rights Watch . for the 4th UN Security Council open debate on children and armed conflict by Human Rights Watch they state in their introduction that: :In recent years progress has been made in developing a legal and policy framework for protecting children involved in armed conflict. The of the International Criminal Court (1998) defines the recruitment of children under the age of 15 as a war crime. Introduction to A Briefing for the 4th UN Security Council Open Debate on Children and Armed Conflict by Human Rights Watch On , October 12 , 2005 MUNICIPAL LAW Current United States law As of October 17, 2006, When President Bush signed the Military Commissions Act Of 2006 into law, Title 10 of the United States Code was amended to include a definition of an "unlawful enemy combatant" as follows: :"The term `unlawful enemy combatant' means — :`(i) a person who has engaged in Hostilities or who has purposefully and Materially supported hostilities against the United States or its co-belligerents who is not a Lawful enemy combatant (including a person who is part of the Taliban , Al-Qaida , or associated forces); or :`(ii) a person who, before, on, or after the date of the enactment of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, has been determined to be an unlawful enemy combatant by a Combatant Status Review Tribunal or another competent tribunal established under the authority of the President or the Secretary of Defense." Under the law, :"The term `lawful enemy combatant' means a person who is — :`(A) a member of the regular forces of a State party engaged in hostilities against the United States; :`(B) a member of a militia, volunteer corps, or organized resistance movement belonging to a State party engaged in such hostilities, which are under responsible command, wear a fixed distinctive sign recognizable at a distance, carry their arms openly, and abide by the law of war; or :`(C) a member of a regular armed force who professes allegiance to a government engaged in such hostilities, but not recognized by the United States." 10 U.S.C. 948a (Section 1, Subchapter I) Much of the rest of the law sets out the specific procedures for determining whether a given detainee of the U.S. armed forces is an unlawful enemy combatant and how such combatants may or may not be treated in general and tried for their crimes in particular. Among its more controversial provisions, the law stipulates that "No court, justice, or judge shall have jurisdiction to hear or consider an application for a writ of habeas corpus filed by or on behalf of an alien detained by the United States who has been determined by the United States to have been properly detained as an enemy combatant or is awaiting such determination." 28 U.S.C. 2241(e)(1) (Section 7) In other words, no non-citizen held as a ''potential'' unlawful enemy combatant may seek Habeas Corpus relief. Such detainees must simply wait until the military sees fit to convene a detainee status review tribunal (under the procedures described in the Detainee Treatment Act Of 2005 ). United States legal history There are two separate issues to be determined in evaluating the category "unlawful combatant" as applied by the government of the United States. One issue is whether such a category ''could'' exist without violating the Geneva Conventions, and if such a category does exist, what steps the United States executive branch needs to take to comply with Municipal Law s as interpreted by the judicial branch of the United States government. 1942 Quirin case The term ''unlawful combatant'' has been used for the past century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. The term "unlawful combatants" was first used in US in the US. This decision states (emphasis added and footnotes removed): :"...the law of war draws a distinction between the armed forces and the peaceful populations of belligerent nations and also between those who are lawful and unlawful combatants. Lawful combatants are subject to capture and detention as prisoners of war by opposing military forces. Unlawful combatants are likewise subject to capture and detention, but in addition they are subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals for acts which render their belligerency unlawful. The spy who secretly and without uniform passes the military lines of a belligerent in time of war, seeking to gather military information and communicate it to the enemy, or an enemy combatant who without uniform comes secretly through the lines for the purpose of waging war by destruction of life or property, are familiar examples of belligerents who are generally deemed not to be entitled to the status of prisoners of war, but to be offenders against the law of war subject to trial and punishment by military tribunals." The validity of this case, as basis for denying prisoners in the , President, International Association of Prosecutors Director of Public Prosecutions, NSW, Australia , at International Association Of Prosecutors 8th Annual Conference, Washington, D.C. - 10-14 August 2003. A report by the American Bar Association commenting on this case, states: The Quirin case, however, does not stand for the proposition that detainees may be held incommunicado and denied access to counsel; the defendants in Quirin were able to seek review and they were represented by counsel. In Quirin, “The question for decision is whether the detention of petitioners for trial by Military Commission ... is in conformity with the laws and Constitution of the United States. “ Quirin, 317 U.S. at 18. Since the Supreme Court has decided that even enemy aliens not lawfully within the United States are entitled to review under the circumstances of Quirin,11 that right could hardly be denied to U. S. citizens and other persons lawfully present in the United States, especially when held without any charges at all. Since the 1942 Quirin case, the US signed and ratified the 1949 . 2001 Presidential military order In the wake of the September 11, 2001 Attacks the United States Congress passed a resolution known as the ''Authorization for Use of Military Force'' (AUMF) on September 18 2001 . In this, Congress invoked the War Powers Resolution and stated: :That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11 2001 , or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.US Congress' joint resolution of September 18 2001 Authorization for Use of Military Force ("AUMF") ; public law 107-40, 115 Stat. 224 Using the authorization granted to him by Congress, on ", where such individuals are a member of the organization known as al Qa'ida; or has conspired or committed acts of international terrorism, or have as their aim to cause, injury to or adverse effects on the United States, its citizens, national security, foreign policy, or economy. The order also specifies that the detainees are to be treated humanely. The length of time for which a detention of such individuals can continue before being tried by a military tribunal is not specified in the military order. The military order uses the term "detainees" to describe the individuals detained under the military order. The U.S. administration chooses to describe the detainees held under the military order as "Illegal enemy combatants". With the Issue of 2005-02-14 Posted 2005-02-07 Paragraph 32 Despite opposition from the U.S. Issue of 2005-02-14 Posted 2005-02-07 Paragraph 34. For those U.S. citizens detained under the military order, US officials, such as Vice President Dick Cheney , argue that the urgency of the post-9/11 environment called for such tactics in administration's war against terrorism. Most of the individuals, detained by the U.S. military on the orders of the U.S. administration were initially captured in Afghanistan. The foreign detainees, are held in Guantanamo Bay Naval Base . Guantánamo Bay, Cuba was chosen because although it is under the ''de facto'' control of the United States administration, it is not a Sovereign Territory of the United States and a previous Supreme Court ruling '' Johnson V. Eisentrager '' in 1950 had ruled that U.S. courts had no jurisdiction over enemy aliens held outside the USA. In '''' seemed to have conferred. Legal challenges There have been a number of legal challenges made on behalf of the detainees held in Guantánamo Bay and in other places. These include:
Yaser Hamdi was captured in Afghanistan in 2001. He was taken to Guantánamo Bay, Cuba, but was transferred to jails in Virginia and South Carolina after it became known that he was a U.S. citizen. On September 23 2004 , the United States Justice Department agreed to release Hamdi to Saudi Arabia , where he is also a citizen, on the condition that he gave up his U.S. citizenship. The deal also bars Hamdi from visiting certain countries and to inform Saudi officials if he plans to leave the kingdom. He was a party to a Supreme Court decision '' Hamdi V. Rumsfeld '' which issued a decision on June 28 , 2004 , repudiating the U.S. government's unilateral assertion of executive authority to suspend the constitutional protections of individual liberty of a U.S. citizen. The Court recognized the power of the government to detain unlawful combatants, but ruled that detainees must have the ability to challenge their detention before an impartial judge. Though no single opinion of the Court commanded a majority, eight of the nine justices of the Court agreed that the Executive Branch does not have the power to hold indefinitely a U.S. citizen without basic due process protections enforceable through judicial review. On . Padilla is currently being detained in Miami and is accused of supporting terrorism.
see also USA PATRIOT Act Combatant Status Review Tribunal see also Combatant Status Review Tribunal Following the '' was to be addressed. However, critics maintain these CSRTs are inadequate to warrant acceptance as "competent tribunal." Their principal arguments are: :a The CSRT conducted rudimentary proceedings :b The CSRT afforded detainees few basic protections :c Many detainees lacked counsel :d The CSRT also informed detainees only of general charges against them, while the details on which the CSRT premised enemy combatant status decisions were classified. :e Detainees had no right to present witnesses or to cross-examine government witnesses. Notable cases pointed to by critics as demonstrating the flawed nature of the procedure include: Mustafa Ait Idir , Moazzam Begg , Murat Kurnaz , Feroz Abbasi , and Martin Mubanga . A comment by legal experts states: :It appears ... that the procedures of the Combatant Status Review Tribunals do not qualify as status determination under the Third Geneva Convention. <......> The fact that no status determination had taken place according to the Third Geneva Convention was sufficient reason for a judge from the District Court of Columbia dealing with a habeas petition, to stay proceedings before a military commission. Judge Robertson in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld held that the Third Geneva Convention, which he considered selfexecuting, had not been complied with since a Combatant Status Review Tribunal could not be considered a ‘competent tribunal’ pursuant to article 5 of the Third Geneva Convention. Guantánamo Bay: A Reflection On The Legal Status And Rights Of ‘Unlawful Enemy Combatants’ PDF by Terry Gill and Elies van Sliedregt in the Utrecht Law Review or HTML version , hosted by Associated Press Determining whether a captive should be classified as a prisoner of war is the sole purpose of a competent tribunal. Analysis of these Tribunals by two lawyers for Guananamo detainees, Professor and Counsel to two Guantanamo detainees, Joshua Denbeaux, Esq. and David Gratz, John Gregorek, Matthew Darby, Shana Edwards, Shane Hartman, Daniel Mann, Megan Sassaman and Helen Skinner Students of Seton Hall University School of Law Bush's War Crimes Cover-up by Nat Hentoff, Village Voice , December 8th, 2006 Hamdan v Rumsfeld In Hamdan V. Rumsfeld the US Supreme Court did not rule on the subject of unlawful combatant status but did reaffirm that the US is bound by the Geneva Conventions . Most notably it said that Common Article 3 of the Third Geneva Convention , regarding the treatment of detainess, applies to all prisoners in the War on Terror. Criticisms Legal experts dispute the accuracy of the position taken by the US administration regarding the definition of unlawful combatant, and that such prisoners could be held incommunicado and without legal representative. Also, it has been pointed out that, until now, the term " {Link without Title} enemy combatant" as used by the US administration, "appeared nowhere in U.S. criminal law, international law, or the law of war."Legal experts dispute...position taken by the US admin. The term ''Illegal enemy combatants'', critics maintain, has mainly been used to deny detainees basic civil rights, such as the right to a counsellor, a speedy trial and right of appeal. It has been argued that this gives governments a right to arbitrarily suspend the ), ''Homo sacer'' wasn't protected by state laws and could be exposed to any type of violence. Critics Torture and Accountability by Elizabeth Holtzman article in The Nation posted 2003 for refuting the Geneva Convention. In addition, by explicitly addressing the War Crimes Act the memos acknowledge U.S. officials are involved in acts that could be seen to be War Crimes . All senior officials in the Bush administration are subject to legal responsibility for crimes against humanity and crimes of war, as has been determined by the Yamashita Standard . For his part in laying the legal groundwork for prisoners to be detained without due legal process and allowing torture Marjorie Cohn , a contributing editor to Truthout , professor at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, executive vice president of the National Lawyers Guild , and the U.S. representative to the executive committee of the American Association Of Jurists has suggested an indictment of Alberto Gonzales for War Crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. section 2441, the War Crimes Act. The Gonzales Indictment by Marjorie Cohn in truthout Wednesday January 19, 2005 The Quaint Mr. Gonzales by Marjorie Cohn in La Prensa San Diego , November 19, 2004 Some governments whose nationals have been detained with this status by the United States, notably Canada , The UK , and Sweden , have intervened to limit the degree to which the rights of their nationals have been suspended. In general this has been handled on a case-by-case basis as numbers are few. Furthermore, the difference of opinion around the globe as to the status of these prisoners would suggest status and detain suspects as "unlawful combatant."Difference of opinion. by NATHANIEL BERMAN or HTML in COLUMBIA JOURNAL OF TRANSNATIONAL LAW Critics among some human rights groups have challenged the treatment of unlawful combatants by the U.S. as having fallen short of the standards required under by Terry Gill and Elies van Sliedregt in the Utrecht Law Review or HTML version Other countries Israel , since the 2002 "Imprisonment of Illegal Combatants Law" makes theoretical distinctions between lawful and unlawful combatants and the legal status thereof. Other Countries1 Israel's Commitment to Domestic and International Law in Times of War by Judge Amnon Straschnov Former IDF Military Advocate General. Incarceration of Unlawful Combatants Law, 5762-2002 (DOC) "unlawful combatant" means a person who has participated either directly or indirectly in hostile acts against the State of Israel or is a member of a force perpetrating hostile acts against the State of Israel, where the conditions prescribed in Article 4 of the Third Geneva Convention of 12th August 1949 with respect to prisoners-of-war and granting prisoner-of-war status in international humanitarian law, do not apply to him. INTERNATIONAL CRITICISM OF UNLAWFUL COMBATANT STATUS The designation of some prisoners as "unlawful combatants", has been the subject of criticism by international human rights institutions; including Amnesty International , Human Rights Watch and the International Committee Of The Red Cross . In response to the US-led military campaign in Afghanistan, a legal advisor at the Legal Division of the ICRC, published a paper on the subject (which reflects the views of the author alone and not necessarily those of the ICRC), in which it states: :Whereas the terms "combatant" "prisoner of war" and "civilian" are generally used and defined in the treaties of international humanitarian law, the terms "unlawful combatant", "unprivileged combatants/belligerents" do not appear in them. They have, however, been frequently used at least since the beginning of the last century in legal literature, military manuals and case law. The connotations given to these terms and their consequences for the applicable protection regime are not always very clear. Human Rights Watch have pointed out that in a judgement, the International Criminal Tribunal For The Former Yugoslavia interpreted the International Committee of the Red Cross, ''Commentary: IV Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War'' (Geneva: 1958) to mean that: :there is no gap between the Third and Fourth Geneva Conventions. If an individual is not entitled to the protection of the Third Convention as a prisoner of war ... he or she necessarily falls within the ambit of Fourth Convention , provided that its article 4 requirements a protected person are satisfied. The implication is that the status of unlawful combatant does not exist, as a person is either a combatant, or a civilian. If found to be civilian, then they may have committed some criminal acts, for which they can be punished under criminal law, that if committed by a combatant would not be illegal under the laws of war. Many governments and human rights organizations worry that the introduction of the ''unlawful combatant'' status sets a dangerous precedent for other regimes to follow. When the government of , July 8 2002 of the United States, responding that he had been detained as an unlawful combatant. SEE ALSO
REFERENCES
FURTHER READING
FOOTNOTES |
|
|