A Robust Non-Defense Of The ICRC
From the journal The National Interest, an article that describes well the pickle Americans are in with respect to the International Committee of the Red Cross:
So the ICRC’s claims that it is treating the United States impartially, no better or worse than other countries, should be severely discounted. In fact, the ICRC’s continuing public attacks on the administration’s detainee policy have much more to do with the group’s advocacy agenda than with any actual violations by the United States. The ICRC recognizes, and has promoted for thirty years, a different set of norms that are far more favorable to irregular or guerrilla warfare than those traditional norms recognized and applied by the United States.
There’s good backstory on Protocol I, including the benefit seen to guerilla fighters and the ICRC’s birthing of the Protocol (which the US hasn’t signed, by the way):
Protocol I has rarely been implemented in practice, and it is simply not the case that merely because the ICRC claims that a particular requirement is customary international law it therefore must be accepted as such. Although the ICRC is often described as the “guardian” of the Geneva Conventions and its published commentaries on these documents are sometimes called “authoritative” (although “argumentative” is often a more accurate description), it has no legally recognizable role in interpreting or applying those treaties. States alone make international law, and each state is entitled to interpret that law itself–this is the essence of sovereignty and self-government. To the extent that the ICRC commentaries are respected, it is because they generally follow the relevant negotiating records, not because of any inherent wisdom. When the commentaries depart from those records, they are nothing but rhetoric.
Article is well worth a read.
4 Responses to “A Robust Non-Defense Of The ICRC”
Trackback URL for A Robust Non-Defense Of The ICRC: http://gmapalumni.org/chapomatic/wp-trackback.php?p=853
May 31st, 2005 at 2:41 pm
The difference between the United States and so many other nations is that we don’t ordinarily sign up to things we don’t believe int, and they do. Here are some highlights from the list of 163 nations that have agreed to the provisions of the 1st and 2nd Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1947: Russia, Ivory Coast, Belarus, Cuba, Iran, Liberia, and Sierra Leone. Every one of these nations has repressed dissent or insurgent activities in ways that violated Protocol 1.
Actually, there is some honesty on the list. I note that Sudan hasn’t signed up to the protocols. So I guess it’s ok for their government-backed thugs to commit their atrocities.
And we can all sleep safer knowing that the Holy See is on board with both protocols.
July 22nd, 2005 at 5:43 pm
Sir,
The National Interest article is badly researched rubbish. Henri Dunant, the founder of the Red Cross has given the original
impetus for the Geneva Conventions (which the US has bloody well signed and ratified) to come into being in the first place.
The ICRC’s role as a ‘guardian’ of these conventions was given to it by the states that have signed up to the conventions (which is
the lot of them) and subsequent conferences by these same states (called Red Cross conferences). The ICRC has statutes (again
shaped by states) and written doctrine that is entirely public. It is also visiting about half a million prisoners a year, mostly in places
like Burma (I refuse to call it Myanmar) or Uzbekistan and similarly unpleasant dictatorships. The 500 or so prisoners in
Guantanamo have caused a disproportionate fuss and the ICRC’s justified criticism of the ‘legal blackhole’ created there has
caused a bunch of ideologues to get their knickers in a twist and go on a counterattack, no matter if they destroy one of the finest
organisations around. Even if the ICRC was treating the US more harshly than anyone else (which I think is nonsense, Americans
are just singularly sensitive to the ICRC’s criticism – and much to their credit) let’s not forget that the ICRC has kept a few hundred
thousand prisoners and other war victims alive in its long history, among which quite a few British (and yes, also American)
prisoners of war. My father was one of them.
Protocol 1, by the way, was indeed signed by lots of states, which just goes to prove that it is not the ICRC that imposed it on
the World. That many of the states do not live up to the Protocol is hardly the ICRC’s fault. Most states have, more often than not,
lived up to at least some provisions of the Protocol however. This includes the United States that has itself recognised that a
great deal of the content of both protocols is indeed customary. At least this is what is taught in courses at the US Army’s JAG School
and what is written into US military doctrine and its Law of War manual. Strange that and apparently difficult to understand for
the couple of academics that wrote the article and have never been close to an actual war. They were probably hanging about
university while other people went off to fight (and sometimes get captured) on their behalf.
As for recognising favouring guerilla and irregular warfare, declaring a ‘war’ against al Qaeda is doing just that. As far as I can see
criminals, whatever the enormity of their crime, should not be elevated to parties in a war. They are criminals and that’s that.
The current US administration’s overblown rethoric (and legal interpretations) that treats al Qaeda as an actual party to a conflict
is what gives that particular set of murderous thugs legitimacy. Again, hardly the ICRC’s fault. It is merely doing its job seeing to it
that the law is not undermined by the short-term thinking of a few civilian memo-writers.
Andrew
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:05 pm
[...] ing from its original mandate and selectively enforcing its own agenda; Andrew thinks that ain’t so (scroll to comment 2). So let’s chomp on this a little. His comments in blue; I [...]
July 22nd, 2005 at 9:10 pm
Interesting comments. Thanks.
I’ve bumped a response to the front page.