Civilian population

Introduction

Introductory text

Increasingly, civilians make up the overwhelming majority of the victims of armed conflict,[1] even though International Humanitarian Law (IHL) stipulates that attacks should only be directed at combatants and military objectives and that civilians and civilian objects should be respected. However, even if IHL is scrupulously respected, civilians can become victims of armed conflicts, as attacks and military operations directed at military objectives are not prohibited merely because they may also affect civilians.

Civilians in war need to be respected by those into whose hands they have fallen, those who could, for example, arrest, ill-treat or harass them, confiscate their property, or deprive them of food or medical assistance.

Under IHL, some of those protections are prescribed for all civilians,[2] but most apply only to “protected civilians”,[3] i.e. basically those who are in enemy hands. The rules on the treatment of protected civilians are subdivided into three groups: the first applies to civilians who find themselves on enemy territory,[4] the second contains more detailed and protective rules applying to protected civilians whose territory is occupied by the enemy,[5] while the third encompasses provisions common to the enemy’s own territory and occupied territories.[6] This means that no rules cover civilians who are neither (enemy civilians) on the territory of a belligerent nor on an occupied territory. “Occupied territory” is therefore to be understood as a functional concept as far as civilians in enemy hands are concerned, one that applies as soon as civilians fall into enemy hands outside the enemy’s own territory. The most detailed rules concern the treatment of civilians interned in connection with the conflict, in both the enemy’s own and occupied territories, for imperative security reasons and not in view of a trial.[7] This detailed regime for civilian internees is justified by the fact that such internment is an exception to the general rule that enemy civilians, unlike combatants, may not be detained. It is broadly similar to the regime provided for by Convention III for prisoners of war.

Civilians in war also need to be respected by the belligerent opposing the party in whose hands they are, who could, for example, bomb their towns, attack them on the battlefield, or hinder the delivery of food supplies or family messages. These rules on the protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities, which are set out for the most part in Protocol I[8] and customary law (partly based on the 1907 Hague Regulations), are part of the law of the conduct of hostilities and benefit all civilians finding themselves on the territory of parties to an international armed conflict.[9]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • BEST Geoffrey, Humanity in Warfare: The Modern History of the International Law of Armed Conflicts, London, Weidenfels & Nicholson, 1980, 400 pp.
  • DOSWALD-BECK Louise, “The Value of the 1977 Protocols for the Protection of Civilians”, in MEYER Michael A. (ed.), Armed Conflict and the New Law: Aspects of the 1977 Geneva Protocols and the 1981 Weapons Convention, London, British Institute of International and Comparative Law, 1989, pp. 137-172.
  • KALSHOVEN Frits, “Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts: The Diplomatic Conference, Geneva, 1974-1977, Part II”, in Netherlands Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 9, 1978, pp. 107-171.
  • POCAR Fausto, “Violence on Civilians and Prisoners of War in the Jurisprudence of International Criminal Tribunals”, in Anuário brasileiro de direito internacional = Brazilian Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 2, No. 4, 2009, pp. 11-30. 
  • PRIMORATZ Igor, Civilian Immunity in War, Oxford, OUP, 2007, 263 pp.
  • TIGROUDJA Hélène, “La Cour suprême israélienne et la protection des personnes en temps de conflit”, in RGDIP, T. 113, 2009, pp. 555-588.

 Footnotes

I. The protection of the civilian population against the effects of hostilities

II. The protection of civilians against arbitrary treatment

Cases and Documents

 1.   The structure of Convention IV

  1. Part II: rules benefiting all civilians
  2. Part III: rules benefiting “protected persons” (as defined in GC IV, Art. 4)

    aa) Section II: rules protecting foreigners on a party’s own (= non-occupied) territory

    bb) Section III: rules applicable to occupied territory

    cc) Section I: rules common to the enemy’s own and occupied territories

    dd) Section IV: rules protecting civilian internees in the enemy’s own and occupied territories

 2.   Rules benefiting all civilians

  1. aid and relief
    (See infra, Conduct of Hostilities, IV. International Humanitarian Law and Humanitarian Assistance)
  2. special protection of women
    GC I-II, Art. 12; GC III, Arts 14, 25, 88, 97 and 108; GC IV, Arts 14, 16, 21-27, 38, 50, 76, 85, 89, 91, 97, 124, 127 and 132; P I, Arts 70 and 75-76; P II, Arts 5(2) and 6(4) [CIHL, Rule 134]

IHL first protects women if they are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, as civilians, as members of the civilian population or as combatants, according to their status. As such, women must benefit from the same protection as that given to men and may not be discriminated against.[10] However, IHL also takes into account the fact that women are more vulnerable, and gives them preferential treatment in some particular cases. First, women are specially protected against any attack on their sexual integrity, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution or any form of indecent assault.[11] The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda (ICTR) and the International Criminal Court (ICC) have included rape and other forms of sexual violence in their list of war crimes,[12] and although the Statute of the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia (ICTY) does not explicitly mention rape as a war crime, a Trial Chamber nevertheless recognized it as a grave breach of the Geneva Conventions.[13]

Moreover, IHL specially protects pregnant women and maternity cases against the effects of war,[14] and stipulates that, during occupation, such preferential treatment is not to be hindered by the occupying power.[15]
Finally, female prisoners of war or female civilian internees also benefit from specific rules.[16] Here again, IHL seeks to protect women’s sexual integrity[17] and to ensure that due attention is paid to pregnant and nursing mothers,[18] while preventing States from discriminating against women belonging to the enemy party.[19]

The special protection afforded to women in time of war and the prohibition of rape and other forms of sexual violence were both recently recognized as having attained customary status.[20]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • CARPENTER Charli R., Innocent Women and Children: Gender, Norms and the Protection of Civilians, Hampshire (England), Burlington (USA), Ashgate, 2006, 217 pp.
  • KRILL Françoise, “The Protection of Women in International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, No. 249, November 1985, pp. 337-363.
  • LINDSEY Charlotte, “Women and War”, in IRRC, No. 839, September 2000, pp. 561-580.
  • NUMMINEN Jutta, “Violence à l’égard des femmes en situation de conflit armé : analyse effectuée selon le point de vue féminin sur la protection de la femme dans le droit international humanitaire”, in The Finnish Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 9, 1998, pp. 453-473.

Further reading:

  • BARROW Amy, “UN Security Council Resolutions 1325 and 1820: Constructing Gender in Armed Conflict and International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, Vol. 92, No. 877, March 2010, pp. 221-234.
  • BENNOUNE Karima, “Do We Need International Law to Protect Women in Armed Conflict?”, in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, No. 38, 2006, pp. 363-391.
  • DURHAM Helen & O’BYRNE Katie, “The Dialogue of Difference: Gender Perspectives on International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, Vol. 92, No. 877, March 2010, pp. 31-52.

aa) the feminist criticism of International Humanitarian Law

The very fact that IHL seeks to protect women’s “honour” and grants special protection to expectant and nursing mothers has given rise to much criticism from feminist theorists.[21] They argue that IHL is inherently discriminatory – and somewhat old-fashioned – in that it mostly considers women as victims and men as combatants. At the same time, they contend that the rules on women are low down in the hierarchy of IHL rules: for instance, provisions on women aim at ensuring protection rather than imposing strict prohibitions, and rape is not even included in the list of grave breaches.[22
However, as mentioned above, the notion of rape, and the broader category of sexual violence, has evolved in international criminal law and such acts are now often prosecuted as grave breaches. Moreover, the language used in IHL texts may be outdated, but the rules on the protection of women should be read and adapted in the light of their contemporary meaning. In our view, the main problem is not that the texts are insufficient, but that in this field, as in others, the rules are not sufficiently respected.

Quotation      

IHL in addressing humanitarian needs in armed conflict assumes a population in which there is no systemic gender inequality. The system fails to recognize the unequal situation of men and women in society generally.

[Source: GARDAM Judith & JARVIS Michelle J., Women, Armed Conflict and International Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2001, p. 97; quoted in DURHAM Helen “Women, Armed Conflict and International  Law”, in IRRC, No. 847, September 2002, p. 657]

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • CHARLESWORTH Hilary, “‘Feminist Methods in International Law’, Symposium on Method in International Law”, in AJIL, Vol. 93, 1999, pp. 379-394.
  • CHINKIN Christine, “A Gendered Perspective to the International Use of Force”, in AYIL, 1988-1989, pp. 279-293.
  • GARDAM Judith, “Women, Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, No. 324, September 1998, pp. 421-432.
  • GARDAM Judith, “Women and the Law of Armed Conflict: Why the Silence?”, in ICLQ, Vol. 46, 1997,
    pp. 55-80.
  • GARDAM Judith & CHARLESWORTH Hilary, “Protection of Women in Armed Conflict”, in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 22/1, February 2000, pp. 148-166.

Further reading:

  • DURHAM Helen, “Women, Armed Conflict, and International Law”, in IRRC, No. 847, September 2002, pp. 655-659.
  • GARDAM Judith & JARVIS Michelle J., Women, Armed Conflict and International Law, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, 2001, 283 pp.

bb) the principles of non-discrimination and special protection

Quotation      

Ever since its inception, international humanitarian law has accorded women general protection equal to that of men. [...] Women who have taken an active part in hostilities as combatants are entitled to the same protection as men when they have fallen into enemy hands. [...] Besides this general protection, women are also afforded special protection based on the principle outlined in Article 14, paragraph 2 [of Geneva Convention III], that “women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex”. This principle is followed through in a number of provisions which expressly refer to the conditions of detention for women in POW camps [...]. Women (and men) who, as members of the civilian population, are taking no active part in hostilities are afforded protection under the Fourth Geneva Convention [...] and under Additional Protocol I. [...] In addition to this general protection, women are afforded special protection under the said Convention and Protocol I, which stipulate that “women shall be especially protected against any attack on their honour, in particular against rape, enforced prostitution or any form of indecent assault”. International humanitarian law also lays down special provisions for pregnant women and mothers of small children [...].

[Source: LINDSEY Charlotte, “Women and War”, in IRRC, No. 839, September 2000, p. 580]

cc) protection against rape and sexual violence

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • ANTONIONI Antonio, “Le viol et le droit de la guerre dans la doctrine”, in Journal of the History of International Law, Vol. 4/1, 2002, pp. 100-114.
  • CHINKIN Christine, “Rape and Sexual Abuse of Women in International Law”, in EJIL, Vol. 5/3, 1994, pp. 326-341.
  • COPELON Rhonda, “Gender Crimes as War Crimes: Integrating Crimes Against Women into International Criminal Law”, in McGill Law Journal, Vol. 46/1, 2000, pp. 217-240.
  • DIXON Rosalind, “Rape as a Crime in International Humanitarian Law: Where to From Here?”, in EJIL, Vol. 13/3, June 2002, pp. 697-719.
  • GUENIVET Karima, Violences sexuelles : la nouvelle arme de guerre, Paris, Michalon, 2001, 206 pp.
  • ISLAM Rafiqul, “The Culpability of Gender-Based Terrorism in International Humanitarian Law: the Rape of Women in Armed Conflicts”, in ISIL Yearbook of International Humanitarian and Refugee Law, Vol. 6, 2006,
    pp. 87-105.
  • KENNEDY-PIPE Caroline & PENNY Stanley, “Rape in War: Lessons of the Balkan Conflicts in the 1990s”, in International Journal of Human Rights, Vol. 4/3-4, 2000, pp. 67-84.
  • MERON Theodor, “Rape as a Crime under International Humanitarian Law”, in AJIL, Vol. 87/3 1993, pp. 424-428.
  • MORRIS Madeline, “By Force of Arms: Rape, War and Military Culture”, in Duke Law Journal, Vol. 45/4, 1996, pp. 651-781.
  • NIARCHOS Catherine N., “Women, War, and Rape: Challenges Facing the International Tribunal for the Former Yugoslavia”, in Human Rights Quarterly, Vol. 17/4, 1995, pp. 649-690.
  • PAPACONSTANTINOU Maria, “Rape as Crime under International Humanitarian Law”, in Revue Hellénique de Droit International, Vol. 51/2, 1998, pp. 477-499.
  • PILCH Frances T., “The Crime of Rape in International Humanitarian Law”, in Journal of Legal Studies, Vol. 9, 1998-99, pp. 99-119.
  • QUENIVET Noëlle N.R., Sexual Offenses in Armed Conflict and International Law, Ardsley, Transnational Publishers, 2005, 230 pp.

Further reading:

  • ASKIN Kelly Dawn, “Sexual Violence in Decisions and Indictments of the Yugoslav and Rwandan Tribunal: Current Status”, in AJIL, Vol. 93/1, 1999, pp. 97-123.
  • DYANI Ntombizozuko, “Protocol on the Rights of Women in Africa: Protection of Women from Sexual Violence during Armed Conflict”, in African Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 6, No. 1, 2006, pp. 166-187.
  • FLORES ACUNA Tathiana, “The Rome Statute’s Sexual Related Crimes: an Appraisal under the Light of International Humanitarian Law”, in Humanitäres Völkerrecht, Vol. 19, No. 1, 2006, pp. 39-51.
  • LAVIOLETTE Nicole, “Commanding Rape: Sexual Violence, Command Responsibility, and the Prosecution of Superiors by the International Criminal Tribunals for the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda”, in CYIL, Vol. 36, 1998, pp. 93-149.
  • LEWIS Dustin A., “Unrecognized Victims: Sexual Violence against Men in Conflict Settings under International Law”, Wisconsin International Law Journal, Vol. 27, No. 1, 2009, pp. 1-49.
  • RICHEY Katie C., “Several Steps Sideways: International Legal Developments Concerning War Rape and the Human Rights of Women”, in Texas Journal of Women and the Law, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2007, pp. 109-129.
  • SIVAKUMARAN Sandesh, “Sexual Violence against Men in Armed Conflict”, EJIL, Vol. 18, No. 2, April 2007, pp. 253-276.
  • SIVAKUMARAN Sandesh, “Lost in Translation: UN Responses to Sexual Violence against Men and Boys in Situations of Armed Conflict”, in IRRC, Vol. 92, No. 877, March 2010, pp. 259-277.
  • VAN DER POLL Letetia, “The Emerging Jurisprudence on Sexual Violence Perpetrated against Women during Armed Conflict”, in African Yearbook on International Humanitarian Law, 2007, pp. 1-38.
  • ZAWATI Hilmi M., “Impunity or Immunity: Wartime Male Rape and Sexual Torture as a Crime against Humanity”, in Torture: Journal on Rehabilitation of Torture Victims and Prevention of Torture, Vol. 17, No. 1, 2007, pp. 27-47.

dd) grounds for preferential treatment

  • pregnant women or maternity cases
  • mothers of children under seven years of age
  1.  special protection of children
    GC IV, Arts 14, 17, 23, 24, 38, 50, 76, 82, 89, 94 and 132; P I, Arts 70 and 77-78; P II, Art. 4 [CIHL, Rules 135-137]

Like women, children are first protected by IHL if they are wounded, sick or shipwrecked, as civilians and as members of the civilian population. They also benefit from special protection because of their vulnerability. Every armed conflict leaves numerous children without resources or separated from their families, a situation that renders them even more vulnerable. This is why IHL contains specific rules aimed at protecting children from the effects of hostilities, from any form of indecent assault, or from any other danger arising from the general circumstances of a war situation.[23]

But above all, IHL aims to prevent the participation of children in hostilities. Parties to conflicts may not recruit children under 15 into their armed forces and have to ensure that they do not take a direct part in hostilities.[24] In Protocols I and II and in Art. 38 of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the age threshold is 15; the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict[25] raises it to 18, except that States may accept voluntary enrolment of persons under 18 into military schools, thus establishing an inequality between governmental forces and non-State armed groups. If children nevertheless participate in hostilities, they will still benefit, if captured, from preferential treatment.[26] If they are, despite the above-mentioned prohibitions, members of armed forces, they benefit from combatant and prisoner-of-war status.

The contents of the special protection afforded to children must nevertheless be construed with care. For instance, as the treaty rules prevent the direct involvement of children in hostilities, organizations working in the field of children’s rights and some soft law instruments suggest that the prohibition (or even the notion of direct participation) be extended to the case of children associated with armed groups, in order to ensure that children are kept away from all sorts of involvement. This might not be realistic in the case of insurgent groups and might at the same time make it easier for the enemy to directly target participating children, thus putting such children in greater danger. At the same time, the mere fact that children could be targeted when involved in combat goes against the idea of preferential treatment afforded to children. A solution would be to exclude participating children from the category of legitimate targets, but it seems unrealistic to expect the parties to refrain from targeting such armed enemies. The principle of military necessity as a restriction to violence even against legitimate targets should at least in this case require them to arrest rather than kill such children whenever possible.

Quotation 1

Article 38.

  1. States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.
  2. States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure that persons who have not attained the age of fifteen years do not take a direct part in hostilities.
  3. States Parties shall refrain from recruiting any person who has not attained the age of fifteen years into their armed forces. In recruiting among those persons who have attained the age of fifteen years but who have not attained the age of eighteen years, States Parties shall endeavor to give priority to those who are oldest.
  4. In accordance with their obligations under International Humanitarian Law to protect the civilian population in armed conflicts, States Parties shall take all feasible measures to ensure protection and care of children who are affected by an armed conflict.

[Source: Convention on the Rights of the Child, November 20, 1989; available on http://www.ohchr.org]

Quotation 2

Convention (182) on the Worst Forms of Child Labour, 1999. [...]

Article 1

Each Member which ratifies this Convention shall take immediate and effective measures to secure the prohibition and elimination of the worst forms of child labour as a matter of urgency.

Article 2

For the purposes of this Convention, the term child shall apply to all persons under the age of 18.

Article 3

For the purposes of this Convention, the term the worst forms of child labour comprises:
(a)     all forms of slavery or practices similar to slavery, such as the sale and trafficking of children, debt bondage and serfdom and forced or compulsory labour, including forced or compulsory recruitment of children for use in armed conflict; [...]

[Source: Convention concerning the Prohibition and Immediate Action for the Elimination of the Worst Forms of Child Labour (C182), 17 June 1999; available on http://www.ilo.ch]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • ABBOTT Amy Beth, “Child Soldiers – The Use of Children as Instruments of War”, in Suffolk Transnational Law Review, Vol. 23/2, 2000, pp. 499-537.
  • BOUVIER Antoine & DUTLI Maria Teresa, “Children in Armed Conflict”, in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, The Hague, Kluwer Law International, Vol. 4/2, 1996, pp. 115-212.
  • BREEN Claire, “When is a Child not a Child?: Child Soldiers in International Law”, in Human Rights Review, Vol. 8, No. 2, January-March 2007, pp. 71-103.
  • BRETT Rachel & MACCALLIN Margaret, Children: The Invisible Soldiers, Rädda Barnen (Swedish Save the Children), Stockholm, 1996, 257 pp.
  • BUGNION François, “Les enfants soldats, le droit international humanitaire et la Charte africaine des droits et du bien-être de l’enfant”, in African Journal of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 12/2, 2000, pp. 262-275.
  • CHAMBERLAIN Cynthia, MOODRICK-EVEN KHEN Hilly & SCHABAS William A., “Children and Armed Conflict”, in QUENIVET Noëlle & SHAH-DAVIS Shilan (eds), International Law and Armed Conflict: Challenges in the 21st Century, The Hague, T.M.C. Asser Press, 2010, pp. 243-286.
  • COHN Ilene & GOODWIN-GILL Guy S., Child Soldiers. The Role of Children in Armed Conflicts, Geneva/Oxford, Henry-Dunant Institute/Clarendon Press, 1994, 228 pp.
  • COLLMER Sabine, “Child Soldiers: An Integral Element in New, Irregular Wars?”, in The Quarterly Journal, Vol. 3/3, September 2004, pp. 1-11.
  • DELISSEN Astrid J.-M., “Legal Protection of Child-Combatant after the Protocols: Reaffirmation, Development or a Step Backwards”, in Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict – Challenges Ahead, Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, Dordrecht, M. Nijhoff, 1991, pp. 153-164.
  • DRENIK Simona, “Protection of Children in Armed Conflict under Customary International Humanitarian Law: a Comment to the 2005 ICRC Study on Customary IHL”, in Slovenian Law Review, Vol. 6, No. 1-2, December 2009, pp. 165-186.
  • DUTLI Maria Teresa, “Captured Child Combatants”, in IRRC, No. 278, September-October 1990, pp. 421-434.
  • FALLAH Katherine, “Perpetrators and Victims: Prosecuting Children for the Commission of International Crimes, in African Journal of International and Comparative Law, T. 14, No. 1, 2006, pp. 83-103.
  • GACHOUD Régine, “La guerre, un jeu d’enfants ? Enfants soldats : la problématique des filles”, in African Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 14 (2006), 2008, pp. 75-123.
  • HAPPOLD Matthew, “Child Soldiers in International Law: The Legal Regulation of Children’s Participation in Hostilities”, in Netherlands International Law Review, Vol. 47/1, 2000, pp. 27-52.
  • JESSEMAN Christine, “The Protection and Participation Rights of the Child Soldiers: An African Global Perspective”, in African Human Rights Law Journal, Vol. 1/1, 2001, pp. 140-154.
  • MAYSTRE Magali, Les enfants soldats en droit international : problématiques contemporaines au regard du droit international humanitaire et du droit international pénal, Paris, Pedone, 2010, 202 pp.
  • MERMET Joël, “Protocole facultatif à la Convention relative aux droits de l’enfant concernant l’implication d’enfants dans les conflits armés : quel progrès pour la protection des droits de l’enfant ?”, in Actualité et Droit international, June 2002, http://www.ridi.org/adi.
  • PLATTNER Denise, “Protection of Children in International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, No. 240, June 1984, pp. 140-152.
  • QUENIVET Noëlle, “Girl Soldiers and Participation in Hostilities”, in African Journal of International and Comparative Law = Revue africaine de droit international et comparé, Vol. 16, pt. 2, 2008, pp. 219-235.
  • SINGER Sandra, “The Protection of Children During Armed Conflict Situations”, in IRRC, No. 252, May 1986, pp. 133-167.
  • SHEPPARD Ann, “Child Soldiers: Is the Optional Protocol Evidence of an Emerging ‘Straight-18’ Consensus?”, in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, Vol. 8/1, 2000, pp. 37-70.
  • VANDEWIELE Tiny & ALEN André (eds), A Commentary on the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child: Optional Protocol: the Involvement of Children in Armed Conflicts, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2006, 66 pp.
  • VEERMAN Philip & HEPHZIBAH Levine, “Protecting Palestinian Intifada Children: Peaceful Demonstrators, Child Soldiers or Child Martyrs?”, in The International Journal of Children’s Rights, Vol. 9/2, 2001, pp. 71-88.
    “Les enfants et la guerre”, in IRRC, No. 842, June 2001, pp. 494-504.
  • WEBSTER Timothy, “Babes with Arms: International Law and Child Soldiers”, in George Washington International Law Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2007, pp. 228-254.

aa) respect for children

bb)
prohibition of recruitment
  • the age threshold
    • under Protocols I and II and the Convention on the Rights of the Child: 15 years of age
    • under the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of Child on the involvement of children in armed conflicts: 18 years of age for direct participation in hostilities and for compulsory recruitment
  • but States (unlike armed groups) may accept voluntary enrolment into military schools

Cases and Documents

cc) status and treatment of child soldiers

Cases and Documents

  1. special protection of journalists
    GC I-III, Arts 13/13/4; P I, Art. 79 [CIHL, Rule 34]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • BALGUY-GALLOIS Alexandre, “Protection des journalistes et des médias en période de conflit armé”, in IRRC, No. 853, March 2004, pp. 37-67.
  • BOITONMALHERBE Sylvie, La protection des journalistes en mission périlleuse dans les zones de conflit armé, Brussels, Édition de l’Université de Bruxelles & Bruylant, 1989, 404 pp.
  • GASSER Hans-Peter, “The Protection of Journalists Engaged in Dangerous Professional Missions”, in IRRC, No. 232, February 1983, pp. 3-18.
  • GEISS Robin, “The Protection of Journalists in Armed Conflicts”, in German Yearbook of International Law = Jahrbuch für Internationales Recht, Vol. 51, 2008, pp. 289-319.
  • LISOSKY Joanne M. & HENRICHSEN Jennifer, “Don’t Shoot the Messenger: Prospects for Protecting Journalists in Conflict Situations”, in Media, War and Conflict, Vol. 2, No. 2, 2009, pp. 129-148.
  • MINEAR Larry, SCOTT Colin & WEISS Thomas G., The News Media, Civil War and Humanitarian Action, Boulder, London, Rienner Publishers, 1996, 123 pp.
  • MOORE Douglas W., “Twenty-First Century Embedded Journalist: Lawful Targets ?” in The Army Lawyer, July 2009, pp. 1-32.

Further reading:

  • D’ABOVILLE Benoît, “Médiatisation des opérations de paix et respect du droit international humanitaire ?”, in Annuaire français de relations internationales, 2009, pp. 1027-1036.
  • GASSER Hans-Peter, “The Journalist’s Right to Information in Time of War and on Dangerous Missions”, in YIHL, Vol 6 (2003), 2006, pp. 366-388.
  • SAUL Ben, “Prosecuting War Crimes at Balibo under Australian Law: the Killing of Five Journalists in East Timor by Indonesia”, in The Sydney Law Review, Vol. 31, No. 1, 2009, pp. 83-120.
  • STOLL Philippe & OBEROI Surinder (eds), Media Reporting: Armed Conflict and Violence: South Asian Senior Editor’s Conference 2007, Dhaka, Bangladesh, Dhaka, ICRC, Press Institute of Bangladesh, 2007, 144 pp.
  1. restoring family links
    GC III, Arts. 70 and 122; GC IV, Arts 25-26 and 106; P I, Art. 32; P II, Art. 4(3)(b) [CIHL, Rule 125]

Cases and Documents

Cases and Documents

Suggested reading:

  • DJUROVIC Gradimir, The central tracing agency of the International Committee of the Red Cross: Activities of the ICRC for the alleviation of the mental suffering of war victims, Geneva, ICRC, 1986, 259 pp.
  • DRAPER Gerald I.A.D., “The Reunion of Families in Time of Armed Conflict”, in IRRC, No. 191, February 1977, pp. 57-65.
  • EGGER Daniela & TOMAN Jiri, Family Reunification: Collection of Documents, Geneva, Henry-Dunant Institute, 1997, 184 pp.
  • ICRC, Restoring Family Links Strategy: Including Legal References, Geneva, ICRC, February 2009, 64 pp.
  • SASSÒLI Marco, “The National Information Bureau in Aid of the Victims of Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, No. 256, January 1987, pp. 6-24.
  1. fundamental guarantees (P I, Art. 75)

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • HERCZEGH Géza, “State of Emergency and Humanitarian Law: On Article 75 of Additional Protocol I”, in IRRC, No. 242, September 1984, pp. 263-273.

 3.   Rules on protected civilians

  1. who is a protected civilian?
    GC IV, Art. 4
    (See supra, Fundamentals, B.International Humanitarian Law as a Branch of Public International Law, III. International Humanitarian Law: a branch of international law governing the conduct of States and individuals, 2. Personal scope of application)

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • SASSÒLI Marco & OLSON Laura M., “The Decision of the ICTY Appeals Chamber in the Tadic Case: New Horizons for International Humanitarian and Criminal Law?”, in IRRC, No. 839, September 2000, pp. 733-769.
  1. rules on protected civilians
    aa) foreigners on a party’s own territory: basically the rules protecting foreigners in peacetime remain applicable
    GC IV, Art. 38 (initial sentence)

    bb) right to leave?
    GC IV, Arts 35-37 and 48

Cases and Documents

cc) humane treatment
GC IV, Art. 27 [CIHL, Rule 87]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • DROEGE Cordula, ““In Truth the Leitmotiv”: The Prohibition of Torture and Other Forms of Ill-Treatment in International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, Vol. 89, No. 867, September 2007, pp. 515-541.
  • SALINAS BURGOS Hernan, “The Taking of Hostages and International Humanitarian Law”, in IRRC, No. 270, May-June 1989, pp. 196-216.

dd) forced labour
GC IV, Arts 40, 51 and 95 [CIHL, Rule 95]

Cases and Documents

ee) prohibition of collective punishment
GC IV, Art. 33 [CIHL, Rule 103]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • COHEN Amichai, “Economic Sanctions in IHL – Suggested Principles”, Hebrew University International Law Research Paper, No. 14-09, June 2009, 33 pp.
  • KOSMOPOULOS Georgios, “Collective Punishments under International Humanitarian Law: an Analysis of the 2006 War in Lebanon”, in Pace Diritti Umani, Vol. 5, No. 3, 2009, pp. 95-120.

ff) visits by the Protecting Power and by the ICRC
GC IV, Arts 9-10, 30 and 143 [CIHL, Rule 124 A]

Cases and Documents

 gg) if interned: civilian internees
GC IV, Arts 41-43, 68 and 78-135

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, “Security Detention”, Vol. 40, No. 3, 2009, pp. 315-650.
  • GOODMAN Ryan, “ The Detention of Civilians in Armed Conflicts”, in AJIL, Vol. 103, No. 1, January 2009, pp. 48-74.
  • Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Denmark, “The Copenhagen Process on the Handling of Detainees in International Military Operations”, in Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol. 3-4, No. 46, 2007, pp. 363-392.
  • NAERT Frederik, “Detention in Peace Operations: the Legal Framework and Main Categories of Detainees”, in Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol 1-2, No. 45, 2006, pp. 51-78.
  • OLSON Laura, “Guantanamo Habeas Review: Are the D.C. District Court’s Decisions Consistent with IHL Internment Standards?”, in Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law, Vol. 42, No. 1 & 2, 2009, pp. 197-243.
  • OSWALD Bruce, “The Detention of Civilians in Military Operations: Reasons for and Challenges to Developing a Special Law of Detention”, in Melbourne University Law Review, Vol. 32, 2008, pp. 524-553.
  • decision of internment: individual administrative decision
    GC IV, Art. 78

Cases and Documents

  • reasons for internment: imperative security reasons; not punishment
    GC IV, Arts 41, 42 and 78

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • SASSÒLI Marco, “The Concept of Security in International Law Relating to Armed Conflicts”, in BAILLIET Cécilia M., Security: a Multidisciplinary Normative Approach, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 7-23.

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • CRYER Robert, “The Fine Art of Friendship: jus in bello in Afghanistan”, in Journal of Conflict and Security Law, Vol. 7/1, 2002, pp. 37-83.
  • DROEGE Cordula, “Transfer of Detainees: Legal Framework, Non-Refoulement and Contemporary Challenges”, in IRRC, Vol. 90, No. 871, September 2008, pp. 669-701.
  • RODLEY Nigel S., The Treatment of Prisoners under International Law, Oxford, OUP, 3rd ed., 2009, 697 pp.
  • SASSÒLI Marco, “The National Information Bureau in Aid of the Victims of Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, No. 256, January 1987, pp. 6-24.

Cases and Documents

  1. possible derogation
    GC IV, Art. 5
    aa) from substantive rights on a party’s own territory
    bb) from communication rights in occupied territory
    cc) in any case, humane treatment and judicial guarantees are non-derogable

Cases and Documents

 Footnotes

III. Refugees and displaced persons in International Humanitarian Law

Introductory text

If States consistently and fully observed the principles of IHL protecting civilians,[27] most population movements brought about by armed conflicts would be prevented. The IHL of non-international armed conflicts contains a general prohibition of forced movements of civilians,[28] while the IHL of international armed conflicts stipulates such a general prohibition only for occupied territories.[29] Recognizing that such situations and population movements may occur for reasons other than an armed conflict, IHL provides protection to both displaced persons and refugees.

Displaced persons are civilians fleeing within their own country, e.g., from armed conflict. IHL protects those displaced because of an international armed conflict, e.g., grants them the right to receive items essential to survival.[30] Civilians displaced by internal armed conflict enjoy similar but less detailed protection.[31]

Refugees, in contrast, are those who fled their country. IHL protects such individuals, as civilians affected by hostilities,[32] only if they have fled to a State taking part in an international armed conflict[33] (or if that State is beset by internal armed conflict[34]). IHL specifically protects refugees entering the territory of an enemy State against unfavourable treatment (based on their nationality).[35] Those considered refugees prior to the outbreak of hostilities (including those from a neutral State) are always considered protected persons under the IHL of international armed conflicts,[36] which also provides special guarantees for those who fled to territory which becomes occupied by the State of which they are nationals.[37] Finally, regarding non-refoulement, the Conventions expressly state that protected persons may not be transferred to a State where they fear persecution on political or religious grounds.[38]

READINGS

Suggested reading:

  • BUGNION François, “Réfugiés, personnes déplacées et droit international humanitaire”, in Revue suisse de droit international et de droit européen, Vol. 3, 2001, pp. 277-288.
  • COLLINSON Sarah (ed.), Realising Protection: the Uncertain Benefits of Civilian, Refugee and IDP Status, London, Overseas Development Institute, September 2009, 62pp. 
  • LAVOYER Jean-Philippe, “Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: International Humanitarian Law and the Role of the ICRC”, in IRRC, No. 305, March-April 1995, pp. 162-180.
  • MAURICE Frédéric & COURTEN Jean de, “ICRC Activities for Refugees and Displaced Civilians”, in IRRC, No. 280, January-February 1991, pp. 9-21.
    Special Issue “50th Anniversary of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Protection of Refugees in Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, No. 843, September 2001, pp. 571 ff.

Further reading:

  • COHEN Roberta & DENG Francis M., Masses in Flight: The Global Crisis of Internal Displacement, Washington DC, Brookings Institution Press, 1998, 414 pp.
  • GOLDMAN Robert, “Codification of International Rules on Internally Displaced Persons”, in IRRC, No. 324, September 1998, pp. 463-466.
  • GOODWIN-GILL Guy S. & McADAM Jane, The Refugee in International Law, Oxford, OUP, 3rd ed., 2007, 786 pp.

Cases and documents

 1.   Displaced persons fleeing within their own country because of an armed conflict

Cases and documents

READINGS

Suggested reading:

  • ABEBE Allehone Mulugeta, “Displacement of Civilians during Armed Conflict in the Light of the Case Law of the Eritrea-Ethiopia Claims Commission”, in Leiden Journal of International Humanitarian Law, Vol. 22, No. 4, 2009, pp. 823-851.
  • ABEBE Allehone Mulugeta, “Legal and Institutional Dimensions of Protecting and Assisting Internally Displaced Persons in Africa”, in Journal of Refugee Studies, Vol. 22, No. 2, June 2009, pp. 155-176.
  • CONTAT HICKEL Marguerite, “The Challenge Posed by Displaced Persons”, in Refugee Survey Quarterly, Vol. 20, February 2001, pp. 51-54.
  • DAVIES Sara E. & GLANVILLE Luke, Protecting the Displaced: Deepening the Responsibility to Protect, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2010, 210 pp.
  • ICRC, Internally Displaced People: Humanitarian Response to Internally Displaced People in Armed Conflict, Geneva, ICRC, June 2010, 12 pp. 
  • ISLAM Rafiqul, “The Sudanese Darfur Crisis and Internally Displaced Persons in International Law: the Least Protection for the Most Vulnerable”,  in  International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 18, No. 2, June 2006, pp.  354-385.
  • KELLENBERGER Jakob, “The ICRC’s Response to Internal Displacement: Strengths, Challenges and Constraints”, in IRRC, Vol. 91, No. 875, September 2009, pp. 475-490.
  • LAVOYER Jean-Philippe, “Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement”, in IRRC, No. 324, September 1998, pp. 467-480.
  • LUOPAJÄRVI Katja, “Is There an Obligation on States to Accept International Humanitarian Assistance to Internally Displaced Persons under International Law?”, in International Journal of Refugee Law, Vol. 15/4, 2004, pp. 678-714.
  • PHUONG Catherine, The International Protection of Internally Displaced Persons, Cambridge, CUP, 2004, 293 pp.
  • PLATTNER Denise, “The Protection of Displaced Persons in Non-International Armed Conflicts”, in IRRC, No. 291, November-December 1992, pp. 567-580.
    “Internally Displaced Persons: The Mandate and Role of the International Committee of the Red Cross”, in IRRC, No. 838, June 2000, pp. 491-500.
  • ZAAT Kirsten, “The Protection of Internally Displaced Persons in the Sudan: Applying International Law at the Field Level, in Journal of Humanitarian Assistance, October 2006, 33 pp.
  1. protection by IHL
    aa) prohibition of population displacements
    (See infra, Civilian Population, IV.Special rules on Occupied Territories, 8.Specific prohibitions, a) Deportations and Internal Armed conflicts, II.Comparison of the legal regimes for international and for non-international armed conflicts, 3. Uncontroversial similarities and differences, b) more absolute prohibition of forced displacement)

Cases and documents

bb) same protection as other civilians

Cases and documents

  1. need for a specific instrument?

Cases and documents

READINGS

Suggested reading:

  • COHEN Roberta, “Developing an International System for Internally Displaced Persons”, in International Studies Perspectives 7, 2006, pp. 87-101.
  • COHEN Roberta, “Ten Years of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement”, in Forced Migration Review 10, 2008, 39 pp.
  • GOLDMAN Robert, “Codification of International Rules on Internally Displaced Persons”, in IRRC, No. 324, September 1998, pp. 463-466.
  • KAELIN Walter, The Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement: Annotations, Washington, The American Society of International Law, 2008, 171 pp.
  • LAVOYER Jean-Philippe, “Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement”, in IRRC, No. 324, September 1998, pp. 467-480.
    The Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on Internal Displacement, Protecting Internally Displaced Persons: a Manual for Law and Policymakers, Washington, Brookings Institution-University of Bern Project on internal displacement, October 2008, 280 pp.

 2.   Persons fleeing into a third country because of an armed conflict

  1. protected by the OAU Convention, the 1984 Cartagena Declaration and UN General Assembly Resolutions

Cases and documents

The Cartagena Declaration on Refugees is available on
http://www1.umn.edu/humanrts/instree/cartagena1984.html.
The UN General Assembly Resolutions are available on http://www.un.org/documents/resga.htm.

  1. protected by IHL if
    aa) the third country is the adverse party in an international armed conflict
    GC IV, Art. 44

Cases and documents

bb) the third country is affected by another armed conflict

Cases and documents

 3.   Persons fleeing persecution: protected by IHL if the third country is subsequently affected by an armed conflict

GC IV, Art. 70(2); P I, Art. 73

  1. on a party’s own territory: protected persons on the grounds of their nationality (but GC IV, Art. 44)
  2. on occupied territory:
    aa)        protected persons on the grounds of their nationality
    bb)       if nationals of the occupying power:
    • protected by GC IV, Art. 70(2)
    • protected persons under P I, Art. 73

Cases and documents

READINGS

Suggested reading:

  • LAVOYER Jean-Philippe, “Refugees and Internally Displaced Persons: International Humanitarian Law and the Role of the ICRC”, in IRRC, No. 305, March-April 1995, pp. 162-180.
  1. loss of protection in refugee law and IHL

Cases and documents

READINGS

Suggested reading:

  • PEJIC Jelena, “Article 1F(a): The Notion of International Crimes”, in International Journal of Refugee Law, Special supplementary issue, Vol. 12, 2000, pp. 11-45.

 4.   The principle of non-refoulement in IHL

GC IV, Art. 45(4)

Cases and documents

READINGS

Suggested reading:

  • DROEGE Cordula, “Transfers of Detainees: Legal Framework, Non-Refoulement and Contemporary Challenges”, in IRRC, Vol. 90, No. 871, September 2008, pp. 669-701.
  • GILLARD Emanuela-Chiara, “There’s No Place Like Home: States’ Obligations in Relation to Transfers of Persons”, in IRRC, Vol. 90, No. 871, September 2008, pp. 703-750.

 5.   The return of refugees and displaced persons at the end of the conflict

Cases and documents

  • obligation to accept those willing to return?

Cases and documents

READINGS

Suggested reading:

  • Canadian International Development Agency, The Long Road Home: Opportunities and Obstacles to the Reintegration of IDPs and Refugees Returning to Southern Sudan and the Three Areas: Report of Phase II: Conflict, Urbanisation and Land, London, Overseas Development Institute, September 2008, 84 pp.

 Footnotes

IV. Special rules on Occupied Territories

Introductory text

From the point of view of IHL, civilians in occupied territories deserve and need particularly detailed protecting rules. Living on their own territory, they come into contact with the enemy independently of their will, merely because of the armed conflict in which the enemy obtains territorial control over the place where they live. The civilians have no obligation towards the occupying power other than the obligation inherent in their civilian status, i.e., not to participate in hostilities. Because of that obligation, IHL allows them neither to violently resist occupation of their territory by the enemy[39] nor to try to liberate that territory by violent means.[40]

Starting from this philosophy, the obligations of the occupying power can be logically summed up as permitting life in the occupied territory to continue as normally as possible. IHL is therefore strong in protecting the status quo ante, but weak in responding to any new needs experienced by the population in the occupied territory. The longer the occupation lasts, the more shortcomings IHL tends to reveal.

In practice, this has the following consequences: except concerning the protection of the occupying power’s security, local laws remain in force[41] and local courts remain competent.[42] Except when rendered absolutely necessary by military operations, private property may not be destroyed[43] and may only be confiscated under local legislation.[44] Public property (other than that of the municipalities[45]) can obviously no longer be administered by the State previously controlling the territory (normally the sovereign). It may therefore be administered by the occupying power, but only under the rules of usufruct.[46] The local population may not be deported;[47] the occupying power may not transfer its own population into the occupied territory.[48]

The occupying power’s only protected interest is the security of the occupying armed forces; it may take the necessary measures to protect that security, but it is also responsible for law and order in the occupied territory,[49] as well as for ensuring hygiene and public health[50] and food and medical supplies.[51] Its legitimate interest is to control the territory for the duration of the occupation, i.e., until the territory is liberated by the former sovereign or transferred to the sovereignty of the occupying power under a peace treaty. IHL is neutral on jus ad bellum issues and shows no preference for either solution, but international law tries to ensure that no measures are taken during the occupation which would compromise a return to the former sovereign.

The IHL of military occupation protects all civilians, except nationals of the occupying power[52] other than refugees.[ 53] Unilateral annexation of the occupied territory by the occupying power, whether lawful or unlawful under jus ad bellum, or agreements concluded by the occupying power with the local authorities of the occupied territory, cannot deprive protected persons from the protection afforded by IHL.[54] The rules of IHL on occupied territories apply whenever, during an armed conflict, a territory comes under the control of the enemy of the power previously controlling that territory,[55] as well as in every case of belligerent occupation, even when it does not encounter armed resistance and there is therefore no armed conflict.[56] It is a matter of controversy whether the rules of IHL of military occupation only start to apply once the enemy exercises full authority over a (part of a) territory, or, according to a functional approach, already during the invasion, as soon as a protected person falls into the power of the enemy. The answer may differ according to the individual rule concerned. Similar controversies exist regarding the end of military occupation and therefore the end of the application of the IHL of military occupation: is a troop withdrawal decisive, even when the (former) occupying power still controls many aspects of life in a territory, e.g., entry and exit of persons and objects?[57] Does the IHL of military occupation cease to apply when troops of the (former) occupying power, acting at the invitation of a new national government or on the basis of a UN Security Council authorization, remain present and keep overall control over a (former) occupied territory?

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • ANDO Nisuke, Surrender, Occupation and Private Property in International Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991, 208 pp.
  • BENVENISTI Eyal, The International Law of Occupation, Princeton, Princeton University Press, 1993, 241 pp.
  • BOTHE Michael, “Belligerent Occupation”, in Encyclopaedia of Public International Law, Vol. 4, 1982, p. 65.
  • DINSTEIN Yoram, The International Law of Belligerent Occupation, Cambridge, CUP, 2009, 303 pp.
  • GARRAWAY Charles H. B., “The Duties of the Occupying Power: an Overview of the Recent Developments in the Law of Occupation”, in Facets and Practices of State-Building, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 179-192.
  • GASSER Hans-Peter, “From Military Intervention to Occupation of Territory: New Relevance of International Law of Occupation”, in FISCHER Horst, FROISSART Ulrike, HEINTSCHEL VON HEINEGG Wolff & RAAP Christian (eds), Crisis Management and Humanitarian Protection: In Honour of Dieter Fleck, Berlin, Berliner Wissenschafts-Verlag, 2004, pp. 139-159.
  • GASSER Hans-Peter, “Notes on the Law of Belligerent Occupation”, in Revue de Droit Militaire et de Droit de la Guerre, Vol 1-2, No. 45, 2006, pp. 229-237.
  • HAUPAIS Nicolas, “Les obligations de la puissance occupante au regard de la jurisprudence et de la pratique récentes”, in RGDIP, Vol. 11, No. 1, 2007, pp. 117-146.
  • The Hebrew University Faculty of Law, “Forty Years After 1967: Reappraising the Role and Limits of the Legal Discourse on Occupation in the Israeli-Palestinian Context”, in Israel Law Review, Vol. 41, Nos 1&2, 2008, 393 pp.
  • KÄLIN Walter (ed.), Human Rights in Times of Occupation: The Case of Kuwait, Bern, Laws Books in Europe, 1994, 156 pp.
  • KOLB Robert & VITE Sylvain, Le droit de l’occupation militaire : perspectives historiques et enjeux juridiques actuels, Brussels, Bruylant, 2009, 482 pp.
  • KRETZMER David, The Occupation of Justice: The Supreme Court of Israel and the Occupied Territories, Albany, State University of New York Press, 2002, 262 pp.
  • LIJNZAAD Liesbeth, “How not to be an Occupying Power: Some Reflections on UN Security Council Resolution 1483 and the Contemporary Law of Occupation”, in LIJNZAAD Liesbeth, VAN SAMBEEK Johanna & TAHZIB-LIE Bahia (eds), Making the Voice of Humanity Heard, Leiden/Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2004, pp. 291-305.
  • PLAYFAIR Emma (ed.), International Law and the Administration of Occupied Territories, Two Decades of Israeli Occupation of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1992, 524 pp.
  • ROBERTS Adam, “Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories since 1967”, in AJIL, Vol. 84, 1990, pp. 44-103.
  • ROBERTS Adam, “What is Military Occupation?”, in BYIL, Vol. 55, 1984, pp. 249-305.
  • WATSON Geoffrey R. et al., “Agora: ICJ Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, in AJIL, Vol. 99/1, January 2005, pp. 1-141.
  • ZWANENBURG Marten, “Existentialism in Iraq: Security Council Resolution 1483 and the Law of Occupation”, in IRRC, No. 856, December 2004, pp. 745-768.

Further reading:

  • ARAI-TAKAHASHI Yutaka, The Law of Occupation: Continuity and Change of International Humanitarian Law, and its Interaction with International Human Rights Law, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2009, 758 pp.
  • BEN-NAFTALI Orna & SHANY Yuval, “Living in Denial: The Application of Human Rights in the Occupied Territories”, in Israel Law Review, Vol. 37, No. 1, 2003, pp. 17-118.
  • BOON Kristen E., “The Future of the Law of Occupation”, in Canadian Yearbook of International Law = Annuaire canadien de droit international, Vol. 46, 2008 pp. 107-142.
  • CAMPANELLI Dario, “The Law of Military Occupation Put to the Test of Human Rights Law”, in IRRC, Vol. 90, No. 87, September 2008, pp. 653-668.
  • DENNIS Michael J. & SURENA Andre M., “Application of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights in Times of Armed Conflict and Military Occupation: The Gap Between Legal Theory and State Practice”, in European Human Rights Law Review, Issue 6, 2008, pp. 714-731.
  • FEILCHENFELD Ernst H., The International Economic Law of Belligerent Occupation, Washington, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1942, 181 pp.
  • FROWEIN Jochen Abr., “The Relationship Between Human Rights Regimes and Regimes of Belligerent Occupation”, in IYHR, Vol. 28, 1998, pp. 1-16.
  • GERSON Allan, “War, Conquered Territory, and Military Occupation in the Contemporary International Legal System”, in Harvard International Law Journal, Vol. 18/3, 1977, pp. 525-576.
  • GROSS Aeyal, “Human Proportions: Are Human Rights the Emperor’s New Clothes of the International Law of Occupation?”, in EJIL, Vol. 18, No. 1, February 2007, pp. 1-35.
  • KELLY Michael J., “Non-Belligerent Occupation”, in IYHR, Vol. 28, 1998, pp. 17-35.
  • KOUTROULIS Vaios, “L’affaire des activités armées sur le territoire du Congo (Congo c. Ouganda) : une lecture restrictive du droit de l’occupation?”, in Revue belge de droit international, Vol. 39, No. 2, 2006, pp. 703-741.
  • LAVOYER Jean-Philippe, “Jus in Bello: Occupation Law and the War in Iraq”, in American Society of International Law, Proceedings of the 98th Annual Meeting, 2004, pp. 117-124.
  • OSWALD Bruce, “The Law on Military Occupation: Answering the Challenges of Detention During Contemporary Peace Operations?”, in Melbourne Journal of International Law, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2007, 16 pp.
  • POISSONNIER Ghislain & OSSELAND Pierre, “Les colonies israéliennes de Cisjordanie en droit international”, in RGDIP, T. 114, No. 1, 2010, pp. 63-92.
  • ROBERTS Adam, “Transformative Military Occupation: Applying the Laws of War and Human Rights”, in AJIL, Vol. 100, No. 3, July 2006, pp. 580-622.
  • VON GLAHN Gerhard, The Occupation of Enemy Territory – A Commentary on the Law and Practice of Belligerent Occupation, Minneapolis, University of Minnesota Press, 1957, 350 pp.
  • WILLS Siobhan, “Occupational Law and Multi-National Operations: Problems and Perspectives”, in BYIL, 2007, pp. 256-332.
  • ZEMACH Ariel, “Taking War Seriously: Applying the Law of War to Hostilities within an Occupied Territory”, in George Washington International Law Review, 38, 2006, pp. 645-695.
  • ZWANENBURG Martin, “Pieces of the Puzzle: Peace Operations, Occupation and the Use of Force”, in The Military Law and the Law of War Review, Vol. 1-2, No. 45, 2006, pp. 239-248.

FURTHER READING ON TERRITORIES UNDER INTERNATIONAL ADMINISTRATION:

  • FOX Gregory H., “A Return to Trusteeship?: A Comment on International Territorial Administration”, in GIEGERICH Thomas (ed.), A Wiser Century ?: Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years After the Second Hague Peace Conference, Berlin, Duncker and Humblot, 2009, pp. 383-392.
  • FOX Gregory H., Humanitarian Occupation, Cambridge, CUP, 2008, 320 pp.
  • GARCIA Thierry, “La mission d’administration intérimaire des Nations Unies au Kosovo”, in RGDIP, Vol. 104, 2000, pp. 60-71.
  • GUILLAUME Marc, MARHIC Gilles & ETIENNE Guillaume, “Le cadre juridique de l’action de la KFOR au Kosovo”, in AFDI, Vol. 45, 1999, pp. 308-334.
  • HUGHES Caroline, UNTAC in Cambodia: The Impact on Human Rights, Singapore, Institute of Southeast Asian Studies, 1996, 90 pp.
  • KELLY Michael J., McCORMACK Timothy L.H., MUGGLETON Paul & OSWALD Bruce M., “Legal Aspects of Australia’s Involvement in the Force for East Timor”, in IRRC, No. 841, March 2001, pp. 101-139.
  • LEVRAT Bertrand, “Le droit international humanitaire au Timor oriental : entre théorie et pratique”, in IRRC, No. 841, 2001, pp. 77-99.
  • MATHESON Michael J., “United Nations Governance of Postconflict Societies”, in AJIL, Vol. 95, 2001, pp. 76-85.
  • ROTH Robert & HENZELIN Marc (eds), Le droit international pénal à l’épreuve de l’internationalisation, Paris/Brussels/Geneva, L.G.D.J./Bruylant/Georg, 2002, pp. 119-149.
  • RUFFERT Matthias, “The Administration of Kosovo and East-Timor by the International Community”, in ICLQ, Vol. 50/3, 2001, p. 613-631.
  • SASSÒLI Marco, “Droit international pénal et droit pénal interne : le cas des territoires se trouvant sous administration internationale”, in HENZELIN Marc &
  • ROTH Robert (eds), Le droit pénal à l’épreuve de l’internationalisation, Paris/Brussels/Geneva, L.G.D.J./Bruylant/Georg, 2002, pp. 119-149.
  • DE SOLA Mercedes, “Competencia de administración de territorios por las organizaciones internacionales”, in Revista española de derecho internacional, Vol. 34/1, 1982, pp. 125-137.
  • RATNER Steven R., “Foreign Occupation and International Territorial Administration: The Challenges of Convergence”, in EJIL, Vol. 16, No. 4, September 2005, pp. 695-719.
  • RUEGER Christina, “The Law of Military Occupation: Recent Developments of the Law of Military Occupation with Regard to UN Security Council Mandated International Territorial Administrations”, in Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol 1-2, No. 45, 2006, pp. 215-228.
  • SHRAGA Daphna, “Military Occupation and UN Transnational Administrations – The Analogy and its Limitations”, in Promoting Justice, Human Rights and Conflict Resolution Through International Law = La promotion de la justice, des droits de l’homme et du règlement des conflits par le droit international: Liber Amicorum Lucius Caflisch, 2007, pp. 479-498.
  • STAHN Carsten, “The United Nations Transitional Administrations in Kosovo and East Timor: A First Analysis”, in Max Planck Yearbook of United Nations Law, Vol. 5, 2001, p. 105-183.
  • STROHMEYER Hansjoerg, “Building a New Judiciary for East Timor: Challenges of a Fledgling Nation”, in Criminal Law Forum, Vol. 11, 2000, pp. 259-285.
  • STROHMEYER Hansjoerg, “Collapse and Reconstruction of a Judicial System: The United Nations Missions in Kosovo and East Timor”, in AJIL, Vol. 95, 2001, pp. 35-52.
  • VITÉ Sylvain, “L’applicabilité du droit international de l’occupation militaire aux activités des organisations internationales”, in IRRC, No. 853, March 2004, pp. 9-36.
  • WEDGEWOOD Ruth & JACOBSON Harold K., “Symposium: State Reconstruction after Civil Conflict, Foreword”, in AJIL, Vol. 95, 2001, pp. 1-6.
  • WILDE Ralph, “From Danzig to East Timor and Beyond: The Role of International Territorial Administration”, in AJIL, Vol. 95, 2001, pp. 583-606.
  • WILDE Ralph, “From Trusteeship to Self-Determination and Back Again: the Role of the Hague Regulations in the Evolution of International Trusteeship, and the Framework of Rights and Duties of Occupying Powers”, in GIEGERICH Thomas (ed.), A Wiser Century ?: Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years After the Second Hague Peace Conference, Berlin, Duncker and Humblot, 2009, pp. 333-370.
  • ZIMMERMANN Andreas & STAHN Carsten, “Yugoslav Territory, United Nations Trusteeship or Sovereign State? Reflections on the Current and Future Legal Status of Kosovo”, in Nordic Journal of International Law, Vol. 70, 2001, pp. 438-441.

 1.   The place of rules on military occupation in contemporary IHL

  1. inter-State rules, which apply to situations arising between two States, but which also govern relations between individuals and a State and between individuals
  2. sources
    aa) HR, Arts 42-56

Cases and Documents

bb) GC IV, Sections I, III and IV
cc) The contributions of P I: Arts 44(3), 63, 69, 73 and 85(4)(a)

 2.   The applicability of the rules of IHL concerning occupied territories

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • HAGGENMACHER Peter, “L’occupation militaire en droit international : genèse et profil d’une institution juridique”, in Relations Internationales, No. 79, automne 1994, pp. 285-301.
  • ROBERTS Adam, “Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories since 1967”, in AJIL, Vol. 84/1, 1990, p. 44-103.
  • ROBERTS Adam, “What is military occupation?”, in BYIL, Vol. 55, 1984, p. 249-305.

Further reading:

  • BOYD Stephen, “The Applicability of International Law to the Occupied Territories”, in IYHR, Vol. 1, 1971, pp. 258-261.
  • KOUTROULIS Vaios, “Mythes et réalités de l’application du droit international humanitaire aux occupations dites “transformatives””, in Revue belge de droit international, Vol. 40, No 2, 2007, pp. 365-400.
  • SHAMGAR Meir, “The Observance of International Law in the Administered Territories”, in IYHR, Vol. 1, 1971, p. 262-277.
  1. independently of jus ad bellum
  2. in the case of armed conflict
    GC IV, Art. 2(1)

Cases and Documents

  1. in the case of belligerent occupation encountering no resistance
    GC IV, Art. 2(2)
  2. absence of sovereignty of the occupying power

Cases and Documents

  1. beginning of the occupation
    HR, Art. 42 – also applicable to GC IV?
    aa) the standard of the HR
    bb) same standard for GC IV? Or does GC IV contain a functional (= flexible) concept of occupation, depending on the rule concerned?

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • KOUTROULIS Vaios, Le début et la fin du droit de l’occupation, Paris, Pedone, 2010, 334 pp.
  • ZWANENBURG Marten, “The Law of Occupation Revisited: the Beginning of an Occupation”, in YIHL, Vol. 10 (2007), 2009, pp. 99-130.
  1. annexation does not make the IHL of military occupation inapplicable
    GC IV, Art. 47

Cases and Documents

 3.   Protected persons

Cases and Documents

GC IV, Art. 4

  1. nationals of the occupied power

Cases and Documents

  1. nationals of third States (except of co-belligerent States)
  2. refugees, even if they are nationals of the occupying power
    P I, Art. 73

 4.   Philosophy of the rules on occupied territories

Cases and Documents

  1. protected interests of the territory’s population: its life must continue as normally as possible

Cases and Documents

  1. protected interests of the occupying power: security of the occupying forces

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • SASSÒLI Marco, “The Concept of Security in International Law Relating to Armed Conflicts”, in BAILLIET Cécilia M., Security: a Multidisciplinary Normative Approach, Leiden, Boston, M. Nijhoff, 2009, pp. 7-23.
  1. protected interests of the occupied power: no change in status?

 5.   Legal order of an occupied territory

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • Harvard Program on Humanitarian Policy and Conflict Research, International Humanitarian Law Research Initiative, Occupation and Peacebuilding, online: http://www.hpcrresearch.org (with references to doctrine, news, and presentations of issues from an IHL perspective, including: SASSÒLI Marco, “Article 43 of the Hague Regulations and Peace Operations in the Twenty-First Century”, 2004, online: http://www.hpcrresearch.org/sites/default/files/publications/sassoli.pdf).
  • KAIKOBAD Kaiyan Homi, “Problems of Belligerent Occupation: The Scope of Powers Exercised by the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq, April/May 2003 June 2004”, in ICLQ, Vol. 54/1, January 2005, pp. 253-264.
  • MURPHY Sean D., “Coalition Laws and Transitional Arrangements During Occupation of Iraq”, in AJIL, Vol. 98, 2004, pp. 601-606.
  • SCHWENK Edmund H., “Legislative Powers of the Military Occupant under Article 43, Hague Regulations”, in Yale Law Journal, Vol. 54, 1945, pp. 393 ff.
  • SCHEFFER David J., “Beyond Occupation Law”, in AJIL, Vol. 97, 2003, pp. 842-860.
  1. the principle concerning legislation: occupying powers must leave local legislation in force

Cases and Documents

aa) the relationship between Art. 43 of HR and Art. 64 of Convention IV

  • Art. 64 of Convention IV further defines (and softens) the exceptions in Art. 43 of HR
  • Art. 64(2) of Convention IV clarifies para. 1

bb) applicability of Art. 43 to legislation enacted by local authorities under the effective control of an occupying power

  1. exceptions to the prohibition to legislate

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • SASSÒLI Marco, “Legislation and Maintenance of Public Order and Civil Life by Occupying Powers”, in EJIL, Vol. 16, No. 4, September 2005, pp. 661-694.

aa) the occupying power may legislate to ensure its security.

bb)  the occupying power may adopt legislation essential for the implementation of IHL.

Cases and Documents

cc)  the occupying power may adopt legislation essential for the implementation of International Human Rights Law.

  • special problem concerning economic, social and cultural rights

Cases and Documents

dd) the occupying power may legislate where necessary to maintain public order.

Cases and Documents

ee) may the occupying power legislate to maintain civil life in an occupied territory?

ff)  may an occupying power legislate to enhance civil life in an occupied territory?

Cases and Documents

gg) Security Council authorization?

Cases and Documents

  1. special rules on criminal law
    GC IV, Arts 64, 65, 67 and 70
    aa) penal laws in force are applied by existing local tribunals

Cases and Documents

bb) legislation introduced by the occupying power (for the reasons mentioned under b) above)

Cases and Documents

 6.   Protection of persons deprived of liberty

Cases and Documents

  1. the principle: unlike combatants, civilians may not be deprived of their liberty

Cases and Documents

  1. indicted or convicted persons
    aa) judicial guarantees
    GC IV, Arts 71-75

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • FARRELL Norman, “International Humanitarian Law and Fundamental Judicial Guarantees”, in Annual Conference/The African Society of International and Comparative Law, Vol. 10, 1998, pp. 130-141.
  • GASSER Hans-Peter, “Respect for Fundamental Judicial Guarantees in Time of Armed Conflict: The Part Played by ICRC Delegates”, in IRRC, No. 287, March-April 1992, pp. 121-142.
  • SASSÒLI Marco, “La peine de mort en droit international humanitaire et dans l’action du Comité international de la Croix-Rouge”, in Revue internationale de droit pénal, Vol. 58, 1987, pp. 583-592.

bb) detention in the occupied territory
GC IV, Art. 76

CASES AND DOCUMENTS

cc) humane treatment
GC IV, Art. 76

Cases and Documents

dd) handing over to local authorities at the end of the occupation
GC IV, Art. 77

  1. civilian internees
    aa) decision on internment or assignment to residence
    GC IV, Art. 78

Cases and Documents

  • for imperative reasons of security
  • individual administrative decision
  • possibility of appeal
  • if possible, review every six months

Cases and Documents

bb) detailed rules on their treatment
GC IV, Arts 79-135

  1. re-interned prisoners of war
    GC III, Art. 4(B)(1)

 7.   Protection of private property

Cases and Documents

Cases and Documents

Suggested reading:

  • ABOUALI Gamal, “Natural Resources under Occupation: The Status of Palestinian Water under International Law”, in Pace International Law Review, Vol. 10/2, 1998, pp. 411-574.
  • ANDO Nisuke, Surrender, Occupation and Private Property in International Law, Oxford, Clarendon Press, 1991, 208 pp.
  • DINSTEIN Yoram, “The Israel Supreme Court and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: Demolitions and Sealing off of Houses”, in IYHR, Vol. 29, 1999, pp. 285-304.
  • LANGENKAMP R. Dobie & ZEDALIS Rex J., “What Happens to the Iraqi Oil?: Thoughts on Some Significant, Unexamined International Legal Questions Regarding Occupation of Oil Fields”, in EJIL, Vol. 14, No. 3, 2003, pp. 417-435.
  • VERHOVEN Sten, “A Missed Opportunity to Clarify the Modern Ius ad Bellum: Case Concerning Armed Activity on the Territory of the Congo”, in Revue de droit militaire et de droit de la guerre, Vol. 3-4, No 45, 2006, pp. 355-368.
  • WATSON Geoffrey R. et al., “Agora: ICJ Advisory Opinion on Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory”, in AJIL, Vol. 99/1, January 2005, pp. 1-141.
  1. rights covered by the concept of property: broader in common law than in civil law traditions
  2. prohibition of pillage
    GC IV, Art. 33(2); HR, Arts 28 and 47 [CIHL, Rule 52]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • STEWART James G., Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources, New York, The Open Society Institute, 2010, 157 pp.
  1. prohibition of confiscation of private property
    HR, Art. 46(2) [CIHL, Rule 51(c)]
    • except for war material
      HR, Art. 53(2)

Cases and Documents

  1. limited admissibility of requisitions
    HR, Art. 52

Cases and Documents

 8.   Specific prohibitions

  1.  deportations
    GC IV, Art. 49(1) [CIHL, Rule 129 A.]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • DINSTEIN Yoram, “The Israel Supreme Court and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: Deportations”, in IYHR, Vol. 23, 1993, pp. 1-26.
  • LAPIDOTH Ruth, “The Expulsion of Civilians from Areas which Came under Israeli Control in 1967: Some Legal Issues”, in EJIL, Vol. 1, 1991, pp. 97-109.
  • SHERRY Virginia N., Persona Non Grata: The Expulsion of Lebanese Civilians from Israeli-Occupied Lebanon, New York, Human Rights Watch, 1999, 83 pp., http://www.hrw.org/reports/1999/lebanon.
  1. transfer of the occupying power’s own population
    GC IV, Art. 49(6) [CIHL, Rule 130]

Cases and Documents

aa) status and protection of settlers

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • AL-RAYYES Nasser, The Israeli Settlements from the Perspective of International Humanitarian Law, Ramallah, Al-Haq Institute, 2000, 139 pp.
  • MALLISON William T., “A Juridical Analysis of the Israeli Settlements in the Occupied Territories”, in The Palestine Yearbook of International Law, Vol. 10, 1998-99, pp. 1-26.
  1. destruction of property
    GC IV, Art. 53

aa) except when rendered absolutely necessary by military operations

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • DINSTEIN Yoram, “The Israel Supreme Court and the Law of Belligerent Occupation: Demolitions and Sealing off of Houses”, in IYHR, Vol. 29, 1999, pp. 285-304.

 9.   The administration of an occupied territory

Cases and Documents

  1. responsibility for public order and safety (“la vie et l’ordre publics”)
    HR, Art. 43

Cases and Documents

aa) field of application: not only security, but also welfare (according to the authentic French version of Art. 43 of HR)

bb) an obligation of means and not of result

cc) an obligation subject to the limitations human rights law sets for any State action

Cases and Documents

  1. taxation
    HR, Arts 48, 49 and 51
  2. administration of public property
    HR, Art. 55 [CIHL, Rule 51(a) and (b)]

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • ABOUALI Gamal, “Natural Resources under Occupation: The Status of Palestinian Water under International Law”, in Pace International Law Review, Vol. 10/2, 1998, pp. 411-574.
  • BENVENISTI Eyal, “Water Conflicts During the Occupation in Iraq”, in AJIL, Vol. 97, 2003, pp. 860-872.
  • STEWART James G., Corporate War Crimes: Prosecuting the Pillage of Natural Resources, New York, The Open Society Institute, 2010, 157 pp.

aa) but no confiscation, except of property which may be used for military operations
HR, Art. 53

Cases and Documents

  1. respect for the status of civil servants
    GC IV, Art. 54

 10. Protection of economic, social and cultural rights

Cases and Documents

Suggested reading:

  • DE FALCO Randle C., “The Right to Food in Gaza: Israel’s Obligations under International Law”, in Rutgers Law Record, Vol. 35, 2009, pp. 11-22.
  • VITE Sylvain, “The Interrelation of the Law of Occupation and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: the Examples of Food, Health and Property”, in IRRC, Vol. 90, No. 871, September 2008, pp. 629-651.
  1. food and medical supplies
    GC IV, Arts 55 and 59-62; P I, Art. 69

Cases and Documents

aa) obligation not to interfere with local supply system

bb) obligation to furnish supplies

Cases and Documents

cc) obligation to allow free passage of aid

Cases and Documents

  1. public health and hygiene
    GC IV, Arts 56, 57 and 63

Cases and Documents

aa) obligation to guarantee them

bb) respect for medical personnel

cc) respect for hospitals

dd) respect for the National Red Cross or Red Crescent Society

  1. children and their education
    GC IV, Art. 50

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • HOROWITZ Jonathan T., “The Right to Education in Occupied Territories: Making More Room for Human Rights in Occupation Law”, in YIHL, Vol. 7 (2004), 2006, pp. 233-281.
  1. protection of workers
    aa) limits on working obligations
    GC IV, Art. 51
    bb) prohibition to cause unemployment
    GC IV, Art. 52
  2. cultural property
    [See
    Conventions on the Protection of Cultural Property
     [See Second Hague Protocol for the Protection of Cultural Property, Art. 9]

 11.       The end of the applicability of the rules on occupied territories

Cases and Documents

Readings

Suggested reading:

  • ALONZO-MAIZLISH David, “When Does it End? Problems in the Law of Occupation”, in ARNOLD Roberta & HILDBRAND Pierre-Antoine (eds), International Humanitarian Law and the 21st Century’s Conflicts, Lausanne, Edis, 2005, pp. 97-116.
  • BENVENISTI Eyal, “The Law on the Unilateral Termination of Occupation”, in GIEGERICH, Thomas (ed.), A Wiser Century?: Judicial Dispute Settlement, Disarmament and the Laws of War 100 Years After the Second Hague Peace Conference, Berlin, Duncker and Humblot, 2009, pp. 371-382.
  • ROBERTS Adam, “The End of Occupation in Iraq (2004)”, in ICLQ, Vol. 54, 2005, pp. 27 (also online: http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=1524012).
  • KOUTROULIS Vaios, Le début et la fin du droit de l’occupation, Paris, Pedone, 2010, 334 pp.
  1. during an occupation according to Convention IV (Art. 6 (3)), but not to Protocol I (Art. 3(b))

Cases and Documents

  1. in the case of self-government?
    aa) if the new government invites the former occupying forces to remain?
    bb) at least on issues administered by the new government?
    cc) can the occupying power (which cannot deprive protected persons of the protection afforded by Convention IV, according to Art. 47 of Convention IV) introduce free elections?
  2. in the case of a peace treaty
  3. should the occupying power retreat,
    aa) how much de facto control need the retreating occupying power retain for the IHL of military occupation (or some of its rules) to be applicable even after troops retreat?

Cases and Documents

  1. by UN Security Council determination?

Cases and Documents

  1. protection of persons who remain detained or are not yet re-established
    GC IV, Art. 6(4)

 Footnotes

V. Transmission of information

Cases and Documents

  1. internment cards (to be sent to the family and to the Central Tracing Agency)
    GC IV, Art. 106
  2. notification (to the power of origin through the Central Tracing Agency)
    GC IV, Arts 136-138, 140
  3. correspondence
    GC IV, Art. 107