U.K. to ratify The Hague Convention
U.K. to ratify The Hague Convention
............
Admin Note: This user is banned after turning most of their old posts into spam. This is why you may see their posts containing nothing more than dots or symbols. We have decided to keep these posts in place as it shows where they once were and why other users may be replying to things no longer visible in the topic. We apologise for any inconvenience.
Re: U.K. to ratify The Hague Convention
The ratification will probably be littered with attenuating qualifications just like our ratification of the Fourth Geneva Convention.
-
ArmChairCivvy
- Senior Member
- Posts: 16312
- Joined: 05 May 2015, 21:34
Re: U.K. to ratify The Hague Convention
Well, us ratifying does not mean much... Palmyra, many times over, and all that
However, the older Hague Conventions are also a discussion point:
"The U.S. ratified the first three articles of the 1899 Hague Convention but never signed Article IV. Additionally, Article IV, Section 3 states that the prohibition on the use of hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories.
[-] Even if the U.S.A. had signed Article IV, the provisions wouldn’t apply to the United States unless fighting another signatory state.
A grey area of international law has always been the treatment of irregular fighters. The Great Powers did not appreciate participation by non-nation state actors in their conflicts. At the 1899 Hague Conference, the Martens Clause determined that non-uniformed insurgents [upgraded definition from "the natives"] were unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture. This means that according to Hague, the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas. pirates and terrorists."
- a pity that we have forgotten that, and anti-pirating is considered a police action
Some may have guessed already what I am talking about? Hollow points (ie. dum-dum bullets.
There is some asymmetry here though. Ottawa agreement on cluster munitions is binding one-way only; so the non-signatories can do whatever they please.
Do we need another WW as [wiki says] "After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention in order to be bound by them"
- or just to agree a dictionary definition for "civilized" and add the reference to all applicable international laws?
However, the older Hague Conventions are also a discussion point:
"The U.S. ratified the first three articles of the 1899 Hague Convention but never signed Article IV. Additionally, Article IV, Section 3 states that the prohibition on the use of hollow points applies only in a conflict between two signatories.
[-] Even if the U.S.A. had signed Article IV, the provisions wouldn’t apply to the United States unless fighting another signatory state.
A grey area of international law has always been the treatment of irregular fighters. The Great Powers did not appreciate participation by non-nation state actors in their conflicts. At the 1899 Hague Conference, the Martens Clause determined that non-uniformed insurgents [upgraded definition from "the natives"] were unlawful combatants subject to execution on capture. This means that according to Hague, the laws of warfare do not apply to guerrillas. pirates and terrorists."
- a pity that we have forgotten that, and anti-pirating is considered a police action
Some may have guessed already what I am talking about? Hollow points (ie. dum-dum bullets.
There is some asymmetry here though. Ottawa agreement on cluster munitions is binding one-way only; so the non-signatories can do whatever they please.
Do we need another WW as [wiki says] "After World War II, the judges of the military tribunal of the Trial of German Major War Criminals at Nuremberg Trials found that by 1939, the rules laid down in the 1907 Hague Convention were recognised by all civilised nations and were regarded as declaratory of the laws and customs of war. Under this post-war decision, a country did not have to have ratified the 1907 Hague Convention in order to be bound by them"
- or just to agree a dictionary definition for "civilized" and add the reference to all applicable international laws?
Ever-lasting truths: Multi-year budgets/ planning by necessity have to address the painful questions; more often than not the Either-Or prevails over Both-And.
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)
If everyone is thinking the same, then someone is not thinking (attributed to Patton)