What are the Geneva Conventions
The Geneva Conventions are comprised of four separate conventions that govern the conduct of military forces during armed conflict. The current form of these important international laws emerged in the aftermath of World War II, but they are an extension of the laws governing warfare that emerged throughout the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. These four separate conventions contain laws that govern: 1) care of sick and wounded members of the armed forces on the battlefield; 2) care of sick and wounded members of the armed forces at sea; 3) the treatment of prisoners of war; and 4) the protection of civilian persons in wartime. The Geneva Conventions are one group of international laws that set limits on the military tactics that a country may employ during armed conflict and set minimum standards for the protection of those that fall into the enemy’s hands either as wounded soldiers, prisoners of war, or civilians living under the control of an occupying force.
The Third Geneva Convention, the one governing the treatment of prisoners of war (“P.O.W.s”), contains 143 articles that set forth the laws dictating the qualification of an individual as a P.O.W. and their treatment during an armed conflict. Both the United States and Iraq have signed and ratified the Geneva Conventions. Therefore, all of the Geneva Conventions, including the one governing the treatment of P.O.W.s, were applicable during the recent war in Iraq and continue to remain in force as the United States and the other coalition forces seek to reconstruct Iraq.
The Geneva Convention governing the treatment of P.O.W.s prescribes that the country holding the P.O.W.s must follow a fixed code of conduct with respect to these individuals. Some of the basic provisions of the Convention require the detaining party to ensure that P.O.W.s are:
– humanely treated;
– provided with food and shelter;
– provided with medical care as necessary;
– removed from areas of combat as soon as feasible to ensure their safety;
– protected from public curiosity;
– not subjected to mental or physical torture of any kind;
– not interrogated beyond asking for the individual’s name, rank, and serial number; and
– allowed visits by representatives from the International Committee of the Red Cross/Red Crescent and properly registered international organizations including the United Nations.
The above items present only a very basic outline of the Convention’s requirements — but they reflect the strong affirmative duty that is placed upon the detaining power to ensure that P.O.W.s are treated with a basic minimum of care.
In the most recent Gulf War in Iraq, it is Article 13 of the Convention that has received the most attention and the most discussion. Article 13 states in full:
Prisoners of war must at all times be humanely treated. Any unlawful act or omission by the Detaining Power causing death or seriously endangering the health of a prisoner of war in its custody is prohibited, and will be regarded as a serious breach of the present Convention. In particular, no prisoner of war may be subjected to physical mutilation or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind which are not justified by the medical, dental, or hospital treatment of the prisoner concerned and carried out in his interest.
Likewise, prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity. [Emphasis added.]
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.
The official Commentary to the Geneva Conventions, which examines the Conventions article by article, is written by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The Commentary seeks to clarify humane treatment in the following manner, “the word ‘treated’ must be understood here in its most general sense as applying to all aspects of life. With regard to the concept of humanity, the purpose of the Convention is none other than to define the correct way to behave towards a human being; each individual is desirous of the treatment corresponding to his status and can therefore judge how he should, in turn, treat his fellow human beings.” Furthermore, interpreting the sentence that P.O.W.s must be “at all times protected … against insults and public curiosity” the Commentary provides that protection has an affirmative aspect, to wit, that “to protect someone means to stand up for him” including to protect the P.O.W.’s honor and moral independence. These are affirmative duties placed on the detaining powers, not merely suggestions for appropriate treatment of prisoners. It is on this basis that the legality of the controversial footage of American P.O.W.s and the images of other P.O.W.s and surrendering forces must be judged.
German prisoners of war captured in 1944 by the Free French Infantry and 6th Armored Division troops.
At the request of President Lincoln and United States military leaders, Francis Lieber, a military and international law scholar, created, in 1863, the first comprehensive code of conduct for the U.S. Army. In helping establish a policy on prisoners of war, Leiber was particularly concerned about the treatment African-American Union soldiers would receive if captured by the Confederacy. Eighty years later, the philosophy behind the Lieber Code applied to the Japanese soldiers, shown above, captured by U.S. troops in the Battle of Tarawa.
To Whom Do the Conventions Apply?
The Geneva Conventions are multilateral, international treaties. This means that they bind only those nation-states that have signed, ratified, and deposited their ratification with the United Nations. When a country such as the United States or Iraq signs and ratifies the Geneva Conventions, it agrees that all of those individuals under its control — military and civilian leaders, as well as soldiers in the field, in the air, and on the sea — are bound by the Conventions’ mandates.
Individuals not operating under the control of a government signatory to the Conventions such as independent news outlets — regardless of their medium — are not bound by the Geneva Conventions. Journalists are not state actors, are not acting under the control of a combatant military power, and, therefore, are not bound by the laws of war. As non-combatants who are not acting as government agents, journalists are not bound — and, in fact, are protected by — the Geneva Conventions.
The argument for the applicability of the Geneva Conventions to state-owned and state-run media outlets, however is quite strong. As an instrument of the government, state-owned television and radio stations have played an important role in recent conflicts. For example, the Office of the Prosecutor for International Tribunal For Rwanda (I.C.T.R.) has indicted a number of individuals connected with state-controlled media outlets in Kigali with incitement to commit genocide for their broadcasts during the 1994 Rwandan genocide. They are currently on trial at the I.C.T.R. As agents of the state, these media outlets are bound by the international laws governing armed conflict.
The question becomes more complicated, however, when the footage is taken by embedded reporters and screened by military officials before it is aired. Once the military officials review the footage and approve it for broadcast — and the news organization then broadcasts it — assuming that the footage violates the Geneva Conventions, who should be held responsible under the Geneva Conventions? It would be difficult for the state to assert the media outlet’s independence when its footage is screened prior to airing. But how does one analyze the situation presented by the footage, shot by Iraqi state television and later handed over to an independent news outlet that broadcast it?
U.S. Marines round up soldiers and civilians in Korea in 1950.
The United States, Japan, and Germany all signed the Geneva Convention of 1929, which was in effect during World War II; the Convention’s policies on prisoners of war applied to all signatories, including the American soldiers pictured above. Yet after the war, some Germans on trial claimed that the Geneva Convention did not apply to them because the Soviet Union, one of their enemies, has not signed. This argument was not accepted.
The Controversial Footage
On March 23, 2003, al-Jazeera, the most widely watched Arabic-language satellite news station, broadcast video footage — which it had received from the Iraqi government — of American prisoners of war and dead American soldiers. The footage showed dead American soldiers, easily identifiable by their faces, and American P.O.W.s. The P.O.W.s, visibly exhausted and somewhat confused, were interviewed by an unseen speaker, presumably from the Iraqi government or Iraqi state television. The P.O.W.s were asked their names and their hometowns; one was asked if he was in Iraq in order to kill Iraqis. (He answered, “No, I fix broke stuff.”) Because of al-Jazeera’s more advanced technology, the network was able to broadcast some of this footage before even Iraqi state television could.
But al-Jazeera was not alone in broadcasting this footage. Sky News, the British 24-hour news satellite station owned by Rupert Murdoch, also broadcast the footage showing the prisoner’s identifiable faces at least once; later, blocking out the faces, Sky News repeatedly showed the video. The CBS program FACE THE NATION once broadcast the footage without obscuring the faces of the dead. The footage was also broadcast, at least in part (with the faces of the P.O.W.s and dead soldiers blurred), by a number of American news outlets — both network and cable.
Just a few days before the footage of the “interviews” with American P.O.W.s, American news outlets broadcast footage of Iraqi forces surrendering and photographs of Iraqi prisoners of war appeared in a number of United States newspapers. In some of these images, individual faces were identifiable, in others they were not. As such, many of the warnings following the al- Jazeera broadcast were directed at both the Iraqi government and the coalition forces. For example, the International Committee of the Red Cross, in its daily briefing on March 24, 2003, stated:
the ICRC draws attention to the relevant passage of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention: “… prisoners of war must at all times be protected, particularly against acts of violence and intimidation and against insults and public curiosity.” It is important to point out that a) the dignity of P.O.W.s should be protected and b) account should be taken of the impact these images could have on their families. The two types of presentations — of Americans captured in Iraq and of Iraqis captured by coalition forces — were not equivalent. The footage of the American P.O.W.s raised serious questions about the treatment of P.O.W.s in Iraqi custody, and the questioning — and subsequent broadcast of this questioning on Iraqi state television — resulted in allegations by many that Iraq violated Article 13 of the Third Geneva Convention. On the other hand, many contended that the images of the Iraqi soldiers surrendering or being taken into custody did not single out individuals and was simply an act of reporting events as they unfolded.
The reaction in the United States to al-Jazeera’s initial broadcast was swift and decisive. From the Pentagon, warnings were issued regarding a violation of the Geneva Convention’s prohibition on the humiliation of P.O.W.s, and some media pundits engaged in similar accusations against al-Jazeera with respect to violation of the Convention’s requirements. Few of these critics distinguished between the Iraqi state television’s recording of the interviews and to al-Jazeera’s decision to air the footage.
The availability of instantaneous access to images of warfare has undoubtedly changed both the media’s role and the response of military officials, government leaders, international jurists, and human rights advocates. This incident raised important questions about the role of international law in an era where not only does the technological capability exist to send images instantaneously across the world, but immediate access to information — even uncensored information — is expected by the viewing public. In the weeks that followed the broadcast, many questioned whether the Geneva Conventions needed to be updated in light of the role the media — especially television and the Internet — plays in shaping coverage of events. The challenge, however, is that international laws governing armed conflicts govern only the conduct of the parties to the conflict — not media outlets. And it has often been journalists — reporters like David Rohde, Roy Gutman, Jon Lee Anderson, and many others — who have publicized the stories of war crimes that might not otherwise have been discovered.
Captured Japanese soldiers in Guam bow their heads after hearing Emperor Hirohito announce Japan’s unconditional surrender to end World War II.
The 1899 Hague Convention’s Annex devoted 18 of its 60 articles to laying out the treatment and maintenance of prisoners of war. These same eighteen articles, with minor changes in text, were included in the 1907 Hague Convention. These early conventions set forth basic principles that continue to govern the treatment of prisoners of war. Most importantly, these conventions defined who qualified for protection as a prisoner of war, such as Spc. Joseph Hudson, shown above, whose interview by Iraqi officials was broadcast across the globe.
