FANDOM


IMPORTANT:This page has used Creative Commons Licensed content from Wikipedia in either a refactored, modified, abridged, expanded, built on or 'strait from' text content!
Birmingham Blitz D 4126

Bomb Damage in Birmingham, England, C 1940 Although some debris has been cleared on this site on James Street, Aston Newtown, Birmingham, a large pile of timbers and some brick rubble can be clearly seen. Also visible to the right of the photograph are the twisted remains of several Anderson shelters. In the background, two of the terraced houses that are still standing have had the front wall stripped away by the blast, revealing the interior walls and floors. Date- 1940.

F-4B VF-111 dropping bombs on Vietnam

8 of 28 A U.S. Navy F-4B from VF-111 dropping bombs over Vietnam, 1971.

KoreanWar recover Seoul

U.S. Marines engaged in street fighting during the liberation of Seoul, circa late September 1950. Note M-1 rifles and Browning Automatic Rifles carried by the Marines, dead Koreans in the street, and M-4 "Sherman" tanks in the distance. U.S. Marines fighting in Seoul, Korea, Sept. 1950

UN General Assembly hall

UN General Assembly's hall.

What Are The Rules Of War?

What Are The Rules Of War?

The Ritual That Helped Laura Ling Survive North Korea http://testu.be/1J7n2Ka Subscribe! http://bitly.com/1iLOHml Many experts argued that military robots can't tell the difference between civilians and soldiers, and are therefore dangerous. So, what are the laws of war? Learn More: Do Killer Robots Violate Human Rights? http://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2015/04/do-killer-robots-violate-human-rights/390033/ "As bizarre as it sounds, the United Nations just held an arms-control conference to figure out if killer robots might violate the laws of war." 2015 CCW meeting on killer robots http://www.stopkillerrobots.org/2015/03/ccwexperts2015/ "The second multilateral meeting on "lethal autonomous weapons systems" by members of the 1980 Convention on Conventional Weapons (CCW) will be held at the United Nations (UN) Palais des Nations in Geneva on 13-17 April 2015." Watch More: The Ritual That Helped Laura Ling Survive North Korea https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V94FoCvxgio Subscribe to TestTube Daily! http://bitly.com/1iLOHml _________________________ TestTube's new daily show is committed to answering the smart, inquisitive questions we have about life, society, politics and anything else happening in the news. It's a place where curiosity rules and together we'll get a clearer understanding of this crazy world we live in. Watch more TestTube: http://testtube.com/testtubedailyshow/ Subscribe now! http://www.youtube.com/subscription_center?add_user=testtubenetwork TestTube on Twitter https://twitter.com/TestTube Trace Dominguez on Twitter https://twitter.com/TraceDominguez TestTube on Facebook https://facebook.com/testtubenetwork TestTube on Google+ http://gplus.to/TestTube Download the New TestTube iOS app! http://testu.be/1ndmmMq.

OverviewEdit

Many people have tried to make war less indiscriminate, horrific, unfair, bloody, bestial, savage, kill-crazy, sub-instinctive, sub-human, animalistic, sub-cogicent, oafish, hellish, distressing, traumatic, lethal, destructive, stupid and disruptive over the years. Both the Vietnam War, 1950–1953 Korean War, Iran-Iraq War, 1953–75 Laotian Civil War and the Biafra War would see these laws ruptured all the time. Here is a summey list of the modt vitally important rule making war regulating treaties.

TerminologyEdit

"Cause Belli" means:

  • A case of war

It is a Latin expression meaning "an act or event that provokes or is used to justify war". It can also now be used for non-war time actions, such as justifying crimes, riots, litigations, political legislation, major corporate actions, and so on.

"Jus ad Bellum" means:

  • "Right to war"

It is a set of criteria that are to be consulted before engaging in war in order to determine whether entering into war is permissible, that is, whether it is a just war.

"Jus in Bello" means:

  • "Right in war"

It is a set of criteria that are the limits to acceptable wartime conduct under International humanitarian law.

Casus foederis (or code foederis or casus fœderis) means:

  • "case for the alliance".

It is derived from the Latin for "case for the alliance". In diplomatic terms, it describes a situation in which the terms of an alliance come into play, such as one nation being attacked by another.

"De facto" means:

  • "In fact"

It describes practices that exist in reality, even if not legally authorized.

"De Jure" means:

  • "In law".

It describes practices that are legally recognized by official laws.

"Ultima ratio" means:

  • "Last method", "the last and\or greatest reason", "the final argument" and "the last resort" (as a use force or law)

It describes a situation were the plans and decisions last resort will be deployed and\or used.

"Hors de combat" means:

  • "Out of (the) fight" or "outside the fight"

It is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to persons who are incapable of performing combat. It is a set of criteria that are to be consulted before engaging in a fight or battle during war in order to determine whether entering into war is permissible, that is, whether it is a just war.

A person is considered "hors de combat" if:
  1. He is in the power of an adverse Party;
  2. He clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
  3. He has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself; provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

First Geneva ConventionEdit

Flag of the ICRC

This flag of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Abuse of the emblem and\or the flag are both a crime against humanity and a war-crime.

The original ten articles of the 1864 treaty have been expanded to the current 64 articles. This lengthy treaty protects soldiers that are hors de combat (out of the battle due to sickness or injury), as well as medical and religious personnel, and civilians in the zone of battle.

  • Among its principal provisions:
    • Article 12 mandates that wounded and sick soldiers who are out of the battle should be humanely treated, and in particular should not be killed, injured, tortured, or subjected to biological experimentation. This article is the keystone of the treaty, and defines the principles from which most of the treaty is derived, including the obligation to respect medical units and establishments (Chapter III), the personnel entrusted with the care of the wounded (Chapter IV), buildings and material (Chapter V), medical transports (Chapter VI), and the protective sign (Chapter VII).
    • Article 15 mandates that wounded and sick soldiers should be collected, cared for, and protected, though they may also become prisoners of war.
    • Article 16 mandates that parties to the conflict should record the identity of the dead and wounded, and transmit this information to the opposing party.
    • Article 9 allows the International Red Cross "or any other impartial humanitarian organization" to provide protection and relief of wounded and sick soldiers, as well as medical and religious personnel.

For a detailed discussion of each article of the treaty, see the original text and the commentary. There are currently 196 countries party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, including this first treaty but also including the other three. 

1977 Protocol I of the Geneva ConventionEdit

OverviewEdit

Protocol I is an extensive document, containing 102 articles. Following is a basic overview of the protocol. For a comprehensive listing of all provisions, consult the text and the commentary. In general, the protocol reaffirms the provisions of the original four Geneva Conventions. However, the following additional protections are added.

  1. Article 42 outlaws attacks on pilots and aircrews who are parachuting from an aircraft in distress. Once they landed in territory controlled by an adverse party, they must be given an opportunity to surrender before being attacked unless it is apparent that they are engaging in a hostile act or attempting to escape. Airborne troops who are parachuting from an aircraft, whether in distress or not, are not given the protection afforded by this Article and, therefore, may be attacked during their descent.
  2. Articles 51 and 54 outlaw indiscriminate attacks on civilian populations, and destruction of food, water, and other materials needed for survival. Indiscriminate attacks include directly attacking civilian (non-military) targets, but also using technology such as biological weapons, nuclear weapons and land mines, whose scope of destruction cannot be limited.[6] A total war that does not distinguish between civilian and military targets is considered a war crime.
  3. Articles 56 and 53 outlaw attacks on dams, dikes, nuclear generating stations, and places of worship. The first three are "works and installations containing dangerous forces" and may be attacked but only in ways that do not threaten to release the dangerous forces (i.e., it is permissible to attempt to capture them but not to try to destroy them).
  4. Articles 76 and 77, 15 and 79 provide special protections for women, children, and civilian medical personnel, and provide measures of protection for journalists.
  5. Article 77 forbids conscription of children under age 15 into the armed forces. It does allow, however, for persons under the age of 15 to participate voluntarily.
  6. Articles 43 and 44 clarify the military status of members of guerrilla forces. Combatant and prisoner of war status is granted to members of dissident forces when under the command of a central authority. Such combatants cannot conceal their allegiance; they must be recognizable as combatants while preparing for or during an attack.
  7. Article 35 bans weapons that "cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering," as well as means of warfare that "cause widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment."
  8. Article 85 states that it is a war crime to use one of the protective emblems recognized by the Geneva Conventions to deceive the opposing forces (perfidy).
  9. Articles 17 and 81 authorize the ICRC, national societies, or other impartial humanitarian organizations to provide assistance to the victims of war.

Article 90 states that "The High Contracting Parties may at the time of signing, ratifying or acceding to the Protocol, or at any other subsequent time, declare that they recognize ipso facto and without special agreement, in relation to any other High Contracting Party accepting the same obligation, the competence of the [International Fact-Finding] Commission to enquire into allegations by such other Party, as authorized by this Article." 74 states have made such a declaration.

Article 38. – Recognized emblemsEdit

  • 1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
  • 2. It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization.

Article 39. – Emblems of nationalityEdit

  • 1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
  • 2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
  • 3. Nothing in this Article or in Article 37, paragraph 1 ( d ), shall affect the existing generally recognized rules of international law applicable to espionage or to the use of flags in the conduct of armed conflict at sea.

Article 37. – Prohibition of perfidyEdit

Perfidy is specifically prohibited under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which states:

  • 1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
    • (a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
    • (b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
    • (c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
    • (d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
  • 2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly, but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

The Geneva Convention (July 1929)Edit

OverviewEdit

The Geneva Convention (1929) was signed at Geneva, July 27, 1929. Its official name is the Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva July 27, 1929. It entered into force 19 June 1931.[1] It is this version of the Geneva Conventions which covered the treatment of prisoners of war during World War II. It is the predecessor of the Third Geneva Convention signed in 1949.

On their web site, the International Committee of the Red Cross states that:

"Provisions concerning the treatment of prisoners of war are contained in the Hague Regulations of 1899 and 1907. In the course of World War I they revealed several deficiencies as well as a lack of precision. Such defects were partly overcome by special agreements made between belligerents in Berne in 1917 and 1918. In 1921, the International Red Cross Conference held at Geneva expressed the wish that a special convention on the treatment of prisoners of war be adopted. The International Committee of the Red Cross drew up a draft convention which was submitted to the Diplomatic Conference convened at Geneva in 1929. The Convention does not replace but only completes the provisions of the Hague regulations. The most important innovations consisted in the prohibition of reprisals and collective penalties, the organization of prisoners' work, the designation, by the prisoners, of representatives and the control exercised by protecting Powers."

General provisionsEdit

Article 1 makes explicit reference to Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Hague Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land (Hague IV), of October 18, 1907, to define who are lawful combatants and so qualify as prisoners of war (POW) on capture. In addition to combatants covered by Hague IV, some civilians are also covered in the section of this Convention called the "Application of the Convention to certain classes of civilians".

Articles 2, 3, and 4 specifies that POWs are prisoners of the Power which holds them and not prisoners of the unit which takes their surrender; that POWs have the right to honor and respect, and that women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex, and that prisoners of a similar category must be treated in the same way.

CaptureEdit

Articles 5 and 6 covers what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information. Prisoners' personal possessions, other than arms and horses, may not be taken from them.

The wording of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention was intentionally altered from that of the 1929 convention so that soldiers who "fall into the power" following surrender or mass capitulation of an enemy are now protected as well as those taken prisoner in the course of fighting.[4][5] (see Disarmed Enemy Forces)

CaptivityEdit

Evacuation of prisoners of warEdit

Articles 7 and 8 states that prisoners should be evacuated from the combat zone within the shortest possible period, and that Belligerents are bound mutually to notify each other of their capture of prisoners within the shortest period possible.

Prisoner of war campsEdit

Articles 9 and 10 covers the type of camp in which POWs can be detained. They must be constructed in such a way so that the conditions are similar to those used by the belligerent's own soldiers in base camps. The camps must be located in healthy locations and away from the combat zone. Also, "Belligerents shall, so far as possible, avoid assembling in a single camp prisoners of different races or nationalities." Prisoners may not be used as human shields by being sent to an area where they would be exposed to the fire of the fighting zone or be employed to render by their presence certain points or areas immune from bombardment.

Articles 11, 12, and 13 states, "Food must be of a similar quality and quantity to that of the Belligerent's own soldiers, and POWs cannot be denied food as a punishment; A canteen selling local produce and products should be provided. Adequate clothing should be provided; and that sanitary service in camps should be more than sufficient to prevent epidemics."

Articles 14 and 15 covers the provision of medical facilities in each camp.

Articles 16 and 17 covers the provision of religious needs, intellectual diversions and sport facilities.

Articles 18 and 19 covers the internal discipline of a camp which is under the command of a responsible officer.

Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.

Article 24 covers the rate of pay of prisoners of war.

Articles 25 and 26 covers the responsibilities of the detaining authority when transferring prisoners from one location to another. Prisoners must be healthy enough to travel, they must be informed to where they are being transferred; and their personal possessions, including bank accounts, should remain accessible.

Labour of prisoners of warEdit

Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. Remuneration will be agreed between the Belligerents and will belong to the prisoner who carries out the work.

External relations of prisoners of warEdit

Articles 35 to 41 covers how and when prisoners of war may correspond with others. Prisoners should be allowed to correspond with their family within a week of capture. They should be allowed to receive letters, and parcels which contain books, which may be censored, food, and clothing.

Prisoners' relations with the authoritiesEdit

Articles 42 to 67 covers the prisoners' relations with the authorities. Most of these provisions are covered by the provision that prisoners are under the detaining power's own code of military regulations, with some additional provisions which cover specific prisoner of war issues and some other provisions to protect prisoners of war if the military regulations of the detaining power do not meet a minimum standard. Two specific regulations which differentiate prisoners of war from the detainees' own military regulations, is that no prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the detaining Power, and escaped prisoners of war who are retaken before being able to rejoin their own army or to leave the territory occupied by the army which captured them shall be liable only to disciplinary punishment.

Termination of captivityEdit

Articles 68 to 74 states that seriously sick and seriously injured prisoners of war must be repatriated as soon as their condition allows and no repatriated person may be utilized in active military service.

Article 75 covers release at the end of hostilities. The release of prisoners should form part of the armistice. If this is not possible then repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace. This particular provision was to cause problems after World War II because as the surrender of the Axis powers was unconditional (unconditional surrender) there was no armistice, and in the case of Germany a full peace treaty was not signed until the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany in 1990.

Article 76 covers prisoners of war dying in captivity: they should be honorably buried and their graves marked and maintained properly. Wills and death certificate provisions should be the same as those for the detaining power's own soldiers.

Bureau of relief and information concerning prisoners of warEdit

Articles 77 to 80 covers how and how frequently the Powers should exchange information about prisoners and the details of how relief societies for prisoners of war should be involved in their relief.

Application of the Convention to certain classes of civiliansEdit

Article 81 states that individuals who follow the armed forces without directly belonging thereto, who fall into the enemy's hands and whom the latter think expedient to detain, shall be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. This provision covered military support contractors, civilian war correspondents, sutlers, etc.

Execution of the conventionEdit

Articles 82 to 97 covers the implementation of this convention. Articles 82 and 83 contained two important clauses. "In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto," and that the provisions of this convention continue to cover prisoners of war after hostilities up to their repatriation unless the belligerents agree otherwise or a more favorable regime replaces it.

The Annex to the Convention of May 27, 1929 was also relative to the treatment of prisoners of war.

1949 Third Geneva ConventionEdit

The wording of the 1949 Third Geneva Convention was intentionally altered from that of the 1929 convention so that soldiers who "fall into the power" following surrender or mass capitulation of an enemy are now protected as well as those taken prisoner in the course of fighting (disarmed enemy forces).

Evacuation of prisoners of warEdit

Articles 7 and 8 states that prisoners should be evacuated from the combat zone within the shortest possible period, and that Belligerents are bound mutually to notify each other of their capture of prisoners within the shortest period possible.

Prisoner of war campsEdit

  • Articles 9 and 10 covers the type of camp in which POWs can be detained. They must be constructed in such a way so that the conditions are similar to those used by the belligerent's own soldiers in base camps. The camps must be located in healthy locations and away from the combat zone. Also, "Belligerents shall, so far as possible, avoid assembling in a single camp prisoners of different races or nationalities." Prisoners may not be used as human shields by being sent to an area where they would be exposed to the fire of the fighting zone or be employed to render by their presence certain points or areas immune from bombardment.
  • Articles 11, 12, and 13 states, "Food must be of a similar quality and quantity to that of the Belligerent's own soldiers, and POWs cannot be denied food as a punishment; A canteen selling local produce and products should be provided. Adequate clothing should be provided; and that sanitary service in camps should be more than sufficient to prevent epidemics."
  • Articles 14 and 15 covers the provision of medical facilities in each camp.
  • Articles 16 and 17 covers the provision of religious needs, intellectual diversions and sport facilities.
  • Articles 18 and 19 covers the internal discipline of a camp which is under the command of a responsible officer.
  • Articles 20, 21, 22, and 23 states that officers and persons of equivalent status who are prisoners of war shall be treated with the regard due their rank and age and provide more details on what that treatment should be.
  • Article 24 covers the rate of pay of prisoners of war.
  • Articles 25 and 26 covers the responsibilities of the detaining authority when transferring prisoners from one location to another. Prisoners must be healthy enough to travel, they must be informed to where they are being transferred; and their personal possessions, including bank accounts, should remain accessible.

Labour of prisoners of warEdit

Articles 27 to 34 covers labour by prisoners of war. Work must fit the rank and health of the prisoners. The work must not be war-related and must be safe work. Remuneration will be agreed between the Belligerents and will belong to the prisoner who carries out the work.

External relations of prisoners of warEdit

Articles 35 to 41 covers how and when prisoners of war may correspond with others. Prisoners should be allowed to correspond with their family within a week of capture. They should be allowed to receive letters, and parcels which contain books, which may be censored, food, and clothing.

Prisoners' relations with the authoritiesEdit

Articles 42 to 67 covers the prisoners' relations with the authorities. Most of these provisions are covered by the provision that prisoners are under the detaining power's own code of military regulations, with some additional provisions which cover specific prisoner of war issues and some other provisions to protect prisoners of war if the military regulations of the detaining power do not meet a minimum standard. Two specific regulations which differentiate prisoners of war from the detainees' own military regulations, is that no prisoner of war may be deprived of his rank by the detaining Power, and escaped prisoners of war who are retaken before being able to rejoin their own army or to leave the territory occupied by the army which captured them shall be liable only to disciplinary punishment.

Termination of captivityEdit

  • Articles 68 to 74 states that seriously sick and seriously injured prisoners of war must be repatriated as soon as their condition allows and no repatriated person may be utilized in active military service.
  • Article 75 covers release at the end of hostilities. The release of prisoners should form part of the armistice. If this is not possible then repatriation of prisoners shall be effected with the least possible delay after the conclusion of peace. This particular provision was to cause problems after World War II because as the surrender of the Axis powers was unconditional (unconditional surrender) there was no armistice, and in the case of Germany a full peace treaty was not signed until the signing of the Treaty on the Final Settlement With Respect to Germany in 1990.
  • Article 76 covers prisoners of war dying in captivity: they should be honorably buried and their graves marked and maintained properly. Wills and death certificate provisions should be the same as those for the detaining power's own soldiers.

Bureau of relief and information concerning prisoners of warEdit

Articles 77 to 80 covers how and how frequently the Powers should exchange information about prisoners and the details of how relief societies for prisoners of war should be involved in their relief.

Application of the Convention to certain classes of civiliansEdit

Article 81 states that individuals who follow the armed forces without directly belonging thereto, who fall into the enemy's hands and whom the latter think expedient to detain, shall be entitled to be treated as prisoners of war. This provision covered military support contractors, civilian war correspondents, sutlers, etc.

Execution of the conventionEdit

Articles 82 to 97 covers the implementation of this convention. Articles 82 and 83 contained two important clauses. "In case, in time of war, one of the belligerents is not a party to the Convention, its provisions shall nevertheless remain in force as between the belligerents who are parties thereto," and that the provisions of this convention continue to cover prisoners of war after hostilities up to their repatriation unless the belligerents agree otherwise or a more favorable regime replaces it.

Annex to the Convention of May 27, 1929 relative to the treatment of prisoners of warEdit

The annex added detail to the provisions covering repatriation and hospitalistion.

Fourth Geneva Convention (GCIV), of 1949Edit

OverviewEdit

Article 2 states that signatories are bound by the convention both in war, armed conflicts where war has not been declared, and in an occupation of another country's territory.

Article 3 states that even where there is not a conflict of international character, the parties must as a minimum adhere to minimal protections described as: non-combatants, members of armed forces who have laid down their arms, and combatants who are hors de combat (out of the fight) due to wounds, detention, or any other cause shall in all circumstances be treated humanely, with the following prohibitions:

  • (a) violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;
  • (b) taking of hostages;
  • (c) outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment
  • (d) the passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court, affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognised as indispensable by civilized peoples.

Article 4 defines who is a Protected person: Persons protected by the Convention are those who, at a given moment and in any manner whatsoever, find themselves, in case of a conflict or occupation, in the hands of a Party to the conflict or Occupying Power of which they are not nationals. But it explicitly excludes Nationals of a State which is not bound by the Convention and the citizens of a neutral state or an allied state if that state has normal diplomatic relations within the State in whose hands they are.

A number of articles specify how Protecting Powers, ICRC and other humanitarian organizations may aid Protected persons.

Article 5 provides for the suspension of persons' rights under the Convention for the duration of time that this is "prejudicial to the security of such State", although "such persons shall nevertheless be treated with humanity and, in case of trial, shall not be deprived of the rights of fair and regular trial prescribed by the present Convention." Protected person is the most important definition in this section because many of the articles in the rest of GCIV only apply to Protected persons.

General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of WarEdit

Article 13. The provisions of Part II cover the whole of the populations of the countries in conflict, without any adverse distinction based, in particular, on race, nationality, religion or political opinion, and are intended to alleviate the sufferings caused by war.

Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected PersonsEdit

Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories

Article 32. A protected person/s shall not have anything done to them of such a character as to cause physical suffering or extermination ... the physical suffering or extermination of protected persons in their hands. This prohibition applies not only to murder, torture, corporal punishments, mutilation and medical or scientific experiments not necessitated by the medical treatment. While popular debate remains on what constitutes a legal definition of torture (see discussion on the Torture page), the ban on corporal punishment simplifies the matter; even the most mundane physical abuse is thereby forbidden by Article 32, as a precaution against alternate definitions of torture.

The prohibition on scientific experiments was added, in part, in response to experiments by German and Japanese doctors during World War II, of whom Josef Mengele was the most infamous.

Collective punishmentsEdit

  • Article 33. No persons may be punished for an offense he or she has not personally committed.
    • Collective penalties and likewise all measures of intimidation or of terrorism are prohibited.
    • Pillage is prohibited.
    • Reprisals against persons and their property are prohibited.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, collective punishment is a war crime. By collective punishment, the drafters of the Geneva Conventions had in mind the reprisal killings of World War I and World War II. In the First World War, the Germans executed Belgian villagers in mass retribution for resistance activity during the Rape of Belgium. In World War II, both the Germans and the Japanese carried out a form of collective punishment to suppress resistance. Entire villages or towns or districts were held responsible for any resistance activity that occurred at those places.

The conventions, to counter this, reiterated the principle of individual responsibility. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) Commentary to the conventions states that parties to a conflict often would resort to "intimidatory measures to terrorize the population" in hopes of preventing hostile acts, but such practices "strike at guilty and innocent alike. They are opposed to all principles based on humanity and justice."

Additional Protocol II of 1977 explicitly forbids collective punishment. But as fewer states have ratified this protocol than GCIV, GCIV Article 33 is the one more commonly quoted.

Section III. Occupied territoriesEdit

Articles 47-78 impose substantial obligations on occupying powers. As well as numerous provisions for the general welfare of the inhabitants of an occupied territory, an occupier may not forcibly deport protected persons, or deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into occupied territory (Art.49).

Artical. 49. Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the Occupying Power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.

Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement. Persons thus evacuated shall be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.

The Occupying Power undertaking such transfers or evacuations shall ensure, to the greatest practicable extent, that proper accommodation is provided to receive the protected persons, that the removals are effected in satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and that members of the same family are not separated.

  • The Protecting Power shall be informed of any transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
  • The Occupying Power shall not detain protected persons in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
  • The Occupying Power shall not deport or transfer parts of its own civilian population into the territory it occupies.

Artical. 50. The Occupying Power shall, with the cooperation of the national and local authorities, facilitate the proper working of all institutions devoted to the care and education of children.

The Occupying Power shall take all necessary steps to facilitate the identification of children and the registration of their parentage. It may not, in any case, change their personal status, nor enlist them in formations or organizations subordinate to it.

Should the local institutions be inadequate for the purpose, the Occupying Power shall make arrangements for the maintenance and education, if possible by persons of their own nationality, language and religion, of children who are orphaned or separated from their parents as a result of the war and who cannot be adequately cared for by a near relative or friend.

A special section of the Bureau set up in accordance with Article 136 shall be responsible for taking all necessary steps to identify children whose identity is in doubt. Particulars of their parents or other near relatives should always be recorded if available.

The Occupying Power shall not hinder the application of any preferential measures in regard to food, medical care and protection against the effects of war which may have been adopted prior to the occupation in favour of children under fifteen years, expectant mothers, and mothers of children under seven years.

Artical 53. Any destruction by the Occupying Power of real or personal property belonging individually or collectively to private persons, or to the State, or to other public authorities, or to social or cooperative organizations, is prohibited, except where such destruction is rendered absolutely necessary by military operations.

Artical 56. To the fullest extent of the means available to it, the Occupying Power has the duty of ensuring and maintaining, with the cooperation of national and local authorities, the medical and hospital establishments and services, public health and hygiene in the occupied territory, with particular reference to the adoption and application of the prophylactic and preventive measures necessary to combat the spread of contagious diseases and epidemics. Medical personnel of all categories shall be allowed to carry out their duties.

If new hospitals are set up in occupied territory and if the competent organs of the occupied State are not operating there, the occupying authorities shall, if necessary, grant them the recognition provided for in Article 18. In similar circumstances, the occupying authorities shall also grant recognition to hospital personnel and transport vehicles under the provisions of Articles 20 and 21.

In adopting measures of health and hygiene and in their implementation, the Occupying Power shall take into consideration the moral and ethical susceptibilities of the population of the occupied territory.

Part IV. Execution of the ConventionEdit

This part contains "the formal or diplomatic provisions which it is customary to place at the end of an international Convention to settle the procedure for bringing it into effect are grouped together under this heading (1). They are similar in all four Geneva Conventions.

Hors de combatEdit

Killing people that were too ill to fight, too heavily wounded to fight, asleep or unconscious was widely considered at best cowardly, if not outright evil by the time of the Napoleonic war. "Hors de combat", literally meaning "outside the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to persons who are incapable of performing their ability to wage war.

Examples include fighter pilots or aircrews parachuting from their disabled aircraft, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled. Persons hors de combat are normally granted special protections according to the laws of war, sometimes including prisoner-of-war status, and therefore officially become non-combatants.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants hors de combat are granted the same privilege and to be treated with humanity while in captivity, but unlike lawful combatants, they are subject to trial and punishment, which includes capital punishment.

Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions defines:

  • A person is 'hors de combat' if:
    • (a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
    • (b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
    • (c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
      • provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

Hague Convention of 1899Edit

The peace conference was proposed on 24 August 1898 by Russian Tsar Nicholas II. Nicholas and Count Mikhail Nikolayevich Muravyov, his foreign minister, were instrumental in initiating the conference. The conference opened on 18 May 1899, the Tsar's birthday. The treaties, declarations, and final act of the conference were signed on 29 July of that year, and they entered into force on 4 September 1900. What is referred to as the Hague Convention of 1899 consisted of three main treaties and three additional declarations:

  • (I): Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes.

This convention included the creation of the Permanent Court of Arbitration, which exists to this day. The section was ratified by all major powers, including the United States, the UK, Austria-Hungary, Germany, France, Italy, Spain, Russia, Japan, and China.

  • (II): Convention with respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land

This voluminous convention contains the laws to be used in all wars on land between signatories. It specifies the treatment of prisoners of war, includes the provisions of the Geneva Convention of 1864 for the treatment of the wounded, and forbids the use of poisons, the killing of enemy combatants who have surrendered, looting of a town or place, and the attack or bombardment of undefended towns or habitations. Inhabitants of occupied territories may not be forced into military service against their own country and collective punishment is forbidden. The section was ratified by all major powers mentioned above.

  • (III): Convention for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention of 22 August 1864

This convention provides for the protection of marked hospital ships and requires them to treat the wounded and shipwrecked sailors of all belligerent parties. It too was ratified by all major powers.

  • (IV,1): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons or by Other New Analogous Methods

This declaration provides that, for a period of five years, in any war between signatory powers, no projectiles or explosives would be launched from balloons, "or by other new methods of a similar nature." The declaration was ratified by all the major powers mentioned above, except the United Kingdom and the United States.

  • (IV,2): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Projectiles with the Sole Object to Spread Asphyxiating Poisonous Gases

This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using projectiles "the sole object of which is the diffusion of asphyxiating or deleterious gases." Ratified by all major powers, except the United States. 

  • (IV,3): Declaration concerning the Prohibition of the Use of Bullets which can Easily Expand or Change their Form inside the Human Body such as Bullets with a Hard Covering which does not Completely Cover the Core, or containing Indentations. This declaration states that, in any war between signatory powers, the parties will abstain from using "bullets which expand or flatten easily in the human body." This directly banned soft-point bullets (which had a partial metal jacket and an exposed tip) and "cross-tipped" bullets (which had a cross-shaped incision in their tip to aid in expansion, nicknamed "Dum Dums" from the Dum Dum Arsenal in India). It was ratified by all major powers, except the United States.

Hague Convention of 1907Edit

General issuesEdit

  • (I): Convention for the Pacific Settlement of International Disputes 

This convention confirms and expands on Convention (I) of 1899. As of 2014, this convention is in force for 99 states, and 115 states have ratified one or both of the 1907 Convention (I) and the 1899 Convention (I), which together are the founding documents of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. 

  • (II): Convention respecting the Limitation of the Employment of Force for Recovery of Contract Debts 
  • (III): Convention relative to the Opening of Hostilities 

This convention sets out the accepted procedure for a state making a declaration of war.

  • (IV): Convention respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land

This convention confirms, with minor modifications, the provisions of Convention (II) of 1899. All major powers ratified it. 

  • (V): Convention relative to the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers and Persons in case of War on Land 
  • (VI): Convention relative to the Legal Position of Enemy Merchant Ships at the Start of Hostilities 
  • (VII): Convention relative to the Conversion of Merchant Ships into War-ships 
  • (VIII): Convention relative to the Laying of Automatic Submarine Contact Mines 
  • (IX): Convention concerning Bombardment by Naval Forces in Time of War 
  • (X): Convention for the Adaptation to Maritime Warfare of the Principles of the Geneva Convention (of 6 July 1906)

This convention updated Convention (III) of 1899 to reflect the amendments that had been made to the 1864 Geneva Convention. Convention (X) was ratified by all major states except the United Kingdom. It was subsequently superseded by Second Geneva Convention.

  • (XI): Convention relative to Certain Restrictions with regard to the Exercise of the Right of Capture in Naval War.
  • (XII): Convention relative to the Establishment of an International Prize Court

This convention would have established the International Prize Court for the resolution of conflicting claims relating to captured ships during wartime. It is the one convention that never came into force. It was ratified only by Nicaragua. 

  • (XIII): Convention concerning the Rights and Duties of Neutral Powers in Naval War 
  • (XIV): Declaration Prohibiting the Discharge of Projectiles and Explosives from Balloons

This declaration extended the provisions of Declaration (IV,1) of 1899 to the close of the planned Third Peace Conference (which never took place). Among the major powers, this was ratified only by China, United Kingdom, and the United States. 

CiviliansEdit

Article 1 makes explicit reference to Articles 1, 2, and 3 of Hague Convention respecting the laws and customs of war on land (Hague IV), of October 18, 1907, to define who are lawful combatants and so qualify as prisoners of war (POW) on capture. In addition to combatants covered by Hague IV, some civilians are also covered in the section of this Convention called the "Application of the Convention to certain classes of civilians".

POWsEdit

Articles 2, 3, and 4 specifies that POWs are prisoners of the Power which holds them and not prisoners of the unit which takes their surrender; that POWs have the right to honor and respect, and that women shall be treated with all the regard due to their sex, and that prisoners of a similar category must be treated in the same way.

CaptureEdit

Articles 5 and 6 covers what may and may not be done to a prisoner on capture. If requested, unless too ill to comply, prisoners are bound to give their true name and rank, but they may not be coerced into giving any more information. Prisoners' personal possessions, other than arms and horses, may not be taken from them.

Convention relating to the Status of RefugeesEdit

Definition of refugee statusEdit

The Convention relating to the Status of Refugees, also known as the 1951 Refugee Convention, is a United Nations multilateral treaty that defines who is a refugee, and sets out the rights of individuals who are granted asylum and the responsibilities of nations that grant asylum. The Convention also sets out which people do not qualify as refugees, such as war criminals. The Convention also provides for some visa-free travel for holders of travel documents issued under the convention.

Article 1 of the Convention, as amended by the 1967 Protocol, defines a refugee as this:

"A person who owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it."

Several groups have built upon the 1951 Convention to create a more objective definition. While their terms differ from those of the 1951 Convention, the Convention has significantly shaped the new, more objective definitions. They include the 1969 Convention Governing the Specific Aspects of Refugee Problems in Africa by the Organisation of African Unity (now African Union) and the 1984 Cartagena Declaration, while nonbinding, also sets out regional standards for refugees in Central America, Mexico and Panama.

Responsibilities of parties to the Refugee ConventionEdit

In the general principle of international law, treaties in force are binding upon the parties to it and must be performed in good faith. Countries that have ratified the Refugee Convention are obliged to protect refugees that are on their territory, in accordance with its terms.

There are a number of provisions that States parties to the Refugee Convention and 1967 Protocol must adhere to. Among them are:

Cooperation with the UNHCR: Under Article 35 of the Refugee Convention and Article II of the 1967 Protocol, states agree to cooperate with United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) in the exercise of its functions and to help UNHCR supervise the implementation of the provisions in the Convention.

Information on national legislation: parties to the Convention agree to inform the United Nations Secretary-General about the laws and regulations they may adopt to ensure the application of the Convention.

Exemption from reciprocity: The notion of reciprocity- where, according to a country's law, the granting of a right to an alien is subject to the granting of similar treatment by the alien's country of nationality- does not apply to refugees. This notion does not apply to refugees because refugees do not enjoy the protection of their home state.

The principle of non-refoulementEdit

A refugee's right to be protected against forcible return, or refoulement, is set out in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:

"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" (Article 33(1)).

It is widely accepted that the prohibition of forcible return is part of customary international law. This means that even States that are not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention must respect the principle of non-refoulement. Therefore, States are obligated under the Convention and under customary international law to respect the principle of non-refoulement. If and when this principle is threatened, UNHCR can respond by intervening with relevant authorities, and if it deems necessary, will inform the public.

1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of RefugeesEdit

The Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees (also known as the New York Protocol) is a key treaty in international refugee law which entered into force on 4 October 1967. 146 countries are parties to the Protocol.

Where the 1951 United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees had restricted refugee status to those whose circumstances had come about "as a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951", as well as giving States party to the Convention the option of interpreting this as "events occurring in Europe" or "events occurring in Europe or elsewhere", the 1967 Protocol removed both the temporal and geographic restrictions. However, the Protocol gave those States which had previously ratified the 1951 Convention and chosen to use the geographically restricted definition the option to retain that restriction.

Environmental Modification ConventionEdit

The problem of artificial modification of the environment for military or other hostile purposes was brought to the international agenda in the early 1970s. Following the US decision of July 1972 to renounce the use of climate modification techniques for hostile purposes, the 1973 resolution by the US Senate calling for an international agreement "prohibiting the use of any environmental or geophysical modification activity as a weapon of war", and an in-depth review by the Department of Defense of the military aspects of weather and other environmental modification techniques, US decided to seek agreement with the Soviet Union to explore the possibilities of an international agreement.

In July 1974, US and USSR agreed to hold bilateral discussions on measures to overcome the danger of the use of environmental modification techniques for military purposes and three subsequent rounds of discussions in 1974 and 1975. In August 1975, US and USSR tabled identical draft texts of a convention at the Conference of the Committee on Disarmament (CCD), Conference on Disarmament, where intensive negotiations resulted in a modified text and understandings regarding four articles of this Convention in 1976.

The Convention was approved by Resolution 31/72 of the General Assembly of the United Nations on 10 December 1976, by 96 to 8 votes with 30 abstentions.

Environmental Modification Technique includes any technique for changing – through the deliberate manipulation of natural processes – the dynamics, composition or structure of the earth, including its biota, lithosphere, hydrosphere and atmosphere, or of outer space.

Convention on Certain Conventional WeaponsEdit

White Phosphorous mortar round

A 51st USAF Security Police Squadron member SSGT Robert Colyer packs an white phosphorus smoke-screen mortar round during weapons training at Rodriquez Range in 1980. Author- Service Depicted:Air Force, Camera Operator: TSGT CURT EDDINGS.

OverviewEdit

The United Nations Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (CCW or CCWC), concluded at Geneva on October 10, 1980, and entered into force in December 1983, seeks to prohibit or restrict the use of certain conventional weapons which are considered excessively injurious or whose effects are indiscriminate. The full title is Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects. The convention covers landmines, booby traps, incendiary weapons, blinding laser weapons and clearance of explosive remnants of war.

The CCWC consist of a set of additional protocols first formulated on October 10, 1980, in Geneva and entered into force on December 2, 1983. As of the end of May 2016, there are 123 state parties to the convention. Some of those countries have only adopted some of the five protocols, with two being the minimum required to be considered a party.

  • The convention has five protocols:
    • Protocol I restricts weapons with non-detectable fragments It original refered to X-ray images only, but now includes MRI to. X-rays can see dense matter like narcotics, stone, cement, explosives, metal and bone.
    • Protocol II restricts landmines, booby traps.
    • Protocol III restricts incendiary weapons.
    • Protocol IV restricts blinding laser weapons (adopted on October 13, 1995, in Vienna).
    • Protocol V sets out obligations and best practice for the clearance of explosive remnants of war, adopted on November 28, 2003, in Geneva.

The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other DevicesEdit

The Protocol on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices is a United Nations treaty that restricts the use of land mines, remotely delivered mines, and booby traps. It is Protocol II to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons.

ContentEdit

The Protocol prohibits the use of land mines, remotely delivered mines, or booby traps to kill civilians or to cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering to soldiers. It also prohibits the use of booby traps that are "attached to or associated with" any of the following features:

  • (a) internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals [like those of the ICRC, UN and so on...];
  • (b) sick, wounded or dead persons;
  • (c) burial or cremation sites or graves;
  • (d) medical facilities, medical equipment, medical supplies or medical transportation;
  • (e) children's toys or other portable objects or products specially designed for the feeding, health, hygiene, clothing or education of children;
  • (f) food or drink;
  • (g) kitchen utensils or appliances except in military establishments, military locations or military supply depots;
  • (h) objects clearly of a religious nature;
  • (i) historic monuments, works of art or places of worship which constitute the cultural or spiritual heritage of peoples; and
  • (j) animals or their carcasses.

The Protocol applies to both international and internal armed conflicts. It prohibits the use of non-detectable anti-personnel mines and their transfer; prohibits the use of non-self-destructing and non-self-deactivating mines outside fenced, monitored and marked areas; broadens obligations of protection in favour of peacekeeping and other missions of the United Nations and its agencies; requires States to enforce compliance with its provisions within their jurisdiction; and calls for penal sanctions in case of violation.

History[edit source] The original Protocol was an annex to the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons and entered into force on 2 December 1983. The Protocol was amended in Geneva on 3 May 1996. The amended version entered into force on 3 December 1998 and as of December 2014 has 102 state parties, which includes 101 United Nations member states plus the Holy See.

Phosphorus bombsEdit

Weißer Phosphor

A white phosphorus sample. Attribution: BXXXD at the German language Wikipedia.

A-1E drops white phosphorus bomb 1966

A U.S. Air Force Douglas A-1E Skyraider drops a white phosphorus bomb on a Viet Cong position in South Vietnam in 1966. Author: USAF.

Phosphorus is a chemical element with symbol P and atomic number 15. As an element, phosphorus exists in two major forms—white phosphorus and red phosphorus—but because it is highly reactive, phosphorus is never found as a free element on Earth. At 0.099%, phosphorus is the most abundant pnictogen in the Earth's crust. With few exceptions, minerals containing phosphorus are in the maximally oxidized state as inorganic phosphate rocks.

The first form of elemental phosphorus to be produced (white phosphorus, in 1669) emits a faint glow when exposed to oxygen – hence the name, taken from Greek mythology, Φωσφόρος meaning "light-bearer" (Latin Lucifer), referring to the "Morning Star", the planet Venus (or Mercury). The term "phosphorescence", meaning glow after illumination, originally derives from this property of phosphorus, although this word has since been used for a different physical process that produces a glow. The glow of phosphorus itself originates from oxidation of the white (but not red) phosphorus — a process now termed chemiluminescence. Together with nitrogen, arsenic, antimony, and bismuth, phosphorus is classified as a pnictogen.

Phosphorus is essential for life. Phosphates (compounds containing the phosphate ion, PO43−) are a component of DNA, RNA, ATP, and the phospholipids, which form all cell membranes. Demonstrating the link between phosphorus and life, elemental phosphorus was first isolated from human urine, and bone ash was an important early phosphate source. Phosphate mines contain fossils, especially marine fossils, because phosphate is present in the fossilized deposits of animal remains and excreta. Low phosphate levels are an important limit to growth in some aquatic systems. The vast majority of phosphorus compounds produced are consumed as fertilisers. Phosphate is needed to replace the phosphorus that plants remove from the soil, and its annual demand is rising nearly twice as fast as the growth of the human population. Other applications include the role of organophosphorus compounds in detergents, pesticides, and nerve agents.

Elemental phosphorus can exist in several allotropes, the most common of which are white and red solids. Solid violet and black allotropes are also known. Gaseous phosphorus exists as diphosphorus and atomic phosphorus.

White phosphorus, yellow phosphorus or simply tetraphosphorus (P4) exists as molecules made up of four atoms in a tetrahedral structure. The tetrahedral arrangement results in ring strain and instability. The molecule is described as consisting of six single P–P bonds. Two different crystalline forms are known. The α form is defined as the standard state of the element, but is actually metastable under standard conditions. It has a body-centered cubic crystal structure, and transforms reversibly into the β form at 195.2 K. The β form is believed to have a hexagonal crystal structure.

White phosphorus is a translucent waxy solid that quickly becomes yellow when exposed to light. For this reason it is also called yellow phosphorus. It glows greenish in the dark (when exposed to oxygen) and is highly flammable and pyrophoric (self-igniting) upon contact with air. It is toxic, causing severe liver damage on ingestion and phossy jaw from chronic ingestion or inhalation. The odour of combustion of this form has a characteristic garlic smell, and samples are commonly coated with white "diphosphorus pentoxide", which consists of P4O10 tetrahedral with oxygen inserted between the phosphorus atoms and at their vertices. White phosphorus is only slightly soluble in water and can be stored under water. Indeed, white phosphorus is safe from self-igniting only when it is submerged in water. It is soluble in benzene, oils, carbon disulfide, and disulfur dichloride.

It ignites spontaneously in air at about 50 °C (122 °F), and at much lower temperatures if finely divided. This combustion gives phosphorus (V) oxide:

P 4 + 5 O 2 → P 4O 10

Because of this property, white phosphorus is used as a horrific weapon!

White phosphorus is a material made from a common allotrope of the chemical element phosphorus that is used in smoke, tracer, illumination, and incendiary munitions. Other common names include WP and the slang term "Willie Pete" or "Willie Peter" derived from William Peter, the World War II phonetic alphabet for "WP", which is dated from its use in World War II and Vietnam War and is still sometimes used in military jargon. As an incendiary weapon, white phosphorus is pyrophoric (self-igniting), burns fiercely and can ignite cloth, fuel, ammunition, and other combustibles.

In addition to its offensive capabilities, white phosphorus is a highly efficient smoke-producing agent, which burns quickly and produces an immediate blanket of smoke. As a result, smoke-producing white phosphorus munitions are very common, particularly as smoke grenades for infantry, loaded in grenade launchers on tanks and other armored vehicles, as part of the ammunition allotment for artillery or mortars and as payload of incendiary cluster bombs. These create smoke screens to mask from the enemy movement, position, infrared signatures, or the origin of fire.

The British Army introduced the first factory-built WP grenades in late 1916. During World War I, white phosphorus mortar bombs, shells, rockets, and grenades were used extensively by American, Commonwealth, and, to a lesser extent, Japanese forces, in both smoke-generating and antipersonnel roles. The British military also used white phosphorus bombs against Kurdish villagers and Al-Habbaniyah in Al-Anbar province during the Great Iraqi Revolution of 1920.

In the interwar years, the U.S. Army trained using white phosphorus, by artillery shell and air bombardment.

In 1940, when the invasion of Britain seemed imminent, the phosphorus firm of Albright and Wilson suggested that the British government use a material similar to Fenian fire in several expedient incendiary weapons. The only one fielded was the Grenade, No. 76 or Special Incendiary Phosphorus grenade, which consisted of a glass bottle filled with a mixture similar to Fenian fire, plus some latex (see also Molotov cocktail, Greek fire). It came in two versions, one with a red cap intended to be thrown by hand, and a slightly stronger bottle with a green cap, intended to be launched from the Northover projector (a crude 2.5-inch black-powder grenade launcher). These were improvised anti-tank weapons, hastily fielded in 1940 when the British were awaiting a German invasion after losing the bulk of their modern armaments in the Dunkirk evacuation. Instructions on each crate of SIP grenades included the observations, among other things:

  1. Store bombs (preferably in cases) in cool places, under water if possible.
  2. Stringent precautions must be taken to avoid cracking bombs during handling.

At the start of the Normandy campaign, 20% of American 81 mm mortar rounds were white phosphorus. At least five American Medal of Honor citations mention their recipients using white phosphorus grenades to clear enemy positions, and in the 1944 liberation of Cherbourg alone, a single U.S. mortar battalion, the 87th, fired 11,899 white phosphorus rounds into the city. The U.S. Army and Marines used white phosphorus shells in 107-mm (4.2 inch) mortars. White phosphorus was widely credited by Allied soldiers for breaking up German infantry attacks and creating havoc among enemy troop concentrations during the latter part of the war. US Sherman tanks carried a white phosphorus round intended for artillery spotting, but tank crews found it useful against German tanks. Unable to penetrate German Panther and Tiger tanks at long range, the phosphorus round would adhere to the tank, generate smoke, blind the optics, and often force the crew to abandon the tank or allow US tanks to close to a range where their armor piercing rounds were effective.

When American bombers raided Negros Island in the Philippines in 1945, there was a Japanese artillery use of phosphorus bombs during the air raid.

Incendiary bombs were used extensively by both the Axis and Allied air forces against civilian populations and targets of military significance in civilian areas, including Chongqing, London, Coventry, Hamburg, Dresden, and Tokyo. Late in the war, some of these bombs used white phosphorus (about 1–200 grams) in place of magnesium as the igniter for their flammable mixtures. The use of incendiary weapons against civilians was banned by signatory countries in the 1980 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons Protocol III. The United States signed Protocols I and II on 24 March 1995 under the Clinton Administration (and the amended article II on 24 May 1999) and later Protocols III, IV, and V, on 21 January 2009 under the Obama Administration.

White phosphorus munitions were used extensively in Korea, Vietnam and later by Russian forces in First Chechen War and Second Chechen War. White phosphorus grenades were used in Vietnam for destroying Viet Cong tunnel complexes as they would burn up all oxygen and suffocate the enemy soldiers sheltering inside. British soldiers also made extensive use of phosphorus grenades during the Falklands conflict to destroy Argentine positions as the peaty soil they were constructed from tended to lessen the impact of fragmentation grenades According to GlobalSecurity.org, during the December 1994 battle for Grozny in Chechnya, every fourth or fifth Russian artillery or mortar round fired was a smoke or white phosphorus round.

International Court of Justice advisory opinion on the Legality of the Threat or Use of Nuclear WeaponsEdit

The court undertook seven separate votes in 1980, all of which were passed: 

  1. The court decided to comply with the request for an advisory opinion; 
  2. The court replied that "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any specific authorization of the threat or use of nuclear weapons"; 
  3. The court replied that "There is in neither customary nor conventional international law any comprehensive and universal prohibition of the threat or use of nuclear weapons as such"; 
  4. The court replied that "A threat or use of force by means of nuclear weapons that is contrary to Article 2, paragraph 4, of the United Nations Charter and that fails to meet all the requirements of Article 51, is unlawful";
  5. The court replied that "A threat or use of nuclear weapons should also be compatible with the requirements of the international law applicable in armed conflict, particularly those of the principles and rules of humanitarian law, as well as with specific obligations under treaties and other undertakings which expressly deal with nuclear weapons"
  6. The court replied that "the threat or use of nuclear weapons would generally be contrary to the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, and in particular the principles and rules of humanitarian law; However, in view of the current state of international law, and of the elements of fact at its disposal, the Court cannot conclude definitively whether the threat or use of nuclear weapons would be lawful or unlawful in an extreme circumstance of self-defence, in which the very survival of a State would be at stake".
  7. The court replied that "There exists an obligation to pursue in good faith and bring to a conclusion negotiations leading to nuclear disarmament in all its aspects under strict and effective international control". 

1999 Ottawa TreatyEdit

Anti personnel mine

Anti personnel mine in Cambodia. Author: Reedhawk.

Land mine victim 1 (4364925531)

A Mozambique landmine victim.

The Convention on the Prohibition of the Use, Stockpiling, Production and Transfer of Anti-Personnel Mines and on their Destruction, known informally as the 1999 Ottawa Treaty, the Anti-Personnel Mine Ban Convention, or often simply the [Land] Mine Ban Treaty, aims at eliminating anti-personnel landmines (AP-mines) around the world. To date, there are 163 state parties to the treaty. One state (the Marshall Islands) has signed but not ratified the treaty, while 33 UN states, including the United States, Russia, China and India are non-signatories, making a total of 34 United Nations states not party.

Anti-personnel mines are designed primarily to kill or injure people, as opposed to vehicles. They are often designed to injure rather than kill in order to increase the logistical support (evacuation, medical) burden on the opposing force. Some types of anti-personnel mines can also damage the tracks or wheels of armored vehicles.

Under the Ottawa Treaty, the Parties undertake not to use, produce, stockpile or transfer anti-personnel mines and ensure their destruction.

As of early 2016, 162 countries have joined the Treaty. Thirty-six countries, including the People's Republic of China, the Russian Federation and the United States, which together may hold tens of millions of stockpiled antipersonnel mines, are not yet party to the Convention.

In the asymmetric warfare conflicts and civil wars of the 21st century, improvised explosives, known as Improvised explosive devices\IEDs, have partially supplanted conventional landmines as the source of injury to dismounted (pedestrian) soldiers and civilians. IEDs are used mainly by insurgents and terrorists against regular armed forces and civilians. The injuries from the anti-personnel IED were recently reported in BMJ Open to be far worse than with landmines resulting in multiple limb amputations and lower body mutilation.

Both cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines are designed included and are considered a major hazard to civilians and a urgent problem to deal with in places like Laos and Angola.

2003 Protocol on Explosive Remnants of WarEdit

Mine sweep

U.S. Army Sgt. Kirk Medina, from 759th Explosive Ordinance Disposal, out of Fort Erwin, Calif., attached to the 3rd Infantry Division (Mechanized), removes fuse from a Russian-made mine, while working together with soldiers from A Company, 10 Engineer Battalion, 2nd Brigade, 3rd Infantry Division, to clear a mine field outside of Fallujah, Iraq, during Operation Iraqi Freedom, June 25, 2003. Since the end of the war in Iraq, a major objective for A Company has been the collection and disposal of Iraqi munitions.

US Cluster Bomb Legacy Costing Lives In Laos-0

US Cluster Bomb Legacy Costing Lives In Laos-0

The Legacy: The Vietnam's dark legacy is still costing lives in Laos. Meet the brave women trying to clear the bomb fields. Subscribe to Journeyman for more: http://www.youtube.com/journeymanpictures For downloads and more information visit: http://www.journeyman.tv/?lid=67529 Laos is the most heavily bombed country in the world. In the Vietnam War the US dropped 2 million tonnes of explosives there. Now, a brave band of women are finding and destroying the 'bombies' left behind. The women walk slowly through the undergrowth, scanning the ground with metal detectors. Given there are up to 80 million unexploded munitions in Laos the women are doing a job that will take more than a lifetime to complete. "I was excited as well as frightened", says 46-year-old Phou Vong, recalling the first time she found a 'bombie'. "I hesitated a bit, but thought I should be glad to see it, because in a sense I was helping my people." Phou joined the team 3 years ago, after her husband was killed in a road accident. "There was no-one to help me but myself, and I had no money to support my children's education." She now earns $250 a month, that's better than the average wage in Laos. It's a special empowerment programme to give much-needed opportunities to local women. But the de-miners are worried their funding will run out. "We won't be able to clear them all, there are just so many of them." More than four decades after the American campaign ended, undetonated explosives still contaminate forests and fields. And it's Lao civilians who are risking their lives to clean them up. ABC Australia - Ref 6192 Journeyman Pictures is your independent source for the world's most powerful films, exploring the burning issues of today. We represent stories from the world's top producers, with brand new content coming in all the time. On our channel you'll find outstanding and controversial journalism covering any global subject you can imagine wanting to know about.

General issuesEdit

The Protocol on Explosive Remnants of War is an international treaty concluded in Geneva in 2003 that aims to limit the impact of cluster bombs and other unexploded devices on civilian populations after a conflict ends. It is the fifth Protocol to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons.

The Protocol came into effect on 12 November 2006. As of the end of May 2016, there are 91 state parties to the agreement.

Many nations now no longer use land mines and the USA has started to make some that deactivate after ~1 month, so the will only go off if violent attacked like being hacked with an axe for example, rather than being set off when trod\driven on. Plans are underway in several nations including Russia, Ukraine, Japan, Canada, the UK, France, America, Switzerland, Germany, Scandinavia and Australia to make self deactivating\destructing bombs and shells.

Both cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines are designed included and are considered a major hazard to civilians and a urgent problem to deal with in places like Laos and Angola.

Laotian Civil War case studyEdit

The 1953–75 Laotian Civil War was fought between the Communist Pathet Lao (including many  North Vietnamese of Lao ancestry) and the Royal Lao Government, with both sides receiving heavy external support in a proxy war between the global Cold War superpowers. It is called the Secret War among the CIA Special Activities Division and Hmong veterans of the conflict.

The Kingdom of Laos was a covert theatre for other belligerents during the Vietnam War. The Franco–Lao Treaty of Amity and Association (signed 22 October 1953) transferred remaining French powers to the Royal Lao Government (except control of military affairs), establishing Laos as an independent member of the French Union. However, this government did not include representatives from the Lao Issara anti-colonial armed nationalist movement.

The following years were marked by a rivalry between the neutralists under Prince Souvanna Phouma, the right wing under Prince Boun Oum of Champassak, and the left-wing Lao Patriotic Front under Prince Souphanouvong and half-Vietnamese future Prime Minister Kaysone Phomvihane. Several attempts were made to establish coalition governments, and a "tri-coalition" government was finally seated in Vientiane.

The actual fighting in Laos involved the North Vietnamese ArmyU.S.Thai, and South Vietnamese forces directly and through irregular proxies in a struggle for control over the Laotian Panhandle. The North Vietnamese Army occupied the area to use for its Ho Chi Minh Trail supply corridor and as staging area for offensives into South Vietnam. There was a second major theater of action on and near the northern Plain of Jars

The North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao eventually emerged victorious in 1975, as part of the general communist victory in all of former French Indochina that year. Due to the influence of the Vietnam War was too high and large, the Laotian War had been almost forgotten by majority of people in around the world, even in the United States and Vietnam.

Twenty-two years following the end of the Laotian War, on 15 May 1997, the U.S. officially acknowledged its role in the Secret War. A memorial to honor of American and Hmong contributions to U.S. air and ground combat efforts during the conflict was established by the Lao Veterans of America, the Center for Public Policy Analysis, in cooperation with the US Congress and others. The Laos Memorial is located on the grounds of the Arlington National Cemetery between the John F. Kennedy Eternal Flame and the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier.

Many former ethnic Hmong and Laotian veterans and their families, led by Colonel Wangyee Vang of the Lao Veterans of America Institute and Lao Veterans of America worked to establish a non-profit organization and advocate for honorary U.S. citizenship for the Secret Army veterans. In 2000, the Hmong Veterans' Naturalization Act of 2000 was passed by the Republican-controlled US Congress and signed into law by President Bill Clinton.

Many of the Hmong people have come down from the mountains and surrendered to the Lao government, while others found their way to refugee camps in Thailand. In 2008, however, a repatriation agreement between the Thai and Lao governments resulted in a mass forced deportation of the people in these camps, and reports of atrocities committed against them by the Lao military spurred activist groups to try and persuade the Thai government to keep granting asylum to the refugees, but to no avail.

In 2004, following several years of pressure from a coalition of U.S. conservatives and liberal human rights activists, the U.S. government reversed a policy of denying immigration to Hmong who had fled Laos in the 1990s for refugee camps in Thailand. In a major victory for the Hmong, the US government recognized some 15,000 Hmong as political refugees and afforded them expedited U.S. immigration rights.

There are continuing casualties from unexploded ordnance (UXO) dropped by the U.S. and Laotian Air Forces from 1964 to 1973. It has been reported that, between 1964 and 1973, areas controlled by the invading communist North Vietnamese and Pathet Lao were hit by an average of one B‑52 bomb-load every eight minutes, 24 hours a day. More than 2 million tons of bombs were dropped on Laos, particularly on Xiangkhouang Province, 30 percent of which failed to explode immediately. U.S. aircraft dropped more ordnance on Laos than on all countries during World War II, leaving Laos with about 78 million pieces of UXO by the end of the war.

UXO remains dangerous to persons coming in contact, purposefully or accidentally, with bombs. Casualties in Laos from UXO are estimated at 12,000 since 1973. Thirty-three years after the last bomb was dropped and after decades of UXO clearance programs, 59 people were known to have been killed or injured by UXO in 2006. So abundant are the remnants of bombs on the Plain of Jars that the collection and sale of scrap metal from bombs has been a major industry since the Civil War. About 300 Laotians are killed or injured per year by UXO.

2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM)Edit

BLU-26 cluster sub-munition

Unexploded cluster sub-munition, probably a BLU-26 type in the Plain of Jars, Laos. Author: Seabifar.

The Convention on Cluster Munitions (CCM) is an international treaty that prohibits the use, transfer, and stockpiling of cluster bombs, a type of explosive weapon which scatters submunitions ("bomblets") over an area. The convention was adopted on 30 May 2008 in Dublin, and was opened for signature on 3 December 2008 in Oslo. It entered into force on 1 August 2010, six months after it was ratified by 30 states. As of July 2017, 108 states have signed the treaty and 102 have ratified it or acceded to it.

  • Countries that ratify the convention will be obliged "never under any circumstances to":
(a) Use cluster munitions;
(b) Develop, produce, otherwise acquire, stockpile, retain or transfer to anyone, directly or indirectly, cluster munitions;
(c) Assist, encourage or induce anyone to engage in any activity prohibited to a State Party under this Convention.

The treaty allows certain types of weapons with submunitions that do not have the indiscriminate area effects or pose the same unexploded ordnance risks as cluster munitions. Permitted weapons must contain fewer than ten submunitions, and each must weigh more than 4 kilograms (8.8 lb), and each submunition must have the capability to detect and engage a single target object and contain electronic self-destruct and self-deactivation mechanisms. Weapons containing submunitions which all individually weigh at least 20 kg (44 lb) are also excluded. A limited number of prohibited weapons and submunitions can be acquired and kept for training in, and development of, detection, clearance and destruction techniques and counter-measures.

A cluster munition is a form of air-dropped or ground-launched explosive weapon that releases or ejects smaller submunitions. Commonly, this is a cluster bomb that ejects explosive bomblets that are designed to kill personnel and destroy vehicles. Other cluster munitions are designed to destroy runways or electric power transmission lines, disperse chemical or biological weapons, or to scatter land mines. Some submunition-based weapons can disperse non-munitions, such as leaflets.

Because cluster bombs release many small bomblets over a wide area, they pose risks to civilians both during attacks and afterwards. Unexploded bomblets can kill or maim civilians and/or unintended targets long after a conflict has ended, and are costly to locate and remove.

Cluster munitions are prohibited for those nations that ratify the Convention on Cluster Munitions, adopted in Dublin, Ireland in May 2008. The Convention entered into force and became binding international law upon ratifying states on 1 August 2010, six months after being ratified by 30 states.[1] As of 1 October 2015, a total of 118 states have joined the Convention, as 98 States parties and 20 Signatories.

Both cluster munitions and anti-personnel mines are designed included and are considered a major hazard to civilians and a urgent problem to deal with in places like Laos and Angola.

Special actsEdit

Flag of the ICRC

This flag of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). Abuse of the emblem and\or the flag are both a crime against humanity and a war-crime.

PerfidyEdit

Article 38. – Recognized emblemsEdit

  • 1. It is prohibited to make improper use of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other emblems, signs or signals provided for by the Conventions or by this Protocol. It is also prohibited to misuse deliberately in an armed conflict other internationally recognized protective emblems, signs or signals, including the flag of truce, and the protective emblem of cultural property.
  • 2. It is prohibited to make use of the distinctive emblem of the United Nations, except as authorized by that Organization.

Article 39. – Emblems of nationalityEdit

  • 1. It is prohibited to make use in an armed conflict of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
  • 2. It is prohibited to make use of the flags or military emblems, insignia or uniforms of adverse Parties while engaging in attacks or to shield, favour, protect or impede military operations.
  • 3. Nothing in this Article or in Article 37, paragraph 1 ( d ), shall affect the existing generally recognized rules of international law applicable to espionage or to the use of flags in the conduct of armed conflict at sea.

Article 37. – Prohibition of perfidyEdit

Perfidy is specifically prohibited under the 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, which states:

  • 1. It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of an adversary to lead him to believe that he is entitled to, or is obliged to accord, protection under the rules of international law applicable in armed conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, shall constitute perfidy. The following acts are examples of perfidy:
    • (a) The feigning of an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce or of a surrender;
    • (b) The feigning of an incapacitation by wounds or sickness;
    • (c) The feigning of civilian, non-combatant status; and
    • (d) The feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict.
  • 2. Ruses of war are not prohibited. Such ruses are acts which are intended to mislead an adversary or to induce him to act recklessly, but which infringe no rule of international law applicable in armed conflict and which are not perfidious because they do not invite the confidence of an adversary with respect to protection under that law. The following are examples of such ruses: the use of camouflage, decoys, mock operations and misinformation.

Hors de combatEdit

Killing people that were too ill to fight, too heavily wounded to fight, asleep or unconscious was widely considered at best cowardly, if not outright evil by the time of the Napoleonic war. "Hors de combat", literally meaning "outside the fight," is a French term used in diplomacy and international law to refer to persons who are incapable of performing their ability to wage war.

Examples include fighter pilots or aircrews parachuting from their disabled aircraft, as well as the sick, wounded, detained, or otherwise disabled. Persons hors de combat are normally granted special protections according to the laws of war, sometimes including prisoner-of-war status, and therefore officially become non-combatants.

Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, unlawful combatants hors de combat are granted the same privilege and to be treated with humanity while in captivity, but unlike lawful combatants, they are subject to trial and punishment, which includes capital punishment.

Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions defines:

  • A person is 'hors de combat' if:
    • (a) he is in the power of an adverse Party;
    • (b) he clearly expresses an intention to surrender; or
    • (c) he has been rendered unconscious or is otherwise incapacitated by wounds or sickness, and therefore is incapable of defending himself;
      • provided that in any of these cases he abstains from any hostile act and does not attempt to escape.

The principle of non-refoulementEdit

A refugee's right to be protected against forcible return, or refoulement, is set out in the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees:

"No Contracting State shall expel or return ('refouler') a refugee in any manner whatsoever to the frontiers of territories where his life or freedom would be threatened on account of his race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion" (Article 33(1)).

It is widely accepted that the prohibition of forcible return is part of customary international law. This means that even States that are not party to the 1951 Refugee Convention must respect the principle of non-refoulement. Therefore, States are obligated under the Convention and under customary international law to respect the principle of non-refoulement. If and when this principle is threatened, UNHCR can respond by intervening with relevant authorities, and if it deems necessary, will inform the public.

UN opinion on Syrian government use of 'barrel bombs'Edit

The UN regards them as illegal because it is horrifically indiscriminate and lethal. Most older British people (especially Eurosceptics) have yet to realize this and regard the horrific, dishonest, indiscriminate and\or disproportionate use of force as legitimate, appropriate, cool and\or comedic.

UN opinion on flying civil aircraft in to buildings\'plain slamming'Edit

The UN regards events like 9\11 as illegal because it is horrifically indiscriminate and lethal. Most older British people (especially Eurosceptics) have yet to realize this and regard the horrific, dishonest, indiscriminate and\or disproportionate use of force as legitimate, appropriate, cool and\or comedic.

Space lawEdit

Space Law-What Laws are There in Space?

Space Law-What Laws are There in Space?

No country owns space, so are there laws there? Spoiler alert: yes. What laws are there? Well watch this video to find out. (It's complicated) Email: WendoverProductions@gmail.com Twitter: @WendoverPro Attributions: Images provided by Wiki Commons Images licensed under Creative Commons 3.0 Additional footage provided by VideoBlocks LLC Opening intro music by https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCr4Xpli3bMNpu7bMQRu_Emg Outro music- Airport Lounge by Kevin MacLeod.

Space law encompasses national and international law governing activities in outer space. International lawyers have been unable to agree on a uniform definition of the term "outer space", although most lawyers agree that outer space generally begins at the lowest altitude above sea level at which objects can orbit the Earth, approximately 100 km (60 mi) (the Kármán line).

The inception of the field of space law began with the launch of the world's first artificial satellite by the Soviet Union in October 1957. Named Sputnik 1, the satellite was launched as part of the International Geophysical Year. Since that time, space law has evolved and assumed more importance as mankind has increasingly come to use and rely on space-based resources.

The United Nations Committee on the Peaceful Uses of Outer Space and its Scientific and Technical and Legal Subcommittees operate on the basis of consensus, i.e. all delegations from member States must agree on any matter, be it treaty language before it can be included in the final version of a treaty or new items on Committee/Subcommittee's agendas. One reason that the U.N. space treaties lack definitions and are unclear in other respects, is that it is easier to achieve consensus when language and terms are vague. In recent years, the Legal Subcommittee has been unable to achieve consensus on discussion of a new comprehensive space agreement (the idea of which, though, was proposed just by a few member States). It is also unlikely that the Subcommittee will be able to agree to amend the Outer Space Treaty in the foreseeable future. Many space faring nations seem to believe that discussing a new space agreement or amendment of the Outer Space Treaty would be futile and time-consuming, because entrenched differences regarding resource appropriation, property rights and other issues relating to commercial activity make consensus unlikely.

Aviation lawEdit

OverviewEdit

Aviation law is the branch of law that concerns flight, air travel, and associated legal and business concerns. Some of its area of concern overlaps that of admiralty law and, in many cases, aviation law is considered a matter of international law due to the nature of air travel. However, the business aspects of airlines and their regulation also fall under aviation law. In the international realm, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) provides general rules and mediates international concerns to an extent regarding aviation law. The ICAO is a specialized agency of the United Nations.

In the United States and in most European nations, aviation law is considered a federal or state-level concern and is regulated at that level. In the U.S., states cannot govern aviation matters in most cases directly but look to Federal laws and case law for this function instead. For example, a court recently struck down New York's Passenger Bill of Rights law because regulation of aviation is traditionally a federal concern. Aviation law, however, is not in the United States held under the same Federal mandate of jurisdiction as admiralty law; that is, which the United States Constitution provides for the administration of admiralty, it does not provide such for aviation law. States and municipalities do have some indirect regulation over aviation. For example, zoning laws can be enforced to require an airport to be located away from residential areas and flights can be restricted to certain times of day. State products liability law is not preempted by Federal law and in most cases, aviation manufacturers may be held strictly liable for defects in aviation products.

Space law, which governs matters in outer space beyond the Earth's atmosphere, is a rather new area of law but one that already has its own journals and academic support. Expectedly, much of space law is connected to aviation law.

Roman law and other ancient legal systems generally granted all rights in airspace to the owner of the underlying land. The first law specifically applicable to aircraft was a local ordinance enacted in Paris in 1784, one year after the first hot air balloon flight by the Montgolfier brothers. Several tort cases involving balloonists were tried in common law jurisdictions during the 19th century.

Development of public international lawEdit

Balloons were used in the Franco-German War of 1870-71, and the First Hague Conference of 1899 set a five-year moratorium on the use of balloons in combat operations, which was not renewed by the Second Hague Conference several years later. Prior to World War I, several nations signed bilateral agreements regarding the legal status of international flights, and during the war, several nations took the step of prohibiting flights over their territory. Several competing multilateral treaty regimes were established in the wake of the war, including the Paris Convention (1919), Ibero-American Convention (1926) and Havana Convention (1928). The lack of uniformity in international air law, particularly with regard to the liability of international airlines, led to the Warsaw Convention of 1929. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) was founded in 1919 to foster cooperation between airlines in various commercial and legal areas. 

The Chicago Convention on International Civil Aviation was signed in 1944, during World War II, and provided for the establishment of the International Civil Aviation Organization as a unit of the United Nations devoted to overseeing civil aviation. The Convention also provided various general principles governing international air service.

The Tokyo Convention of 1963 enacted new international standards for the treatment of criminal offenses on or involving aircraft. The Montreal Convention of 1999 updated the carrier liability provisions of the Warsaw Convention, while the Cape Town Treaty of 2001 created an international regime for the registration of security interests in aircraft and certain other large movable assets.

Civil aircraft in air force markings (American national law).Edit

Read Title 49, Part 45 available on the FAA web site at http:www.faa.gov under regulations. You can paint the civil aircraft any way you want, including military colours, but the 'N-number' must to be readable from at least 500 feet and it has to be  in a contrasting colour and shade. Most of the information about 'N-numbers' can be found in AC 45-2C again available on the FAA site.

Maritime LawEdit

How Maritime Law Works

How Maritime Law Works

Support Wendover Productions on Patreon: https://www.Patreon.com/Wendover Productions Maritime law is confusing, but interesting (I hope.) Last Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7PsmkAxVHdM Twitter: http://www.Twitter.com/WendoverPro Email: WendoverProductions@gmail.com Attributions: South China Sea video courtesy youtube.com/militarytiger (Creative Commons License) Cruise Ship icon by Rohan Gupta from the Noun Project Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness Map by Alinor (Creative Commons License) Old Cruise Ship photo courtesy Roger W from Flickr (Creative Commons License) Foreign Coders photo courtesy Cory Doctorow from Flickr (Creative Commons License).

Admiralty law or maritime law is a distinct body of law that governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities that operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, marine salvaging, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Admiralty law is distinguished from the Law of the Sea, which is a body of public international law dealing with navigational rights, mineral rights, jurisdiction over coastal waters and international law governing relationships between nations. Although each legal jurisdiction usually has its own enacted legislation governing maritime matters, admiralty law is characterized by a significant amount of international law developed in recent decades, including numerous multilateral treaties.

Law of the SeaEdit

The United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), also called the Law of the Sea Convention or the Law of the Sea treaty, is the international agreement that resulted from the third United Nations Conference on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS III), which took place between 1973 and 1982. The Law of the Sea Convention defines the rights and responsibilities of nations with respect to their use of the world's oceans, establishing guidelines for businesses, the environment, and the management of marine natural resources. The Convention, concluded in 1982, replaced four 1958 treaties. UNCLOS came into force in 1994, a year after Guyana became the 60th nation to sign the treaty. As of June 2016, 167 countries and the European Union have joined in the Convention. It is uncertain as to what extent the Convention codifies customary international law.

While the Secretary General of the United Nations receives instruments of ratification and accession and the UN provides support for meetings of states party to the Convention, the UN has no direct operational role in the implementation of the Convention. There is, however, a role played by organizations such as the International Maritime Organization, the International Whaling Commission, and the International Seabed Authority (ISA). (The ISA was established by the UN Convention.)

6 known Cold War violations of these and other laws not listed aboveEdit

  1. My Lai Massacre (USA on S. Vietnam).
  2. Bình An/Tây Vinh massacre (S. Korea on S. Vietnam).
  3. Tet Offensive Massacre in Huế/Massacre at Huế (N. Vietnam on S. Vietnam).
  4. Bodo League massacre (S. Korea on S. Korean rebels).
  5. 1971 Bangladesh genocide (Pakistan on Bangladesh).
  6. 1988 Halabja chemical attack (Iraq Ba'athist government on Iraqi Kurds).

Also seeEdit

  1. Nukes
  2. The UN
  3. Fleshettes
  4. Vietnam War
  5. The Cold War
  6. 'Kill Junior'
  7. War Technology
  8. 'Killer Junior'
  9. 1950–1953 Korean War
  10. 1953–75 Laotian Civil War
  11. Beehive anti-personnel round
  12. Soviet invasion of Afghanistan
  13. World Trade Center (1973–2001)
  14. United Nations General Assembly
  15. The just and successful war theory
  16. Secretary-General of the United Nations
  17. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  18. UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights
  19. United Nations Security Council Resolutions
  20. United Nations Security Council Resolution 1
  21. United Nations Security Council Resolution 54
  22. United Nations General Assembly Resolution 2758
  23. Major Cold War wars that killed over 250,000 people

SourcesEdit

  1. https://relevantmagazine.com/reject-apathy/magazine/archives/issue-02/slices/26185-what-are-the-rules-of-war
  2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Cluster_Munitions
  3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_phosphorus_munitions
  4. http://www.faqs.org/docs/air/ttpyro.html
  5. http://members.optushome.com.au/spainter/Turner.html
  6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_chemical_attack
  7. https://treaties.un.org/pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-2&chapter=26&lang=en
  8. https://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/wp.htm
  9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
  10. http://www.clusterconvention.org
  11. http://www.clusterconvention.org/pages/pages_ii/iia_textenglish.html
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-personnel_mine
  15. http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-status.aspx
  16. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/clusterbomb_ban_us_opposes_pas.html
  17. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-6&chapter=26&lang=en
  18. http://www.clusterconvention.org/pages/pages_ii/iia_textenglish.html
  19. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-05-29/fitzgibbon-wants-to-keep-smart-cluster-shells/2452894
  20. http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-status.aspx
  21. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-05-29/fitzgibbon-wants-to-keep-smart-cluster-shells/2452894
  22. http://www.apminebanconvention.org/background-status-of-the-convention/ensuring-universal-adherence/
  23. https://web.archive.org/web/20031223201043/http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/jel/jfq_pubs/1621.pdf
  24. https://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-014697
  25. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
  26. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0,
  27. https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum
  28. https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum/overview-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello.htm
  29. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ultima+ratio
  30. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases
  31. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/Ultima+ratio
  32. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Latin_phrases
  33. http://1991-new-world-order.wikia.com/wiki/The_rules_of_war,
  34. http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/
  35. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum
  36. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_jure
  37. http://1991-new-world-order.wikia.com/wiki/The_rules_of_war,
  38. http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/
  39. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum
  40. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto
  41. http://the-politics.wikia.com/wiki/Terminology
  42. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casus_foederis.
  43. http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Hors_de_combat
  44. http://www.dictionary.com/browse/hors-de-combat
  45. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hors%20de%20combat
  46. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat
  47. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hors_de_combat
  48. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hors-de-combat
  49. https://www.thefreedictionary.com/hors+de+combat
  50. https://ihl-databases.icrc.org/applic/ihl/ihl.nsf/WebART/470-750050?OpenDocument
  51. http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Hors_de_combat
  52. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/pronunciation/english/hors-de-combat
  53. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat
  54. https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/hors-de-combat
  55. https://en.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/hors_de_combat
  56. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
  57. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0,
  58. https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum
  59. https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum/overview-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello.htm
  60. http://www.macmillandictionary.com/dictionary/british/casus-belli
  61. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/casus_belli
  62. http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/xrays.html
  63. http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/chest-x-ray#1
  64. http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/xrays.html
  65. http://www.fda.gov/Radiation-EmittingProducts/RadiationEmittingProductsandProcedures/MedicalImaging/MedicalX-Rays/default.htm
  66. http://maps.thefullwiki.org/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
  67. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
  68. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0
  69. https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum
  70. https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum/overview-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello.htm
  71. http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/
  72. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum
  73. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_war
  74. https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-are-jus-ad-bellum-and-jus-bello-0
  75. https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum
  76. https://www.icrc.org/eng/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/jus-in-bello-jus-ad-bellum/overview-jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello.htm
  77. http://www.crimesofwar.org/a-z-guide/jus-ad-bellum-jus-in-bello/
  78. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jus_ad_bellum
  79. https://www.faa.gov/
  80. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
  81. http://www.livescience.com/32344-what-are-x-rays.html
  82. http://science.hq.nasa.gov/kids/imagers/ems/xrays.html
  83. http://www.mayoclinic.org/tests-procedures/x-ray/basics/definition/prc-20009519
  84. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
  85. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_(1929)
  86. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_of_1868
  87. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention
  88. http://www.popsci.com/technology/article/2013-02/privacy-and-drones
  89. http://ask.metafilter.com/74325/Military-Jet-Markings
  90. http://aviation.stackexchange.com/questions/1072/what-process-do-i-follow-to-land-a-civilian-aircraft-on-a-military-base
  91. http://www.stephenmbland.com/meet-the-laotians-clearing-their-country
  92. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laotian_Civil_War
  93. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_war_crimes
  94. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_(1929)
  95. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_on_Explosive_Remnants_of_War
  96. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_Relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
  97. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_relating_to_the_Status_of_Refugees
  98. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perfidy
  99. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
  100. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Geneva_Convention
  101. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hague_Conventions_of_1899_and_1907
  102. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convention_on_Certain_Conventional_Weapons
  103. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genocide_Convention
  104. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_of_1868
  105. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Court_of_Justice_advisory_opinion_on_the_Legality_of_the_Threat_or_Use_of_Nuclear_Weapons
  106. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_(1929)
  107. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saint_Petersburg_Declaration_of_1868
  108. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Modification_Convention
  109. http://belgranoinquiry.com/article-archive/british-use-of-nuclear-weapons
  110. http://www.nti.org/gsn/article/british-warships-carried-nuclear-weapons-during-falkland-islands-war/
  111. http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/hors-de-combat
  112. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hors_de_combat
  113. http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/drop-nuke-nuclear-bomb-simulator-program.html
  114. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_law
  115. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
  116. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm
  117. https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Hague_Rules_of_Air_Warfare
  118. https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/12/israel-gaza-airstrikes-violated-laws-war
  119. https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Hague_Rules_of_Air_Warfare
  120. http://stationsixunderground.blogspot.co.uk/2013/08/drop-nuke-nuclear-bomb-simulator-program.html
  121. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aviation_law
  122. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_law
  123. https://www.icrc.org/eng/resources/documents/misc/57jpcl.htm
  124. https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Hague_Rules_of_Air_Warfare
  125. https://www.hrw.org/news/2013/02/12/israel-gaza-airstrikes-violated-laws-war
  126. https://wwi.lib.byu.edu/index.php/The_Hague_Rules_of_Air_Warfare
  127. http:www.faa.gov
  128. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_I
  129. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geneva_Convention_(1929)
  130. http://legal.un.org/avl/ha/prsr/prsr.html
  131. http://legal.un.org/avl/historicarchives.html
  132. http://legal.un.org/avl/ls/Goodwin-Gill_IML.html
  133. http://legal.un.org/avl/lectureseries.html
  134. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=V-5&chapter=5&lang=en
  135. http://www.unhcr.org/3b66c2aa10.html
  136. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law
  137. http://www.miamimaritimelaw.com/ #https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_Convention_on_the_Law_of_the_Sea
  138. https://www.city.ac.uk/courses/postgraduate/maritime-law
  139. http://www.investopedia.com/terms/m/maritime-law.asp
  140. https://www.hg.org/admiralty-law.html
  141. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allotropes_of_phosphorus#White_phosphorus
  142. https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/818939-overview
  143. http://annals.org/aim/article-abstract/694846/syndromes-toluene-sniffing-adults?doi=10.7326%2f0003-4819-94-6-758
  144. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1445-5994.1984.tb03583.x/abstract;jsessionid=CB62CB5B8A524D6A160E924923AFC821.f04t02
  145. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/anie.199504361/abstract
  146. http://terpconnect.umd.edu/~pbs/2013-An-et-al-FSJ.pdf
  147. https://www.osti.gov/scitech/biblio/4039364
  148. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium
  149. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benzene
  150. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toluene
  151. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphorus
  152. http://www.clusterconvention.org
  153. http://www.clusterconvention.org/pages/pages_ii/iia_textenglish.html
  154. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cluster_bomb
  155. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ottawa_Treaty
  156. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-personnel_mine
  157. http://www.stopclustermunitions.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-status.aspx
  158. http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/05/clusterbomb_ban_us_opposes_pas.html
  159. https://treaties.un.org/Pages/ViewDetails.aspx?src=TREATY&mtdsg_no=XXVI-6&chapter=26&lang=en
  160. http://www.clusterconvention.org/pages/pages_ii/iia_textenglish.html
  161. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-05-29/fitzgibbon-wants-to-keep-smart-cluster-shells/2452894
  162. http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/the-treaty/treaty-status.aspx
  163. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-05-29/fitzgibbon-wants-to-keep-smart-cluster-shells/2452894
Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.