(OT) 4th Geneva Convention

On 12 May 2004 20:32:54 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Not 100% accurate. The convention contains the "Law of Reciprocity" (did I
spell that right?) which says if one party violates part of the articles, the
opposing side is free to violate that article as well. Kind of an "eye for an
eye" rule.

'Eye for an eye' (that is, reprisal) is prohibited by Article 33 of
Convention IV: " No protected person may be punished for an offence 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 protected persons and their property
are prohibited."

It's even more explicitly codified in Protocol I Additional (and yes,
I know America's relationship to that protocol).

Scott

Scott MacEachern wrote:

No protected person may be punished for an offence he
or she has not personally committed.

The Law of Reciprocity is not considered as a punishment per se and as such
does not fit Article 33.

Reprisals against protected persons and their property
are prohibited.

I'll have to find the Law of Reciprocity, because this statement runs counter
to its intent. The intent of the Law of Reciprocity is that if nation X bombs
religious sites in nation y than nation y is *legally* allowed to bomb nation
X's religious sites on a 1 for 1 basis.

I'll have do a Google and find the article dealing with reciprocity.


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

(BUFDRVR) wrote in message ...

I'll have to find the Law of Reciprocity, because this statement runs counter
to its intent. The intent of the Law of Reciprocity is that if nation X bombs
religious sites in nation y than nation y is *legally* allowed to bomb nation
X's religious sites on a 1 for 1 basis.

My understanding is that that article bans reprisals against
non-combatants (civilians, POWs and etc), although probably not
against combatants. I was thinking here of your 'you bomb our high
school, we bomb your high school' example. There's a good discussion
of some of these issues at the Crimes of War Project site... see
http://www.crimesofwar.org/expert/ge...gc-ratner.html

Scott

Scott MacEachern Wrote:

My understanding is that that article bans reprisals against
non-combatants (civilians, POWs and etc), although probably not
against combatants.

Well, every JAG that's ever briefed me used non-combatants as an example of the
Law. The school bombing example I wrote was one example given in the last Laws
of Armed Conflict class I had last June.

I haven't had a chance to look, but when I get a chance I'm going to google
"Law of Reciprocity".


BUFDRVR

"Stay on the bomb run boys, I'm gonna get those bomb doors open if it harelips
everyone on Bear Creek"

"Scott MacEachern" wrote in message
...
On 12 May 2004 20:32:54 GMT, (BUFDRVR) wrote:

Not 100% accurate. The convention contains the "Law of Reciprocity" (did
I
spell that right?) which says if one party violates part of the articles,
the
opposing side is free to violate that article as well. Kind of an "eye
for an
eye" rule.

'Eye for an eye' (that is, reprisal) is prohibited by Article 33 of
Convention IV: " No protected person may be punished for an offence 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 protected persons and their property
are prohibited."

BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if
it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever
article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel
giving up that protected status themselves.

Brooks


It's even more explicitly codified in Protocol I Additional (and yes,
I know America's relationship to that protocol).

Scott

"Kevin Brooks" wrote in message ...

BUFDRVR's Law of Reciprocity is not necessarily in contravention of that, if
it holds that by initiating violation of article (insert whatever
article/section you so choose), that violation results in your own personnel
giving up that protected status themselves.

I was thinking of his high school example when I wrote. That article
does ban such reprisal against non-combatants, but probably not
against combatants.

Scott