Ational Aw Institute Niversity: Concept and Development of Humanitarian Law

CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANITARIAN LAW
NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY
INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
Submitted to: Submitted by:

PROF. DEBASHRI SARKAR VIPUL DOHLE
2016BALLAB110
1|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Acknowledgement
I hereby take the opportunity thank Miss Debashri Mam, for her consent and the inspiration
that she radiates. Her jovial behaviour and ease making attitude eased my tension and the
initial doubts that I had about my potentialities. I also want to thank my friends who helped
me a lot in preparing this project. I have also taken help from several books and websites for
doing this. Ultimately, I once again thank Debashri Mam, who made indelible impact on me
which shall go beyond the pages of this project and reflect in all my endeavours of life.
Hoping Acceptance and Appreciation from you, I hereby submit this project.
- Vipul

TITLE OF THE PROJECT:

Concept and Development of Humanitarian Law
STATEMENT OF PROBLEM:
There are countless examples of violation of international humanitarian law. Increasingly, the
victims of war are civilians.
OBJECTIVE OF STUDY:
To gather information about humanitarian law and try to locate where it actually came into
existence i.e. origin.
HYPOTHESIS:
The conventional histories of international humanitarian law which view international
humanitarian law as the heir to a long continuum of codes of warfare that straddle different
times and cultures.
RESEARCH QUESTIONS:
1. What is international humanitarian law?
2. Where did international humanitarian law originate?
3. Is international humanitarian law actually complied with?
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY:
In accordance with the objectives of the present study, doctrinal research design has been
adopted. The doctrinal design has been used to study the Concept and Development of
Humanitarian Law. Doctrinal Research is a research, as we all know, based on the principles
or the propositions made earlier. It is more based on the sources like books of the library, and
through resources collected through access to various websites. For the purpose of the
Research Project, the Researcher has collected relevant materials from books on international
humanitarian Law and also from various websites. The Research has been done primarily
with the help of case laws and leading judgements of various courts as well as legislative
provisions. Various articles from the internet sources have also been referred.

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
I. CASES
 Nicaragaua case, ICJ Report 1986

 Rev. Mans. Sebastiano Francisco Xavier dos Remedios Monteiro v. State of Goa. AIR
SC 1970
II. TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

 The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict, plus its two protocols;
 The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention;
 The 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention and its five protocols;
 The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention;
 The 1997 Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines;
 The 2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
involvement of children in armed conflict.
 Convention for the Amelioration of the wounded and sick members of armed forces
in the field (Geneva Convention I).
 Convention for Amelioration of the condition of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked
members of armed forced at sea (Geneva Convention II).
 Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (Geneva Convention III).
 Convention: on the protection of civilian persons in time of war (Geneva Convention
IV).
III. BOOKS
 Nehru’s Forigen Policy, New Delhi: Mosaic Book and India International Center
(1998)
 The Law of Armed Conflict: International Humanitarian Law in War
Book by Gary D. Solis
 International Humanitarian Law
Alison Pert and Emily Crawford

 Constraints on the waging of war

Book by Frits Kalshoven
CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................................7
Meaning of international humanitarian law.............................................................................11
Where did international humanitarian law originate?..........................................................11
When does international humanitarian law apply?..............................................................12
What does international humanitarian law cover?...............................................................13
Is international humanitarian law actually complied with?..................................................13
What should be done to implement the law?........................................................................13
Concept of human rights and humanitarian laws.....................................................................14
Development of International Humanitarian Laws (IHL).......................................................16
International Humanitarian Law..............................................................................................21
INDIA AND THE MAJOR IHL CONVENTIONS.............................................................21
Genocide Convention, 1948.............................................................................................21
GENEVA CONVENTIONS, 1949...................................................................................23
GENEVA CONVENTIONS ACT, 1960..........................................................................23
DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT 1970..............................................................24
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, 1998...........................25
Conclusion................................................................................................................................27
BIBLIOGRAPHY....................................................................................................................28
Primary Sources....................................................................................................................28
Secondary Sources................................................................................................................28


INTRODUCTION
Armed conflict often represents the dark side of human nature anger, greed, vengeance, false
pride, ill-feeling, intolerance, and hatred. War and armed conflict survive in both
international and national societies. Despite the fact that most ancient civilizations of the
world have had clearly laid down humanitarian rules which were required to be observed,
most nations go to war. Indeed, human society has till this day failed to abolish the use of
violence in intracommunity relations, let alone inter-state relations.
According to General Clausewitz, the grand priest of war as the ultimate means of dispute
settlement, ‘War is an act of violence.... In a situation as dangerous as war, errors of
magnanimity are the worst. Indeed, moderation in the philosophy of war is absurd’. 1 The
Clausewitz philosophy of violence then underscores the innate inter-relationship between the
factors that trigger resort to violence, and those that prompt disregard for any restraints or
inhibitions on levels or means and methods of violence employed. The root causes of resort
to violence also condition the effectiveness or otherwise of such restraints or inhibitions.
From this viewpoint, international humanitarian law (IHL) has a tenuous relationship with
the principles of non-use of force and disarmament. On the one hand, like all law it throws its
weight in favour of a total abolition of armed conflict in international relations. On the other,
it comes into operation at the outbreak of hostilities, as if to legitimize situations resulting
from use of force. But the fact that it comes into operation at the outbreak of violence does
not necessarily imply legitimation of situations resulting from use of force itself. IHL is not
directly concerned with the issues of legitimation of violence; it is primarily concerned with
the protection of victims of any violence.
Even if IHL is always ‘one war behind’, its normative development over the past hundred
and fifty years has been most impressive. However, there is a wide gulf between the promise
of formative framework and realities on the ground. In fact, each stage of development of the
law triggered by some horrid historical experiences through a catastrophe of senseless
violence.
1
Quoted by judge Mohammed Bedjaoui, ‘Humanitarian Law at a Time of Failing National and International
consensus: A report for the independent commission on international Humanitarianism Issue’, in Modern War:
The Humanitarian challenge – A report for the Independence Commission on International Humanitarian Issue,
London / New Jersey: Zed Books (1986), P. 5

The origin of the ‘Geneva Law’ was concern for the protection of the sick and wounded
combatant at war on land, leading to a treaty in 1864. This war later, in 1906, expanded to
encompass the sick and the wounded at war at sea, as warfare at sea became 'popular' among
states, and still later, in 1929, it was further revised and expanded to cover prisoners of war.
The spine-chilling experiences of Europe during the inter-war period highlighted the need to
protect the civilian population from the cruel incidence of armed conflict, and also to provide
some minimum rules to regulate 'armed conflict not of an international character' of the
Spanish Civil War type, where the 'international' character of the conflict was indeterminate.
They also eventually gave rise to three categories of 'international crimes' in the context of
grave violations of human dignity perpetrated during armed conflict — crimes against the
laws and customs of war, crimes against peace, and crimes against humanity, with the
victorious powers of the second world war setting in motion international trials of major war
criminals, at the end of the war. This provided the normative thrust to the concept of an
international criminal court. The Second World War further necessitated a revision of the law
that led to the adoption of the four Geneva Convention in 1949, with the fourth convention
specifically aimed at protection of civilians during armed conflict. 2 All the four conventions
put together provide for humane treatment of the sick and the wounded at war, prisoners of
war, and civilians who fall in the hands of a belligerent power during hostilities. To guard
against the possibility of a party to the conflict seeking to escape the obligations under these
conventions by arguing that the conflict at hand is not of an international character, the
conventions also embody a common Article 3 to cover armed conflicts 'not of an
international character' for which certain minimum rules of humane treatment of victims of
the conflict are prescribed.
2
The four Geneva Conventions Of 1949 are: l) the Geneva Convention for the Amelioration Of the condition Of
the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field; II) The Geneva Convention for the Amelioration of the
Condition Of Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea; III) The Geneva Convention
relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; and IV) The Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War—all Of 12 August 1949.

These rules are now recognised as the minimum threshold of IHL obligation.3
Very soon, the national liberation movements in Asia and Africa, and the Vietnam War
necessitated a further review of the 1949 conventions in 1974—1977 and in response the two
additional protocols took shape. Thus, from a set of just ten Articles in 1864, the Geneva law
has now expanded to some 600 Articles.
Nearly parallel to the development of the Geneva law was the so-called 'Hague law'. The
Hague law began its travails also contemporaneously with the germination of the Geneva law
since the second half of the nineteenth century. It began with the intent of avoiding
unnecessary suffering and superfluous injury by circumscribing the use of certain means and
methods of war, with a general indication of the rights and duties of belligerent powers. The
1899—1907 Hague regulations, and the various other conventions adopted by The Hague
Peace Conferences aimed, in a modest way, at these objectives. The greatest normative
contribution of The Hague law, however, is the principle embodied in the de Martens clause.
The latest restatement of this principle states:
In cases not covered by this Protocol or by other international agreements, civilians and
combatants remain under the protection and authority of the principles of international law
derived from established custom, from the principles of humanity and from the dictates of
public conscience.4
The de Martens clause remains a masterpiece of norm setting in international law. In its
broad sweep it takes into account the evil potentials of technologies of warfare-—past,
present, and future. It now provides a direct linkage between both the Geneva law and the
Hague Law of IHL Indeed, the 1977 protocols appear to have achieved a general integration
of both the Geneva law and The Hague law in several respects.
3
Nicaragaua case, ICJ Report 1986, P. 14.
4
Article 1 (2) of 1977 Protocol I Additional to the Geneva Convention of 1949.

On the basis of the development of Il-IL culminating in the 1949 Geneva Protocols, the
following fundamental principles of IHL can be said to exist in modern international law:
1. The principle of 'elementary considerations of humanity'.

2. The principle of discrimination (i) between belligerents and neutrals; (ii) between
combatants and non-combatants-civilians, and (iii) between military objects and
civilian objects.
3. The principle of prohibition of weapons, means, and methods of warfare that cause
unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury
4. The principle of prohibition of methods or means of warfare that are likely to cause
widespread, long-term, and severe damage to the natural environment.
5. The principle of prohibition of study, development, acquisition, or adoption of any
new weapon, means, or method of warfare whose employment in war is prohibited by
IHL or some other rule of international law.
Since the Second World War, there has been another, more broad-based, development in
international norm-setting. This relates to the evolution of the international law of human
rights. The War, and colonialism have taught us the importance of international concern for
human rights. As Jawaharlal Nehru proclaimed on the eve of India's independence,
We believe that peace and freedom are indivisible and the denial of freedom anywhere must
endanger freedom elsewhere and lead to conflict and War.5
5
Nehru’s Forigen Policy, New Delhi: Mosaic Book and India International Center (1998), P. 19-24.
10 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Meaning of international humanitarian law
International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit
the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in
the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law
is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict.
International humanitarian law is part of international law, which is the body of rules
governing relations between States. International law is contained in agreements between
States – treaties or conventions, in customary rules, which consist of State practise considered
by them as legally binding, and in general principles.6
International humanitarian law applies to armed conflicts. It does not regulate whether a State
may actually use force; this is governed by an important, but distinct, part of international law
set out in the United Nations Charter.7
Where did international humanitarian law originate?

International humanitarian law is rooted in the rules of ancient civilizations and religions –
warfare has always been subject to certain principles and customs.
Universal codification of international humanitarian law began in the nineteenth century.

Since then, States have agreed to a series of practical rules, based on the bitter experience of
modern warfare. These rules strike a careful balance between humanitarian concerns and the
military requirements of States. As the international community has grown, an increasing
number of States have contributed to the development of those rules. International
humanitarian law forms today a universal body of law.8
A major part of international humanitarian law is contained in the four Geneva Conventions
of 1949. Nearly every State in the world has agreed to be bound by them. The Conventions
have been developed and supplemented by two further agreements: the Additional Protocols
of 1977 relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts.9
Other agreements prohibit the use of certain weapons and military tactics and protect certain
categories of people and goods. These agreements include:
6
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/what_is_ihl.pdf last Accessed on 22nd March 2019
7
Ibid.
8
https://blogs.icrc.org/ilot/2017/08/07/origins-international-humanitarian-law/ Last Accessed on 23rd March
2019
9
https://ijrcenter.org/international-humanitarian-law/ Last Accessed on 23rd March 2019

 The 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed
Conflict, plus its two protocols;
 The 1972 Biological Weapons Convention;
 The 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention and its five protocols;
 The 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention;
 The 1997 Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines;
 The 2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the
involvement of children in armed conflict.
Many provisions of international humanitarian law are now accepted as customary law – that
is, as general rules by which all States are bound.
When does international humanitarian law apply?

International humanitarian law applies only to armed conflict; it does not cover internal
tensions or disturbances such as isolated acts of violence. The law applies only once a
conflict has begun, and then equally to all sides regardless of who started the fighting.
International humanitarian law distinguishes between international and non-international

armed conflict. International armed conflicts are those in which at least two States are
involved. They are subject to a wide range of rules, including those set out in the four Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocol I.
Non-international armed conflicts are those restricted to the territory of a single State,
involving either regular armed forces fighting groups of armed dissidents, or armed groups
fighting each other. A more limited range of rules apply to internal armed conflicts and are
laid down in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions as well as in Additional
Protocol II. It is important to differentiate between international humanitarian law and human
rights law. While some of their rules are similar, these two bodies of law have developed
separately and are contained in different treaties. In particular, human rights law – unlike
international humanitarian law – applies in peacetime, and many of its provisions may be
suspended during an armed conflict.10
What does international humanitarian law cover?

International humanitarian law covers two areas:
 the protection of those who are not, or no longer, taking part in fighting;
10
https://www.icrc.org/en/doc/assets/files/other/icrc_002_0703.pdf Last Accessed on 24th March 2019

 Restrictions on the means of warfare – in particular weapons – and the methods of

warfare, such as military tactics.
Is international humanitarian law actually complied with?

Sadly, there are countless examples of violation of international humanitarian law.
Increasingly, the victims of war are civilians. However, there are important cases where
international humanitarian law has made a difference in protecting civilians, prisoners, the
sick and the wounded, and in restricting the use of barbaric weapons.11
Given that this body of law applies during times of extreme violence, implementing the law
will always be a matter of great difficulty. That said, striving for effective compliance
remains as urgent as ever.
What should be done to implement the law?

Measures must be taken to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. States have an
obligation to teach its rules to their armed forces and the general public. They must prevent
violations or punish them if these nevertheless occur.
In particular, they must enact laws to punish the most serious violations of the Geneva
Conventions and Additional Protocols, which are regarded as war crimes. The States must
also pass laws protecting the Red Cross and Red Crescent Emblems.
Measures have also been taken at an international level: tribunals have been created to
punish acts committed in two recent conflicts (the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda). An
international criminal court, with the responsibility of repressing inter alia war crimes, was
created by the 1998 Rome Statute.
Whether as individuals or through governments and various organizations, we can all make
an important contribution to compliance with international humanitarian law.12
Concept of human rights and humanitarian laws
11
http://archive.ipu.org/PDF/publications/ihl-en.pdf Last Accessed on 24th March 2019
12
https://humanrightsinitiative.org/old/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=57&Itemid=79 Last
Accessed on 25th March 2019

Every human being acquires certain basic and inalienable rights by virtue of his/her being
birth as a human being, which are generally termed as human right. Thus, the term human
rights depicts the very nature of the right. All those rights, which are essential for the
maintenance of human dignity, may be called as human rights. They are necessary, as they
are conductive to physical, moral, social, and spiritual welfare of human being. Every human
being possesses these rights irrespective of his or her nationality, race, religion, sex etc.
simply because he or she is a human being. These rights are inherent in our nature and
without them nobody can live as a human being. Human rights are also termed as natural
rights as they are not enacted rights conferred by the government to its people. In modern
times, scope of human rights has been extended day by day with the mankind‘s increasing
demand for a life in which the inherent dignity & worth of each human being will receive
respect & protection. Such rights must be preserved, cherished and defended if peace and
prosperity are to be achieved.13
It is said that rights and duties are necessarily co relative. Every right has a corresponding
duty. As human rights are acquired by each and every person as a consequence of his/her
being birth as a human being, every state as a guardian of its people has a basic duty to
protect the human rights of its people. Thus, human rights are exemptions from the operation
of arbitrary power. The need for the protection has arisen because of inevitable increase in the
control over men‘s action by the governments which by no means can be regarded as
desirable. The consciousness on the part of the human being as to their rights has also
necessitated the protection of human rights by the States. The human rights law put an
obligation on the State to refrain from causing any harm to its own nationals and other
persons within its territorial jurisdiction. Under the defence of sovereignty, States cannot treat
its nationals as it pleases.14
Humanitarian laws on the other hand, mean those rules which intend to protect rights of the
people when an armed conflict is going on in an area. In other words, humanitarian laws
complement human rights laws during an armed conflict. As, during an armed conflict, rate
of violation of human rights increased to a high level, the international humanitarian law lays
down certain norms to be followed during an armed conflict so that sufferings of war can be
minimized. Such laws mandate firstly, for humanitarian treatment to the people affected by
13
https://www.icrc.org/en/war-and-law/ihl-other-legal-regmies/ihl-human-rights Last Accessed on 26th March
2019
14
https://www.icrc.org/en/document/what-difference-between-ihl-and-human-rights-law Last Accessed on
26th March 2019

armed conflict and secondly, for imposing restrictions on the use of weapons indiscriminately
to limit the sufferings of war. Thus, international humanitarian law attempts to limit the right
of parties to a conflict to use the method and means of warfare of their choice and protect
persons and property that are, or may be, affected by conflicts. In short, IHL is the jus in
Bello, or the law that regulates the conduct of armed conflict. It provides the maximum
possible protection of people in armed conflict through a balance between "military
necessity", on one hand, and "humanity" on the other. The essential purpose of rules is not to
provide a ‘code’ governing game of war, but to reduce or limit the sufferings of individuals.15
Development of International Humanitarian Laws (IHL)
15
Dr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, International Humanitarian Law and Protection of Terrorism, Journal of Constitutional
and Parliamentary Studies, Jan-June 2008, Vol.42 p.79-88

The root of IHL dates back to the rules of ancient civilization and religion, and premised on
the simple idea that some things are not permitted even in wartime. The Chinese Scholar Sun
Tzu, in the 5th century BC, asserted that in war it is important to treat captive well, and care
for them‖. One of India‘s epic poems, Ramayana, reveals that it was expressly forbidden to
use of mythical weapon that could obliterate an entire enemy nation even though (the
enemy) was fighting an unjust war with an unrighteous objective. In ancient Greece,
awareness existed that certain acts were contrary to traditional usages and principles
spontaneously enforced by human conscience, thus establishing the applicability of
customary law to armed conflict. In Homer ‘s epic Odyssey, the use of poisoned weapons
was considered to be a grave violation to the way of the Gods. Roman law has developed the
terms jus ad bellum (the law governing the legality of the use of force) and jus in Bello (the
law governing the conduct of hostilities), terms that continue to be used in contemporary
international law. Roman jus belli, or the law of war, served as a function for legal
developments until1800s. The process of codifying international humanitarian law started in
the middle of the 19th century, and developed tremendously throughout the 20th century.
Today, numerous conventions exist and large parts of international humanitarian law are
codified. The first attempt to bring together existing laws and customs of war in a document,
and to impose them on an army in battle, was the ‘Lieber Code’ (1863). This was intended
solely for Union Soldiers fighting in the American Civil War, and as such did not have the
status of a treaty. In the year of 1859, when French and Austrian armies fought the battle of
Solferino in northern Italy, the idea of international action to limit the suffering of the sick
and wounded in wars was born in the mind of Henri Dunant, a young Swiss citizen. He
published a book in 1862, in which he suggested that national societies should be created to
care for the sick & wounded irrespective of their race, nationality or religion. He also
proposed that States should make a treaty recognizing the work of these organizations and
guaranteeing better treatment for the wounded. With his four friends he set up the
International Committee for Aid to the Wounded (latter on renamed as International
Committee of the Red Cross). His idea met a wide response and several countries had
established national societies. In 1864, a diplomatic conference was held in Geneva whereby
the delegates of 16 European nations adopted the Geneva Convention, a set of ten articles.
The full name of the Convention was the Convention for the Amelioration of the Wounded in
Time of War and the purpose of the Convention is to limit the suffering caused by war by
protecting and assisting as far as possible the wounded and sick military personnel. More
precisely, this Convention laid the three fundamental principles of contemporary IHL namely

the principle of humane treatment (i.e. the victims of war who are in the situation of hors de
combat must be collected and care for), the principle of care without discrimination to the
wounded and sick, and the principle of respect for and marking of medical personnel,
transports and equipment’s using an emblem (red Cross on a white background) 13. In
Islamic countries the emblem is a red crescent on a white field was introduced in the 1870.
The Convention formally laid the foundation of international humanitarian law. Another
milestone in the development of the IHL was the Hague Conferences of 1899 and 1907.
Many Conventions were adopted at these Conferences which provided for the regulation of
conduct of hostilities. Convention IV together with the Regulations in annex, was of
particular importance because it contained the law and customs of war on land. This
Convention was in particular declaratory of customary law of warfare. The purpose of this
Convention was not only to regulate the conduct of hostilities and thus to limit the means of
causing injury to enemy, but also to 1899 and 1907. Many Conventions were adopted at these
Conferences which provided for the regulation of conduct of hostilities. Convention IV
together with the Regulations in annex, was of particular importance because it contained the
law and customs of war on land. This Convention was in particular declaratory of customary
law of warfare. The purpose of this Convention was not only to regulate the conduct of
hostilities and thus to limit the means of causing injury to enemy, but also to use of gases
were also violated. The result is that, the rules made by the Hague Conventions which laid
down the foundations of the law of war were sapped because of the instances of their non-
observance16. In the middle part of 20th century shocking crimes were committed against the
humanity during the Second World War. The tragic experience gained by the international
community during this conflict compelled to think for improvement of the legal protection of
war victims, in particular of civilians in the power of the enemy. Thus, steps have been
adopted for extension and codification of the existing provisions in an International Red
Cross Conference in Stockholm held on August 23 to 30, 1948. The Conference developed
four Conventions which were approved in Geneva on August 1949.16
The Conventions were:

16
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292145433_Origin_and_Development_of_IHL Last Accessed on
27th March 2019

1. Convention for the Amelioration of the wounded and sick members of armed forces in the
field (Geneva Convention I).
2. Convention for Amelioration of the condition of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked
members of armed forced at sea (Geneva Convention II).
3. Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (Geneva Convention III).
4. Convention: on the protection of civilian persons in time of war (Geneva Convention IV).
The provisions of all these Conventions were inspired by respect for human personality and
dignity. Together they establish the principles of disinterested aid to all victims of war
without discrimination-to all those who, whether through wounds, capture or shipwreck, are
no longer enemies but merely suffering and defenceless human beings17‖. The Conventions
provide a number of humanitarian rules to various classes of persons such as the wounded
and sick in armed forces in the field as well as at sea, prisoners of war and civilian persons in
time of war. They also imposed corresponding duties upon the protecting power, the ICRC
and other humanitarian organizations With the exception of one article- Article 3 – common
to all four conventions, the provisions of four Geneva Conventions are applied to
international armed conflicts. Common Article 3 which is applicable in non-international
armed conflict situations expressly prohibits certain acts at any time and at any place,
namely-
(1) Violence to life and person,
(2) Taking of hostage,
(3) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular humiliating and degrading treatment,
(4) The passing of sentences and carrying out of executions without previous judgements
pronounced by a regularly constituted court. These obligations are binding to all the parties
to the conflict i.e. the State as well as the non-state actors. Further, this Article also mandates
the ICRC and such other humanitarian agencies to provide service to the victims of war and
also to take steps to strengthen respect for IHL. However, in the subsequent years, with
emergence of new forms of armed conflict, often sharp and violent, but localized and
involving limited numbers of troops and other combatants, called for further action to control
the horror of such conflicts. Thus, a Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and
Development of International Humanitarian Law applicable to armed conflict, was held in

Geneva from 1974 to 1977, whereby two Additional Protocols to the 1949 Conventions were
adopted. Protocol I deals with the protection of victims of international armed conflicts.
Protocol II concerns the victims of internal armed conflicts, including those between the
armed forces of a government and dissidents or other organized groups which control part of
its territory, but does not deal with internal disturbances and tensions in the form of riots, or
other isolated and sporadic acts of violence. The Diplomatic Conference also recommended
that a special conference be called on the question of prohibiting on humanitarian grounds the
use of specific conventional weapons. Thus, in the event of a non-international conflict,
Article 3 common to four Conventions and Protocol II are applicable. Article 1 of the
Additional Protocol II inter alia says that this Protocol supplements Article 3 to the Geneva
Conventions of 1949 without modifying its existing condition of application. Under the
Protocol, humanitarian law is intended for the armed forces, whether regular or not, taking
part in conflict, and protect every individual or category of individuals not or no longer
actively involved in the hostilities. Its conditions of application are stricter than those
provided for Article 3 and cover the following:
(1) Fundamental guarantees for human treatment (similar to common Article 3 but more
detailed.)
(2) Special protection for children in the fields of education, recruitment, reunification, and
safe areas.
(3) Minimum standards for people deprived of their liberty.
(4) Protection of the civilian population and civilian subjects.
(5) Relief action subject to the consent of the state (similar to the Common Article 3)
The rules of customary international humanitarian laws, also fill some important gaps in the
regulation of non-international armed conflicts. Many of the provisions of Additional
Protocol II are now considered to be part of customary international law, and thus, binding on
all parties to non-international armed conflicts. These rules include the prohibition of attacks
on civilians, the obligation to respect and protect medical and religious personnel, medical
units and transports, the prohibition of starvation, the prohibition of attacks on objects
indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, the obligation to respect the
fundamental guarantees of persons who are not taking a direct part, or who have ceased to
take a direct part, in hostilities, the obligation to search for and respect and protect the

wounded, sick and shipwrecked, the obligation to search for and collect the dead, the
obligation to protect persons deprived of their liberty, the prohibition of the forced movement
of civilians, and specific protections for women and children18. Customary IHL also goes
beyond the rudimentary provisions of common Article 3 and Additional Protocol II. Practice
has created a substantial number of additional customary rules relating to the conduct of
hostilities (e.g. the distinction between civilian objects and military objectives, the prohibition
of indiscriminate attacks and attacks in violation of the principle of proportionality); rules on
specifically protected persons and objects(e.g. humanitarian relief personnel and objects,
journalists, and protected zones) and rules on specific methods of warfare (e.g. prohibition of
denial of quarter and perfidy)19. Such principles though do not take precedence over the law
in force, nor do replace them, considered to be guiding principles and as they make the law
easier to understand. The establishment of the International Criminal Court, a permanent
international court, by adopting Rome Statute of 1998 is one of the major achievement of the
international community towards the development of humanitarian laws. The Court has been
established with the objective of putting an end to impunity for the perpetrators of serious
international crimes and vindicating state obligations to exercise its criminal jurisdiction over
those responsible for international crimes. The Court is the first international court which has
jurisdiction over war crimes, crimes against humanity, genocide and aggression. The Statute
criminalizes violation of Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions as war crimes. It
would not prosecute states as abstract entities, but individuals who have committed the
alleged crimes. Immunity pleas based on official position will not be allowed in proceedings
before the Court. Moreover, the Court besides prosecuting head of states or others with
powerful political contacts, the ICC may also prosecute members of armed forces and
paramilitary groups for acts committed by subordinates and individuals committing crimes in
their private capacities pursuant to organizational policy. Another advancement of the Court
is that it works on the principle of complementarities, i.e. the primary responsibility for
prosecution lies with the States and the Court would act only in situations where the state is
either unwilling or unable to prosecute the offender. Establishment of ICC at Hague has
fulfilled the gap of prosecution of the perpetrators of crimes under the international law. So
long, norms are laid down for the protections of human rights have been violated, very often,
with impunity. The ICC brings an end to this impunity concept by prosecuting and brings to

justice individuals who commit the most serious violations of international humanitarian
laws.17
International Humanitarian Law

India’s Attitude
States continue to be the dominant players in the global system, but the norms that govern
their actions no longer wholly reflect the precepts of power. International humanitarian law
(IHL) is a bundle of such norms. Their observance by states, however, is not as wide and
clear as their recognition.18 This essay seeks to record briefly India's attitude towards IHL.
This is gleaned from India's participation in the drafting of the 1948 Genocide Convention,
the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions, and the adoption of the Statute of
the International Criminal Court. The essay also refers to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the
1960 Geneva Conventions Act, and the 1970 decision of the Supreme Court to see continuity
and change in India's attitude towards IHL.19
INDIA AND THE MAJOR IHL CONVENTIONS
Genocide Convention, 1948

India adhered to a 1945 agreement signed by France, the former Soviet Union, and the United
Kingdom, establishing a tribunal for the trial of war criminals and a charter defining the
tribunal's jurisdiction and functions. The tribunal pronounced its jurisdiction on Germany's
violation of several treaties and convicted the offenders of the crime of planning and waging
war. It, however, could not find jurisdiction over crimes against humanity, as it could not be
established that the acts complained of were 'in execution of, or in connection with', the war.
The shortcomings of the Nuremberg trial provided the necessary background to the adoption
of a convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide by the United
Nations General Assembly in 1948.
17
https://www.humanrights.ch/en/standards/international-humanitarian-law/history/ Last Accessed on 28th
March 2019
18
V.S. Mani, The Fifth Afghan war and International Law’, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol. 37, no. 4, 2002,
pp. 294-298
19
An Indo- Asian Perspective’, International Review of the Red cross, Vol. 83, no. 841,2001, pp. 56-76

India, along with Cuba and Panama, Sponsored a resolution on genocide at second part of the
first session of the General Assembly at Lake Success. It was adopted as resolution 96 (I) of
11 December 1946. It was affirmed the Genocide was a crime under international law and
requested the United National Economic and Social council to undertake necessary studies
with a view to drawing up a draft convention. India was 'generally prepared to accept it in
spite of its various shortcomings, for it was a useful step towards the final goal’.20
India pointed out that the draft convention defined genocide in terms of ‘acts committed with
intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethical, racial, or religious group, as such’. 21
According to India, intent was 'closely linked to the act, but whatever the intent, the result
must be the total, or partial destruction of the group. It could not be asserted, however, that
the group, as such, would be annihilated by the destruction of its religious edifices, schools or
libraries’.22 While submitting that its constitution 'contained adequate provisions for
safeguarding the language, religion, and culture of any minority group', India added that 'the
protection of the cultural rights of groups should be assured by the declaration of human
rights, which would shortly come before the General Assembly.23
India supported a USSR amendment for deletion from Article VI of the draft convention the
reference to a penal tribunal. According to India, 'before the tribunal could begin to function,
a host of complicated problems, such as jurisdictional conflicts between the national courts
and the international tribunal, would have to be solved and a detailed convention drafted'. 24
India ‘feared that such a provision might make it possible to bring before the International
Court of Justice unsubstantiated or insufficiently substantiated cases under the pretext that a
state had failed to carry out its obligations under the convention and that it was responsible
for some act of genocide committed in its territory’.25
While 20 states had signed the Genocide Convention on 11 December 1948, 26 India signed it
on 29 November 1949. It was not surprising that India made the following declaration while
ratifying the Convention on 27 August 1959:
20
Reports of the Economic and Social Council and of the Sixth Committee', UN Doc. A/760/Corr.2, 3 rd Session,
178th Plenary Meeting, pp. 826.
21
Ibid., p. 826.
22
Ibid., p. 815.
23
Ibid., p. 827.
24
Ibid., p. 827
25
Ibid., p. 828
26
Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, Ethiopia, France, Haiti, Liberia, Norway,
Pakistan, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, the United States, Uruguay, and Yugoslavia.

With reference to Article IX of the Convention, the Government of India declares that, for the
submission of any dispute in terms of this article to the jurisdiction of the International Court
of Justice, the consent of all the parties to the dispute is required in each case.27
It might indeed have been expedient, nonetheless somewhat ironical, for a country to have
made such a reservation, once it supported the agreement which established a tribunal for the
trial of war criminals. It is not submitted that such a reservation would necessarily be
incompatible with the object and purpose of the Genocide Convention, 28 it however tends to
dilute the universality29 of response of the international community to the crime of genocide.
It has been held that ‘since the Genocide Convention does not specifically refer to reparation,
the parties to it did not undertake to have accepted the court compulsory jurisdiction in this
question’. India's attitude is further elaborated by its policy and participation in the drafting
and adoption of the Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC).30
GENEVA CONVENTIONS, 1949
Despite initial hiccups in the deliberations of the International Law Commission for revision,
clarification, and codification of the law of war, since the UN Charter proscribed war, a
Diplomatic Conference for the Establishment of International Conventions for the Protection
of Victims of War was convened by the Swiss Federal council in Geneva from 21 April to 12
August 1949. India was one of the sixty-three states which signed the Final Act,
incorporating the Convention for the Amelioration of the condition of the Wounded and Sick
in Armed Forces in the Field; the Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the
wounded; Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed forces at sea; The convention Relative
to the Treatment of Prisoners of War; and the Convention Relative to the Protection of
civilian person at time of war. In short, the Conventions reiterate that certain humanitarian
rules must be observed, even with regard to the enemy. They are founded on the idea of
27
Article IX of the Convention states: 'Disputes between the contracting parties relating to the interpretation,
application, or fulfilment of the present Convention, including those relating to the responsibility Of a State for
genocide, or for any of the other acts enumerated in article Ill, Shall be submitted to the International court of
justice at the request of any of the parties to dispute’. Adan Roberts and Richard Guelf (eds), Documents on
the Law of war, oxford, 1989 pp. 159-60
28
V.S Mani, ‘The International Court of justice and Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflicts’, Indian Journal of
International Law, Vol. 39, 1999, PP. 32- 46.
29
Yogesh Tayagi, ‘The Conflict of Law and policy on Reservation to human rights Treaties’, British Yerarbook of
International Law, Vol. LXXI, 2000, p. 205.
30
Infra section on statue of ICC

respect for the individual and her/his dignity. They underline that persons not directly taking
part in hostilities and those rendered sick, injured, and made prisoners must be respected and
protected, and those who suffer must be aided, and cared for without discrimination.31
GENEVA CONVENTIONS ACT, 1960
Having ratified the Geneva Convention on 16 October 1950, it took rather long for India to
transpose them into its domestic law. The preamble to the Act stated that it was to 'enable
effect to be given to certain international conventions at Geneva on the twelfth day of August,
1949, to which India is a party and for purposes connected therewith’ 32 According to the
Statement of Object and Reasons,33 the matters which required to be implemented by the
legislation were: punishment of 'grave breaches' referred to in Article 50 of the First
Convention and equivalent articles of the succeeding conventions; conferment of jurisdiction
on Indian courts to try offences under these conventions, even when committed by foreigners
outside India; extension of the protection given under the existing law to the Red Cross and
Geneva Cross, to two new emblems, namely, the Red Crescent and the Red Lion and Sun;
and procedural matters relating to legal representation, appeal, etc. However, the Act
contained a provision which stated:
No court shall take cognizance of any offence under this Act except on complaint by the
Government or of such officer of the Government as the Central Government may by
notification specify.34
Thus, unlike this provision, it is significant to note that the Zimbabwean Geneva Conventions
Act of 1981 permits a private prosecution for an offence under the common law. 35 After
analysing various provisions of the Act, one author has concluded, 'it appears as if the
legislation was drafted and passed in a hasty manner. The law is sketchy and skeletal... ‘ 36
This point was noted by the supreme court which we now turn to.
31
On IHL Jean Pictet, The Principle of International Humanitarian Law, Geneva: ICR, 1966
32
AIR (1960) 142 Para. 2770. Compare Preamble to the UK Geneva Convention Act, 1957.
33
Gazette of India, Extraordinary, 160, Part 1, Section 2, at P. 1098.
34
Section 17 of the Act, Compare the UK Geneva Convention Act, 1957.
35
M. K. Balachandran, 'National for the Implementation of Il-ll.—nie Geneva Conventions Act, A Stud", in M. K.
Balachandran and Rose Varghese (eds), Introduction to International Humanitarian law, New Delhi. ICRC, 1997,
p. 366
36
Ibid., P.372

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT 197037
This was the first, and perhaps the only, case in which the Geneva Conventions Act was
submitted to the Scrutiny of the highest court of the land. The appellant argued that he was
protected by the Geneva Conventions Act, 1960.38 The question that arose before the court
was whether Articles 47 and 49 of the Geneva Convention Relative to the Protection of
Civilian Persons in Time of War applied to the facts of the case. 39 Rejecting the argument of
the appellant, the court reasoned:
Act by itself does not give any special remedy. It does give indirect protection by providing
for breaches of convention. The conventions are not made enforceable by Government
against itself nor does the Act give a cause of action to any party for the enforcement of
conventions. Thus, there is only an obligation undertaken by the Government of India to
respect the conventions regarding the treatment of civilian population, but there is no right
created in favour of protected persons which the court has been asked to enforce.
A country which so respects the conventions cannot convince the protected persons that their
rights are enforceable.40’Respect for international law and treaty obligations' is what the
Indian state is enjoined by the constitution. 41 The act of ratification of a treaty may evidence
respect for international law, inasmuch as treaties are part of international law, but the fact of
keeping in force an ineffective legislation is nothing but a failure to respect the treaty
obligations, together with the constitution.
STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, 1998
According to India, the ICC should be based on the principles of complementarity, state
sovereignty, and non-intervention in internal affairs of states. According to India, the 'ICC
can step in only when a national judicial system is non-existent or unable to deal with
particular crimes covered by the Statute.42 India considered it 'inappropriate' to vest
Competence and authority to initiate the jurisdiction of ICC in the hands of an individual
prosecutor, 'who can initiate investigations suo moto, and thus the jurisdiction of the court'. 43
37
Rev. Mans. Sebastiano Francisco Xavier dos Remedios Monteiro v. State of Goa. AIR SC 1970, 329-337.
38
Article 12 of the Geneva Convention
39
Ibid., pp. 329-330
40
Reponse to proposal by Venezula and Pakistan. n., at pp. 815 The Hindu (New Delhi), 31 May 2002, at p.10.
41
Article 51 of the constitution of India.
42
http://www.un.org/icc/index.htm last accessed on 28th March 2019
43
Ibid.

India was also opposed to any pre-eminent role for the UN Security Council in relation to the
ICC. It wanted that the crimes should be defined precisely in the ICC Statute. Later,
explaining its vote on the adoption of the Statute of the ICC, the representative of India
stated:
Instead of legislating for the exception. The scope of the Statute has been broadened so much
that it could be misused for political purposes or through misplaced zeal, to address situations
and cases for which the ICC was not intended, and where, as a matter of principle, it should
not intrude. What the zealots have achieved, therefore, is a contradiction in terms: a court
framed with Armageddon in mind is set in Utopia."
Later, India complained that the Statute failed to mention international terrorism in the crimes
covered.44 It also wanted specific reference to the use of nuclear weapons, land mines, and
blinding lasers as war crimes. But, no such specific references were included.
Some of the more recent happenings in the world that attract application of IHL, and the
international response to them, both within the United Nations and outside, testify to India's
attitude towards IHL. It is true, as India has pointed out, that when a permanent member of
the Security Council has not accepted the jurisdiction of the court how can the council ask
another non-party to the Statute to submit to the jurisdiction of the court? It is a valid
viewpoint but the power of the Security Council and the obligations of its permanent
members flow pre-eminently not from the Statute of ICC, but from the Charter of the United
Nations.45 All that may be argued is that permanent members should not be allowed to move
a resolution in the Security Council for submission of a matter to the jurisdiction of ICC, or to
veto the one moved for submission of a situation to its jurisdiction.
Originated in the aspirations of a colonial country, India's attitude towards IHL evolved in
light of the concerns of a newly independent country in an ideologically divided world. While
India's respect for the principles of IHL has been next to none, its record of their observance
has nevertheless invited criticism. It has long implemented the Geneva Conventions as part of
its domestic law.46 However, inadequacies of the Act to deal with specific situations have
been noted by the Indian judiciary. If there is a need for India to bring its laws in line with
'constitutional contours of the Indian polity, equally urgent is a review of its approach to the
44
http://www.indianembassy.org.policy/ICC/ICC_UN_Statment.html Last Accessed on 28th March 2019
45
Ravindra Pratap, ‘Nuclear Arms Control Treaties and Non-Parties’, IJIL, vol.39, 1999, pp. 626-676
46
The Geneva Convention Act, 1960.

present IHL.47 Consequences of a non-party status to the Statute of ICC are neither the same
for all non-parties, nor can be countervailed by cooperation with a non-party permanent
member of the Security Council in the 'global' fight against terrorism.
India Has long recognized and has never questioned the link between IHL and human right
law. Rather, when it found that IHL principle would not be readily applicable to a given
situation, it accepted the applicability of the human right law. It is this link which has in
recent time comes to questioning India’s record, and serves to measure both the present scope
of IHL and India’s attitude towards it.48 Thus, it is no longer possible for India not to effect
changes in its domestic law necessary to comply with its obligation under the Genocide
Convention and yet claim a good faith observance of the ingrained in it.
47
Justice V.R. Krishna Iyer, ‘Pak terrorism and Indian Pacifism’, The Hindu, 17May 2002, p. 12.
48
Balakrishnan Rajagopal, ‘Gujrat: A plea and A Proposal’, The Hindu, 27 March 2002,

CONCLUSION
International humanitarian law (IHL), also known as the laws of war or the law of armed
conflict, is the legal framework applicable to situations of armed conflict and occupation. As
a set of rules and principles it aims, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of
armed conflict.
Fundamental to IHL are the following two principles:
1. Persons who are not, or are no longer, participating in hostilities must be protected;
and
2. The right of parties to an armed conflict to choose methods and means of warfare is
not unlimited.
IHL is a part of public international law. Public international law is a broad set of treaties,
customary law, principles and norms. The framework traditionally regulated relationships
only between States. It has evolved, however, to cover a broad range of actors. IHL is notable
in this regard, as it recognizes obligations for both States and non-State armed groups that are
parties to an armed conflict.
IHL regulates activity during armed conflict and situations of occupation. It is distinct from,
and applies irrespective of, the body of law that regulates the recourse to armed force. This
framework is known as the jus ad bellum, and is enshrined in the UN Charter. Once there is
an armed conflict IHL applies to all the parties, whether or not a party was legally justified in
using force under jus ad bellum principles.
At its core IHL represents a balance between military necessity and humanitarian
considerations in the context of conflict. Humanity, as a cornerstone of IHL, represents the
imperative during conflict to alleviate suffering and save lives, and to treat humanely and
respectfully each individual. Military necessity is the justification of measures necessary to
achieve a military goal, provided these measures comply with international humanitarian
law.
The balancing of humanity and military necessity is seen in the foundational IHL norms of
distinction and proportionality. Parties to an armed conflict are required to distinguish, at all
times, between civilians and combatants and between civilian objects and military objects.

Additionally, an attack may not be launched if it is anticipated to cause incidental loss of

civilian life, injury to civilians, or damage to civilian objects that would be excessive in
relation to the direct military advantage anticipated. Additional IHL principles include the
duty to take precautions to spare the civilian population before and during an attack, the
prohibition against infliction of unnecessary suffering or superfluous injury, and the
prohibition of indiscriminate attacks.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
Primary Sources
 Book referred
1. Mani V.S Handbook of International Humanitarian Law in South Asia (Oxford
university press) 3rd Edition 2014
2. Naorem Sanajaoba A Manual of International Humanitarian Laws” (Oxford
university press) 3rd Edition 2004
3. Balachandran &.Rose Verghese, Introduction to International Humanitarian Law,
ICRC New Delh, Sanajaob;(2004)
4. V.N.Shukla, “Constitution of India”, Eastern Book Company, 2004.
5. Alam, Aftab, Human Rights in India: Issues and Challenges (Delhi: Raj Publication,
2000
6. Dunne T. and Wheeler, N.J. (eds.): Human rights in global politics, (Cambridge:
Cambridge University Press, 2014)
Secondary Sources
 Journal /Article referred
1. Dr. Rakesh Kr. Singh, International Humanitarian Law and Protection of
Terrorism, Journal of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies, Jan-June
2008, Vol.42 p.79-88
2. V.S. Mani, The Fifth Afghan war and International Law’, Economic and
Political Weekly, Vol. 37, no. 4, 2002, pp. 294-298
3. Yogesh Tayagi, ‘The Conflict of Law and policy on Reservation to human
rights Treaties’, British Yerarbook of International Law, Vol. LXXI, 2000, p.
205
4. Seema P.S., “Incorporation of International Human Rights Documents into
Indian Law- Response of the Supreme Court”, CULR, 2006
 Reports Referred
1. Reports of the Economic and Social Council and of the Sixth Committee', UN
Doc. A/760/Corr.2, 3rd Session, 178th Plenary Meeting, pp. 826.
2. Gazette of India, Extraordinary, 160, Part 1, Section 2, at P. 1098

3. Reponses to proposal by Venezula and Pakistan. n., at pp. 815 The Hindu
(New Delhi), 31 May 2002, at p.10.
4. Balakrishnan Rajagopal, ‘Gujrat: A plea and A Proposal’,The Hindu, 27
March 2002.
 Website referred
1. http://avalon.law.yale.edu
2. http://en.wikipedia.org
3. http://indiankanoon.org
4. www.icj-cij.org
5. http://www.icc-cpi.int

Ational Aw Institute Niversity: Concept and Development of Humanitarian Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ational Aw Institute Niversity: Concept and Development of Humanitarian Law

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ational Aw Institute Niversity: Concept and Development of Humanitarian Law

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANITARIAN LAW

NATIONAL LAW INSTITUTE UNIVERSITY

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

CONCEPT AND DEVELOPMENT OF HUMANITARIAN LAW

Submitted to: Submitted by:

1|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

2|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

TITLE OF THE PROJECT:

3|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

 Nicaragaua case, ICJ Report 1986

II. TREATIES AND CONVENTIONS

4|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

 Constraints on the waging of war

Meaning of international humanitarian law.............................................................................11

Where did international humanitarian law originate?..........................................................11

When does international humanitarian law apply?..............................................................12

What does international humanitarian law cover?...............................................................13

Is international humanitarian law actually complied with?..................................................13

What should be done to implement the law?........................................................................13

Concept of human rights and humanitarian laws.....................................................................14

Development of International Humanitarian Laws (IHL).......................................................16

International Humanitarian Law..............................................................................................21

INDIA AND THE MAJOR IHL CONVENTIONS.............................................................21

Genocide Convention, 1948.............................................................................................21

GENEVA CONVENTIONS, 1949...................................................................................23

GENEVA CONVENTIONS ACT, 1960..........................................................................23

DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT 1970..............................................................24

STATUTE OF THE INTERNATIONAL CRIMINAL COURT, 1998...........................25

5|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

6|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

7|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

8|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

9|Page INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

1. The principle of 'elementary considerations of humanity'.

10 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Meaning of international humanitarian law

Where did international humanitarian law originate?

Universal codification of international humanitarian law began in the nineteenth century.

11 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

When does international humanitarian law apply?

International humanitarian law distinguishes between international and non-international

What does international humanitarian law cover?

12 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

 Restrictions on the means of warfare – in particular weapons – and the methods of

Is international humanitarian law actually complied with?

What should be done to implement the law?

Concept of human rights and humanitarian laws

13 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

14 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

Development of International Humanitarian Laws (IHL)

15 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

16 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

The Conventions were:

17 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

3. Convention on the treatment of prisoners of war (Geneva Convention III).

(1) Violence to life and person,

(2) Taking of hostage,

18 | P a g e INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

(3) Minimum standards for people deprived of their liberty.