Treaties, States Parties and Commentaries
  • Print page
Commentary of 1960 


Throughout the Diplomatic Conference of 1949 and earlier during the preparatory work, two versions of the same Convention were drawn up simultaneously, French and English, both being recognized on an equal footing as working languages. The 1929 Conventions, on the other hand, had been drawn up in French only, as French was still the leading diplomatic language at that time.
It is then laid down that both texts are equally authentic, carry the same weight and are equally valid. In the same way, ratifications and accessions will be valid for the two versions.
The solution thus adopted conforms to the most recent international practice. The consequence will be that the interpretation [p.635] of the Convention will be made easier, as the two texts can be compared and one will throw light on the other, but that there will be an awkward problem to solve when the two texts differ.
It is generally difficult to give exact expression to the same idea in different languages. Moreover, the Diplomatic Conference was unable to ensure that the two versions corresponded exactly. In order to overcome conflicting interpretations, the International Committee of the Red Cross had suggested, in its draft proposals, that where there was doubt as to the interpretation of a provision, the French version should be taken as the correct one. The suggestion was not adopted, however, by the Diplomatic Conference.
Where divergencies exist, those responsible for applying the Convention will have to find out what is known in municipal law as the intention of the legislator. In the case in point, it will be the joint will of the parties represented at the Conference. The method adopted will therefore have to be that of legal interpretation with the help of the Final Record of the Conference and the preliminary texts (1).


This provision too is an innovation so far as the Geneva Conventions are concerned, and has the particular advantage of avoiding the production of a variety of different versions in the numerous Spanish-speaking countries.
The Russian and Spanish versions are official in that the body which prepared them was specified in the Convention itself, but, unlike the French and English, they are not authentic, and the French and English versions would be regarded as correct in the event of any divergencies.

* (1) [(1) p.635] This procedure is generally followed in
countries which, like Switzerland, promulgate their
national laws in several languages, each version being
equally authentic;

(2) [(2) p.635] There are also translations into German and
Italian made by the Swiss Federal Council, not at the
request of the Diplomatic Conference, but under an
obligation of Swiss law;