Practice Relating to Rule 148. Reprisals in Non-International Armed Conflicts
At the CDDH in 1976, in an explanation of vote concerning Article 10 bis
of the Additional Protocol II, Mexico stated that it “had opposed the adoption of article 10 bis
, because it introduced the notion of reprisals in internal conflicts, which was unacceptable”.
At the CDDH in 1977, Mexico reiterated “its formal objection to any provision that would authorize reprisals either directly or a contrario
With regard to draft Article 10 bis
of Additional Protocol II, Mexico re-emphasized that it “objected to any provision that would authorize reprisals either directly or indirectly”.
In its explanation of vote on draft Article 74 of the Additional Protocol I and draft Article 10 bis
of the Additional Protocol II, Mexico stated that it had voted against draft Article 10 bis
of the Additional Protocol II on the basis of its conviction that “experience shows that reprisals do not lead the enemy to respect humanitarian law, but result in an increase in violations and hostilities”. Mexico believed that the draft provision, as well as the French and Polish proposals, would have authorized reprisals (the Polish in an a contrario sensu
) and that “the mandatory nature of humanitarian law does not depend on the observance of its rules by the adverse Party, but stems from the inherently wrongful nature of the act prohibited by international humanitarian law”, and therefore voted against these provisions.