Section A. Captured combatants and prisoners of war
Geneva POW Convention
Article 2, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides: “Measures of reprisal against [prisoners of war] are forbidden.”
Geneva Convention III
Article 13, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III provides: “Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.”
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 7.2 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin which deals under Section 7.1 with the protection of “persons not, or no longer, taking part in military operations, including civilians, members of armed forces who have laid down their weapons and persons placed
hors de combat by reason of … detention”, states: “The following acts against any of the persons mentioned in section 7.1 are prohibited at any time and in any place: … reprisals.”
UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin
Section 8 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin, dealing with “Treatment of detained persons”, states: “Without prejudice to their legal status, they shall be treated in accordance with the relevant provisions of the Third Geneva Convention of 1949, as may be applicable to them
mutatis mutandis.”
ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility
Article 50(1) of the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, dealing with “Obligations not affected by countermeasures”, states: “Countermeasures shall not affect: … (c) obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals.”
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969), in a provision dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war, refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and provides: “Measures of reprisal with respect to them remain prohibited.”
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989), in an annex containing a list of “Fundamental rules of International Humanitarian Law applicable in armed conflict”, provides: “Captured combatants … will be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals.”
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states: “Protected from the moment of their surrender or capture, PW [prisoners of war] and PW camps must not be made the objects of … reprisals.”
The Guide further refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Protected persons … should not be the subject of reprisals.”
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994), in a provision dealing with prisoners of war, provides: “Protected from the moment of their surrender or capture, prisoners of war must not be made the object of attack or reprisals.”
In a chapter entitled “Prisoners of war and detained persons”, the manual states: “The fundamental rules for the treatment of PW [prisoners of war] are: … reprisals against them are prohibited.”
The manual also states: “Reprisals may be justified but only against military objectives.”
In another provision, the manual states: “Protected persons … should not be the subject of reprisals.”
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Protected from the moment of their surrender or capture, PW [prisoners of war] must not be made the object of attack or reprisals.”
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983), citing several examples of jurisprudence, states:
The persons protected by the Geneva Conventions (… prisoners of war …) … may not be made the object of reprisals. Therefore, [reprisals] may be directed only against combatants, non-protected property and a restricted group of non-protected civilians.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states: “The following prohibitions must be respected: … to launch reprisals against protected persons and property.” It adds that reprisals “may only be used if: … they are carried out only against combatants and military objectives.”
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994), in a provision entitled “Laws and customs of war” dealing with the duties of and prohibitions for combatants, states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat: … to engage in reprisals or collective punishments.”
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999), in the section dealing with the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs), provides: “Reprisals against PWs are prohibited.”
In the section dealing with enforcement measures, the manual further states: “Reprisals are permitted against combatants and against objects constituting military objectives.”

In the same section, it states: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are prohibited: … c. prisoners of war (PWs)”.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides: “No reprisals will be taken against PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees.”
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on the treatment of prisoners of war (PWs): “Reprisals against PWs are prohibited.”
In its chapter entitled “Preventative and enforcement measures and the role of protecting powers”, the manual states:
4. Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are prohibited:
…
c. prisoners of war (PWs);
…
5. Reprisals are permitted against combatants and against objects constituting military objectives.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states:
No reprisals will be taken against PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees … CF [Canadian Forces] personnel will treat detained persons properly regardless of how CF personnel may have been treated while in the hands of opposing forces.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders): “Captured combatants … must be protected against … reprisals.”
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war”.
Colombia
Colombia’s Circular on Fundamental Rules of IHL (1992) provides: “Captured combatants … shall be protected against … reprisals.”
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986), in a provision entitled “International conventions, laws and customs of war”, states: “According to the conventions adhered to by the Congo … it is prohibited [to soldiers in combat]: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
Customary law regarded measures of reprisal taken by a belligerent party as one of the lawful means intended to enforce the application of the law.
However, since these measures often lead to an escalation of the violence and generally strike persons who are not the true culprits, the law of reprisals of belligerent parties has progressively been restricted. Thus, reprisal measures against protected persons and objects are the subject of an express prohibition in the four 1949 Geneva Conventions.
In Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders), the Teaching Manual provides: “Measures of reprisal against POWs [prisoners of war] are prohibited.”
Croatia
Croatia’s Instructions on Basic Rules of IHL (1993) states that captured combatants and civilians must be protected against all acts of violence and reprisals.
Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) states that reprisals are prohibited against prisoners of war. It further provides for the prohibition of taking reprisals against “specifically protected persons and objects”.
Cuba
Cuba’s Regulation of the Internal Order of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (2002) states: “During combat operations, servicemen [will] … avoid reprisals against … [captured enemies], in accordance with the norms and principles of International Humanitarian Law.”
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980), under the heading “Treat all captives and detainees humanely”, states: “You must never carry out reprisals or acts of vengeance against any person, enemy or civilian, you have taken prisoner or detained during the fighting.”
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) provides: “Reprisals are forbidden to be taken against: 1. Prisoners of war …”. It also provides: “Prisoners of war may not be subjected to collective punishment nor may reprisal action be taken against them.”
France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, in a provision entitled “Respect for the rules of international law applicable in armed conflicts” dealing with the duties of and prohibitions for combatants, states: “By virtue of the international conventions ratified or approved: … it is prohibited [to soldiers in combat]: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments.”
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) provides: “Captured combatants … must be protected against violence and reprisals.”
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001), in the chapter dealing with means and methods of warfare, states: “The law of armed conflict prohibits … the methods of warfare which consist in the recourse: … to reprisals against non-military objectives”.
The manual refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war”.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991) states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are forbidden.”
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, provides: “It is expressly prohibited by agreement to make reprisals against: … prisoners of war (Art. 13 para 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Convention III])”.
In the part dealing with the protection of prisoners of war, and under a provision entitled “Fundamental rules for the treatment of prisoners of war”, the manual refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and provides: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.”
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996) provides: “Reprisals are expressly prohibited against … prisoners of war”.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.”
Greece
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides: “In the context of armed conflict, reprisals are prohibited … [a]gainst prisoners of war.”
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) states that reprisals are prohibited against prisoners of war. It further provides for the prohibition of taking reprisals against “specifically protected persons and objects”.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Air Force Manual (1990) provides that a “reprisal is absolutely prohibited against protected persons and objects”.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states: “Reprisals against PWs [prisoners of war] are prohibited. That is, PWs may not be punished for the acts of other people as a means of bringing pressure on the enemy to desist from such acts.”
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991), providing for the prohibition of reprisals against prisoners of war, states: “The observance of international rules which expressly provide for the obligation to abide by them in any circumstances cannot be suspended by way of reprisals, such as, for instance, the rules regarding prisoners of war.”
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “It is forbidden: … (e) to carry out reprisals against protected persons or property”.
In the chapter dealing with reprisals, the manual further provides that reprisals “are carried out only against combatants and military objectives … The Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] prohibit reprisals against prisoners of war.”
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) instructs soldiers not to take hostages and to refrain from all acts of revenge.
In the attached list of “Fundamental rules of international humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts”, the manual states: “Captured combatants … will be protected against any act of violence and reprisals.”
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974), in a provision entitled “Laws and customs of war” dealing with the duties of and prohibitions for combatants, states: “It is prohibited to soldiers in combat: … to take hostages, to engage in reprisals or collective punishments”.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands, in the chapter dealing with the protection of prisoners of war, states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are forbidden.”
Netherlands
The Military Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands states: “Protected persons under the laws of war are: … prisoners of war … Reprisals against them must not be taken.”
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited. Prisoners of war are entitled to respect for their persons and their honour. The paramount requirement here is a ban on killing, wounding or endangering prisoners of war.
In its chapter on methods and means of warfare, the manual states:
In the history of warfare, reprisals carried out have often exceeded the set limits. This has led to the current prohibition, in the humanitarian law of war and specifically in AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I], of reprisals against several groups of people and objects.
The following are now forbidden as reprisals:
…
- attacks on prisoners of war.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992), in the chapter dealing with prisoners of war and referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited.”
In the footnote relative to this provision, the manual states:
Since prisoners of war are in the Power of the Detaining Power, they are among the easiest victims for reprisal action and are, of themselves, unable to affect the conduct of their national government. The [1907 Hague Regulations] made no reference to this matter and during World War I prisoners were often made the object of reprisals. The ban on such action first appeared in the 1929 Geneva Convention on Prisoners of War, Art. 2. In accordance with the provisions of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], reprisals are forbidden against all persons who are hors de combat, as well as against protected objects, the destruction of which would primarily affect such persons. During World War II the Germans fettered British prisoners of war claiming it as a reprisal for a raid on Sark in 1942, when five German captives had their hands tied so that they could be linked to their captors while being escorted to the boats of the raiding party. During the Dieppe raid, the Germans captured a Canadian order authorising the tying of prisoners’ hands, the Germans protested about the order, which was subsequently described as unauthorised and countermanded.
In the chapter dealing with reprisals and referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention I and Article 44 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the manual further states: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are prohibited … prisoners of war”.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Manual (1996), in the part dealing with international armed conflict, states: “Prisoners of war … must be protected against … measures of reprisal.”
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994), in a part dealing with the 1949 Geneva Convention III, states: “Reprisals directed against prisoner[s] of war are prohibited.”
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War provides: “It is prohibited to take measures of reprisal against prisoners of war as a retaliation for violation of the Laws of War by the enemy.”
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that reprisals against “prisoners of war” are prohibited.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that reprisals against “prisoners of war” are prohibited.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “Soldiers who have surrendered or who are in the control of the enemy cannot be made the object of reprisal and must be protected.” It further provides: “Reprisals against the persons and property of prisoners of war … are prohibited.”
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “Soldiers who have surrendered or who are in the control of the enemy cannot be made the object of reprisal”.
The manual also prohibits reprisals against the persons or property of prisoners of war.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
Fundamental Norms and Values (rules)
The fundamental norms/val[u]es which underlie the LOAC [law of armed conflict] are:
…
- Captured combatants and civilians under the authority of an adverse party are entitled to respect for their lives, dignity, personal rights and convictions. They must be protected against all acts of violence and retaliation.
The manual also states:
Reprisals
…
- The LOAC prohibits reprisals against the following:
…
- POW [prisoners of war][.]
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, lists prisoners of war among the persons against whom the taking of reprisals is prohibited.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, lists prisoners of war among the persons against whom the taking of reprisals is prohibited.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991), while noting that the Swedish IHL Committee strongly discourages even this possibility in view of its manifestly inhuman effect, states:
Under Additional Protocol I, reprisals are permitted only against military personnel. A state acceding to Additional Protocol I thereby accepts a limitation of its freedom to employ reprisals. The [Swedish International Humanitarian Law] Committee believes that this involves a considerable humanitarian advance.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987), in the chapter dealing with the “Fundamental protection of prisoners of war”, contains a provision entitled “Prohibition of reprisals” which refers to Article 13, third paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Measures of reprisal are prohibited with regard to prisoners of war.”
In the provision dealing with reprisals, referring,
inter alia, to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, the manual further states: “By virtue of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, [reprisals] are prohibited with regard to … prisoners of war”.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states: “Prisoners must be humanely treated at any time and in any place. Any act of torture, physical or mental ill-treatment, degrading treatment or discrimination as well as measures of reprisal are prohibited.”

(emphasis in original)
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states: “The following prohibitions must be respected: … to launch reprisals against protected persons and property”.
The manual adds that reprisals “may only be used if: … they are carried out only against combatants and military objectives”.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “Reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war”.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states:
Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited. This prohibition is of an absolute character, so that reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited even if intended to be adopted as a measure of retaliation against the violation of provisions of [the 1949 Geneva Convention III] by the other party. Reprisals against such violations of the Convention are permissible, but they must not be directed against prisoners of war or any other persons protected by the 1949 Conventions.
In the part dealing with reprisals, the manual refers to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and states: “Reprisals against prisoners of war … are … prohibited.” In a footnote relating to this provision, the manual further notes: “Reprisals are unlawful against all persons except enemy combatants and those few classes of civilians who are not protected persons.”
In a footnote relating to another provision, the manual states: “Reprisals against … prisoners of war … constitute war crimes.”
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides: “The [1949] Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] prohibit reprisals against prisoners of war.”
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Reprisals can never lawfully be taken against prisoners of war.”
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, states:
Reprisals against the persons or property of prisoners of war, including the wounded and sick, … are forbidden … However, reprisals may still be visited on enemy troops who have not yet fallen into the hands of the forces making the reprisals.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III, provides:
Reprisals against prisoners of war are prohibited … 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.
The Pamphlet further states:
Reprisals are forbidden, under all circumstances, against the persons or objects referenced above in accordance with the 1949 Geneva Conventions. At least some, and possibly all, of these prohibitions are regarded as customary law and are binding regardless of whether the adversary is a party to the Geneva Conventions. For definitions as to persons or objects protected under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, applicable articles of those documents must be consulted.
In the chapter dealing with the 1949 Geneva Convention III, the Pamphlet reiterates: “Measures of reprisal against prisoners of war are prohibited.”
United States of America
The US Air Force Commander’s Handbook (1980), under the heading “Persons and Things Not Subject to Reprisals”, states:
Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions, reprisals may not be directed against … prisoners of war. (The reprisals against British prisoners of war that the United States threatened during the Revolution would thus be illegal today, though at the time, reprisals against PWs [prisoners of war] were lawful.)
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984), under the heading “Treat all captives and detainees humanely”, tells soldiers: “You must never engage in reprisals or acts of revenge against any persons, enemy or civilian, whom you capture or detain in combat.”
United States of America
The US Operational Law Handbook (1993) provides:
The following measures are expressly prohibited by the law of war and are not excusable on the basis of military necessity:
…
m. Reprisals against persons or property protected by the Geneva Conventions, to include … prisoners of war, detained personnel …
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “Reprisals are forbidden to be taken against: 1. Prisoners of war”. It also provides: “Prisoners of war may not be subjected to collective punishment nor may reprisal action be taken against them.”
United States of America
The Annotated Supplement to the US Naval Handbook (1997), with regard to the prohibition of taking reprisals against prisoners of war, states:
In light of the wide acceptance of the 1949 Geneva Conventions by the nations of the world today, this prohibition is part of customary law … The taking of prisoners by way of reprisal for acts previously committed (so-called “reprisal prisoners”) is likewise forbidden.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states: “Reprisals are forbidden to be taken against: 1. Prisoners of war”.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states: “The laws of war prohibit reprisals against the following persons and objects: … prisoners of war”.
Colombia
Under Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), reprisals against protected persons and objects taken “in the event of and during armed conflict” are punishable offences.
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment].
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “Prisoners of war … are protected persons … Reprisals against protected persons are prohibited.”
Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides: “Respect for rules adopted in order to comply with international conventions which expressly exclude reprisals cannot be suspended.”
Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Treatment of Prisoners of War and Other Detainees in Armed Attack Situations (2004) states: “No person shall expose any adverse distinction on prisoners of war … in revenge for armed attack.”
Somalia
Somalia’s Military Criminal Code (1963) states:
A commander who causes serious harm to lawful enemy belligerents who have fallen into his power … by not according them the treatment prescribed by law or by international agreements or who resorts to reprisals, shall be punished, unless the act constitutes a more serious offence, by military confinement for not less than three years.
Argentina
In the
Priebke case in 1995, Argentina’s Public Prosecutor of First Instance, dealing with Italy’s request to extradite the accused, held that the alleged killing in reprisal of 330 civilians and prisoners of war committed by German soldiers in the Ardeatine Caves in Italy during the Second World War was “an act which must be qualified as a war crime”.
Netherlands
In its judgment in the
Rauter case in 1949, the Special Court of Cassation of the Netherlands, dealing with the limits to reprisals, stated: “Among the limits referred to, the prohibition should especially be mentioned of taking reprisals against prisoners of war, as this was expressly prohibited by Art. 2 of the 1929 [Geneva POW] Convention.”
United States of America
In its judgment in the
Dostler case in 1945, in which a German commander had been accused of having ordered, in March 1944, the shooting of 15 American prisoners of war in violation of the 1907 Hague Regulations, the US Military Commission at Rome referred to Article 2, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention and held that from this provision followed that under the law as codified by this Convention there can be no legitimate reprisals against prisoners of war. No soldier, and still less a Commanding General, could be heard to say that he considered the summary shooting of prisoners of war legitimate even as a reprisal. Referring to the decision of the German Reichsgericht in the
Dover Castle case, the US Military Commission of Rome stated that through the express provision of Article 2, third paragraph, of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention the decision of the German Reichsgericht in the said case had lost even such little persuasive authority as it may have had at the time it was rendered.
Canada
In 1986, in a memorandum on Canada’s attitude to possible reservations with regard to the 1977 Additional Protocol I, the Canadian Ministry of Defence noted: “The Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibit reprisals against certain categories of persons such as … prisoners of war”.
Colombia
At the CDDH, following the adoption of Article 20 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, Colombia stated that it “was opposed to any kind of reprisals”.
Egypt
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the
Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated: “Reprisals are prohibited against … prisoners of war … The prohibition applies in respect of all weapons. In consequence, they (i.e. protected persons and objects) can never become targets of any attack, including nuclear attacks.”
Egypt
In its written comments on other written statements submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Egypt stated:
Reprisals are prohibited against protected persons and objects according to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their additional Protocols. This prohibition of reprisal is absolute and applies to the use of all weapons. In consequence, the protected persons and objects can never become targets of any attack, including nuclear attacks. The provisions of the Conventions and the Protocols carrying this prohibition of reprisals against protected persons and objects are considered declaratory of customary law.
France
At the CDDH, France made a proposal for a draft article on reprisals within the 1977 Additional Protocol I – which it later withdrew – which read,
inter alia, as follows: “3… . The measures may not involve any actions prohibited by the Geneva Conventions of 1949.”
Germany, Federal Republic of
At the CDDH, the Federal Republic of Germany, with respect to the French proposal on reprisals according to which “the measures may not involve any actions prohibited by the Geneva Conventions of 1949”, stated that this provision “was the most important in the whole of the proposal since it really did protect prisoners of war”.
Iraq
On the basis of the reply by Iraq’s Ministry of Defence to a questionnaire, the Report on the Practice of Iraq states that reprisals “must not be directed, in any way, against … prisoners of war …, but [have] to be confined to purely military targets”.
Israel
According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) do not condone nor conduct reprisals against persons or objects protected by the 1949 Geneva Conventions.
Jordan
According to the Report on the Practice of Jordan, “The prohibition of belligerent reprisals against protected persons and property is viewed as customary law … In practice, Jordan never resorted to attacks by way of reprisal.”
Lebanon
In 1984, during a debate in the UN Security Council, Lebanon stated with respect to Israeli practices that it deplored the fact that the “occupying authorities often resort to inhuman reprisals … against the detainees, practices which are in violation of articles 27 and 32 of the fourth Geneva Convention and article 46 of [the 1907 Hague Regulations]”.
Philippines
The Report on the Practice of the Philippines states: “Reprisals are generally prohibited.”
Poland
At the CDDH, Poland made a proposal for a draft article on reprisals within the 1977 Additional Protocol I – which it later withdrew – which read,
inter alia, as follows: “Insert a new article after [draft] Article 70 worded as follows: ‘Measures of reprisal against persons and objects protected by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and by the present Protocol are prohibited’.”
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states: “International humanitarian law does not include any general prohibition of reprisals. There are however numerous provisions that prohibit specific types of reprisal, in particular reprisals against
Protected persons such as
… Prisoners of war.”
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, the United Kingdom stated:
To be lawful, a belligerent reprisal must meet two conditions. First, it must not be directed against persons or objects against which the taking of reprisals is specifically prohibited … The Geneva Conventions of 1949 prohibit the taking of reprisals against persons or objects protected by the Conventions.
United States of America
In April 1965, when a North Vietnamese prisoner was sentenced to death by a South Vietnamese court, the communist rebel group announced that if the sentence was carried out, it would kill an American aid officer in their hands. Neither of the executions was carried out. Three months later, a North Vietnamese prisoner was executed apparently after having been tried, convicted and sentenced by a South Vietnamese special military tribunal. A few days later, it was announced that an American sergeant held as a prisoner of war had been executed in reprisal. In September 1965, three North Vietnamese prisoners were executed, again apparently after having been tried, convicted and sentenced. The execution of two American prisoners of war in reprisal was announced a few days later.
The United States refused to accept that the executions were justified as reprisals and the acts were denounced as “two more acts of brutal murder.” The ICRC was asked to take all possible action with respect to these violations.
North Vietnam also threatened to treat captured US pilots as war criminals subject to trial. The United States charged that the threat was to justify reprisals for executions by the South Vietnamese of North Vietnamese prisoners as terrorists.
United States of America
An instruction card issued to all US troops engaged in Viet Nam directed soldiers always to treat prisoners humanely, adding: “All persons in your hands, whether suspects, … or combat captives, must be protected against violence, insults, curiosity, and reprisals of any kind.”
United States of America
At the 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965, the US delegate declared that his government had been “shocked and deeply saddened by the brutal murder of prisoners of war as acts of reprisals” in the Vietnam War and that it was “profoundly concerned that other prisoners may be executed in violation of international law”.
United States of America
According the Report on US Practice: “The United States does not regard the summary execution of persons in custody as a lawful means of reprisals.”
UN Security Council
In 1980, in a statement by its President regarding the capture and killing of two UNIFIL soldiers by the
de facto forces in southern Lebanon after the UN had been warned that reprisals would be taken if there were any victims following UNIFIL actions, the UN Security Council stated that “[t]he members of the Security Council are shocked and outraged at the report that the Council has received on … the cold-blooded murder of peace-keeping soldiers” and denounced the “unprecedented, barbaric act”.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1991 on the situation of human rights in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly urged all parties to the conflict “to protect all prisoners of war from acts of reprisals”.
The General Assembly reiterated this appeal in 1992.
UN General Assembly
In 2001, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution on the responsibility of States for internationally wrongful acts, to which the 2001 ILC Draft Articles on State Responsibility, and thus Article 50(1)(c) stating that “[c]ountermeasures shall not affect … obligations of a humanitarian character prohibiting reprisals”, were annexed. In the resolution, the General Assembly took note of the Draft Articles and commended them to the attention of governments “without prejudice to the question of their future adoption or other appropriate action”.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1989 on the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Afghanistan, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all parties to the conflict “to treat all prisoners in their custody in accordance with the internationally recognized principles of humanitarian law and to protect them from all acts of reprisal and violence”.
The Commission on Human Rights reiterated these appeals in 1990, 1991 and 1992.
UN Secretary-General
In 1980, the UN Secretary-General reported to the Security Council that two UNIFIL soldiers had been captured and killed by the
de facto forces in southern Lebanon. UNIFIL had been warned that if there were any victims following UNIFIL actions, reprisals would be taken.
A few days later, the UN Under Secretary-General for Special Political Affairs told the Security Council: “This murder of unarmed soldiers can only be described as a killing in cold blood, following on repeated threats by the
de facto forces against the lives of members of UNIFIL.”
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)
In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), referring to Article 13 of the 1949 Geneva Convention III and Article 44 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, stated: “Reprisals against the following categories of persons and objects are specifically prohibited: … (c) Prisoners of war”.
The Commission further stated:
In international armed conflicts to which the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I apply, lawful reprisals … must be directed exclusively against combatants or other military objectives subject to the limitations contained in the Geneva Conventions, Protocol I and customary international law of armed conflicts. In international armed conflicts where Additional Protocol I does not apply, reprisals may be directed against a much wider category of persons and objects, but subject to the limitations of customary international law of armed conflicts.
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1969)
The 21st International Conference of the Red Cross in 1969 adopted a resolution on the protection of prisoners of war in which it recognized that irrespective of the 1949 Geneva Convention III,
the international community has consistently demanded humane treatment for prisoners of war, including identification and accounting for all prisoners, provision of an adequate diet and medical care, authorization for prisoners to communicate with each other and with the exterior, the prompt repatriation of seriously sick or wounded prisoners, and protection at all times from physical and mental torture, abuse and reprisals.
No data.
ICRC
The US protest against the execution of two American prisoners of war during the Vietnam War, which had been justified as a reprisal, was forwarded to the adversary by the ICRC.
Kalshoven
Kalshoven notes: “None of the parties to the conflict in Vietnam have so much hinted at the argument that common Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] would not prohibit reprisals.”