相关规则
Canada
Practice Relating to Rule 65. Perfidy
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:
Acts inviting the confidence of adversaries and leading them to believe that they are entitled to protection or are obliged to grant protection under the LOAC, with intent to betray that confidence, constitute perfidy. In other words, perfidy consists of committing a hostile act under the cover of a legal protection.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 8 (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 16 (air warfare) and pp. 8-10 and 8-11, § 80 (naval warfare).
[emphasis in original]Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides: “Perfidy is a war crime.”
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 10, § 10.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states that the concept of chivalry “refers to the conduct of armed conflict in accordance with certain recognized formalities and courtesies”. It adds that “the concept of chivalry is reflected in specific prohibitions such as those against dishonourable or treacherous conduct and against misuse of enemy flags or flags of truce.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 202.7.
In its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare, the manual provides:
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture adversaries by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of adversaries and leading them to believe that they are entitled to protection or are obliged to grant protection under the LOAC, with intent to betray that confidence, constitute perfidy. In other words, perfidy consists of committing a hostile act under the cover of a legal protection.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.1 (land warfare), 706.1 (air warfare) and 857.1 (naval warfare).
[emphasis in original]Rule 10 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) states: “Perfidy is a war crime.”
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 10, § 10.
In the lesson plan for that rule, perfidy is defined as:
Acts inviting the confidence of adversaries and leading them to believe that they are entitled to protection or are obliged to grant protection under the Law of Armed Conflict, with intent to betray that confidence, constitute perfidy. In other words, perfidy consists of committing a hostile act under the cover of a legal protection (e.g., firing on a member of an opposing force who comes forward under the protection of a white flag).
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Chapter 3, Lesson Plan for Rule 10, TP6.
[emphasis in original]Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture adversaries by resort to perfidy.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 8 (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 16 (air warfare) and p. 8-10, § 80 (naval warfare).
The manual further provides that “treacherously killing or wounding any individual belonging to the hostile nation or army” constitutes a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 20(b).
The manual also states:
Assassination is prohibited. Assassination means the killing or wounding of a selected non-combatant for a political or religious motive. It is not forbidden, however, to send a detachment or individual members of the armed forces to kill, by sudden attack, a person who is a combatant.
If prior information of an intended assassination should reach the party on whose behalf the act is to be committed, that party should make the utmost effort to prevent its being carried out.
It is forbidden to put a price on the head of an enemy individual or to offer a bounty for an enemy “dead or alive”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-3, §§ 25–27.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare:
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture adversaries by resort to perfidy. Acts inviting the confidence of adversaries and leading them to believe that they are entitled to protection or are obliged to grant protection under the LOAC, with intent to betray that confidence, constitute perfidy. In other words, perfidy consists of committing a hostile act under the cover of a legal protection.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.1 (land warfare), 706.1 (air warfare) and 857.1 (naval warfare).
[emphasis in original]In the chapter on land warfare, the manual further states:
1. Assassination is prohibited. Assassination means the killing or wounding of a selected non-combatant for a political or religious motive. It is not forbidden, however, to send a detachment or individual members of the armed forces to kill, by sudden attack, a person who is a combatant.
2. If prior information of an intended assassination should reach the party on whose behalf the act is to be committed, that party should make the utmost effort to prevent its being carried out.
3. It is forbidden to put a price on the head of an enemy individual or to offer a bounty for an enemy “dead or alive.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 612.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that “treacherously killing or wounding any individual belonging to the hostile nation or army” constitutes a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.2.b.
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(b) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(b) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(c) (naval warfare).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning incapacitation by wounds or sickness.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.b (land warfare), 706.2.b (air warfare) and 857.2.c (naval warfare).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning … to surrender.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(a) (land warfare) and p. 7-2, § 17(a) (air warfare); see also p. 8-11, § 81(b) (naval warfare).
The manual also considers that “feigning surrender of an aircraft and then firing on an unsuspecting adversary after such surrender was accepted” constitutes perfidy in air warfare.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(b).
The manual further identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare and air warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: a. feigning an intent … to surrender”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.a (land warfare) and 706.2.a (air warfare).
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … b. feigning surrender of an aircraft and then firing on an unsuspecting adversary after such surrender was accepted”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.b.
In its chapter on naval warfare, the manual states: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … b. feigning distress or surrender (e.g., by sending a distress signal or by the crew taking to the life rafts)”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 857.2.b.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.”
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(a) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(a) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(a) (naval warfare).
The manual also states: “It is an abuse of the white flag to make use of it solely for the purpose of moving troops without interference by the adverse party.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 14-1, § 8.
The manual further states that “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: a. feigning an intent to negotiate under a flag of truce.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.a (land warfare), 706.2.a (air warfare) and 857.2.a (naval warfare).
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides that “every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence”.
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states that “feigning … non-combatant status” is a perfidious act and that medical personnel of the armed forces are non-combatants.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 3-3, § 20, p. 6-2, § 9(c) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(c) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(d) (naval warfare); see also p. 8-10, § 79(f) (prohibition of actively simulating the status of vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the red cross and red crescent).
The manual also provides that “using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … medical aircraft” is an act of perfidy in air warfare.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(a).
The manual further provides that “perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides: “The use of the Red Cross to shield the movement of troops or ammunitions is … prohibited … Committing a hostile act under the cover of the protection provided by the distinctive emblem would constitute perfidy.”
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 10, § 10.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on naval warfare: “Warships and auxiliary vessels are also prohibited from actively simulating the status of: … f. vessels entitled to be identified by the emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 856.5.f.
In its chapter on air warfare, the manual states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … medical aircraft”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.a.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross or Red Crescent”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) provides:
False and improper use of the Red Cross/Red Crescent emblem is prohibited. The use of the Red Cross to shield the movement of troops or ammunitions is also prohibited. Perfidy is a war crime. Committing a hostile act under the cover of the protection provided by the distinctive emblem would constitute perfidy.
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 10, § 10.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.”
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
In an amendment to that Act, assented to on 22 June 2007, provision was made for the distinctive emblem contained within Additional Protocol III to be considered a distinctive emblem within the context of the Additional Protocol I provision that regards perfidious use of the distinctive emblem as a grave breach of the Protocol. This stated: “[T]he distinctive emblems mentioned in Article 85, paragraph 3(f) of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] are deemed to include the third Protocol emblem, referred to in Article 2, paragraph 2 of [Additional Protocol III].”
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended by An Act to amend the Geneva Conventions Act, an Act to incorporate the Canadian Red Cross Society and the Trade-marks Act, assented to on 22 June 2007, Section 3(1.1).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(d) (land warfare); see also p. 7-2, § 17(d) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(e) (naval warfare).
The manual also considers it an act of perfidy in air warfare if a hostile act is committed while “using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … United Nations aircraft”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(a).
The manual further states that “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [Additional Protocol] I” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.d (land warfare), 706.2.d (air warfare) and 857.2.e (naval warfare).
In the chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … United Nations aircraft”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.a.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.”
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.
Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).
In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”
Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.”
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides that “the perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [Additional Protocol] I” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999), in its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning civilian, non-combatant status.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(c) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(c) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(d) (naval warfare).
It also considers it an act of perfidy in air warfare if a hostile act is committed while “using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of civil aircraft”. Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(a).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning civilian, non-combatant status”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.c (land warfare), 706.2.c (air warfare) and 857.2.d (naval warfare).
In the chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of civil aircraft”.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.a.
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms … of neutral or other states not parties to the conflict.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(d) (land warfare), p. 7-2, § 17(d) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(e) (naval warfare).
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of … neutral or other states not parties to the conflict.”
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.d (land warfare), 706.2.d (air warfare) and 857.2.e (naval warfare).
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.”
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
