Practice Relating to Rule 139. Respect for International Humanitarian Law

Geneva Convention (1929)
Article 25 of the 1929 Geneva Convention provides: “The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.” 
Convention for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armies in the Field, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 25.
Geneva POW Convention
Article 82 of the 1929 Geneva POW Convention provides: “The provisions of the present Convention shall be respected by the High Contracting Parties in all circumstances.” 
Convention relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 27 July 1929, Article 82.
Geneva Conventions (1949)
Common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions provides: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” 
Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (III) relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1; Convention (IV) relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Geneva, 12 August 1949, Article 1.
Additional Protocol I
Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for this Protocol in all circumstances.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 1(1). Article 1 was adopted by 87 votes in favour, one against and 11 abstentions. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.36, 23 May 1977, p. 41, § 58.
Convention on the Rights of the Child
Article 38(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child provides: “States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for rules of international humanitarian law applicable to them in armed conflicts which are relevant to the child.” 
Convention on the Rights of the Child, adopted by the UN General Assembly, Res. 44/25, 20 November 1989, Article 38(1).
Kampala Convention
Article 3(1)(e) of the 2009 Kampala Convention provides that States Parties shall “[r]espect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law regarding the protection of internally displaced persons”. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa, adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 3(1)(e).
In Article 4(1), the Convention further provides:
States Parties shall respect and ensure respect for their obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, so as to prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to arbitrary displacement of persons. 
African Union Convention for the Protection and Assistance of Internally Displaced Persons in Africa adopted in Kampala, Uganda, 23 October 2009, Article 4(1).
Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement
Article 3(2) of the 1986 Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, dealing with tasks of the National Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, provides that the National Societies “also co-operate with their governments to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and to protect the red cross and red crescent emblems”. 
Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, adopted by the 25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Article 3(2).
Hague Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles
In the introductory paragraph to the 1991 Hague Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, the Presidents of the six republics of the former Yugoslavia undertook “to respect and ensure respect for International Humanitarian Law”. 
Statement on Respect for Humanitarian Principles, signed by the Presidents of the Six Republics of the former Yugoslavia, The Hague, 5 November 1991, introductory paragraph.
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia
Paragraph 14 of the 1991 Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of IHL between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia provides: “The parties will respect the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and will ensure that any paramilitary or irregular units not formally under their command, control or political influence respect the present agreement.” 
Memorandum of Understanding on the Application of International Humanitarian Law between Croatia and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Geneva, 27 November 1991, § 14.
Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina
Paragraph 1 of the 1992 Agreement on the Application of IHL between the Parties to the Conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina provides: “The parties commit themselves to respect and to ensure respect for the Article 3 of the four Geneva Conventions.” 
Agreement between Representatives of Mr. Alija Izetbegović (President of the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina and President of the Party of Democratic Action), Representatives of Mr. Radovan Karadžić (President of the Serbian Democratic Party), and Representative of Mr. Miljenko Brkić (President of the Croatian Democratic Community), Geneva, 22 May 1992, § 1.
London Programme of Action on Humanitarian Issues
Article 3(i) and (ii) of the 1992 London Programme of Action on Humanitarian Issues provides:
In carrying out the Programme of Action, the parties to the conflict undertook to abide by the following provisions:
i) all parties to the conflict are bound to comply with their obligations under International Humanitarian Law and in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto …
ii) all parties to the conflict have the responsibility to exercise full authority over undisciplined elements within their areas so as to avoid anarchy, breaches of international humanitarian law and human rights abuse. 
Programme of Action on Humanitarian Issues agreed between the Co-chairmen of the London International Conference and the Parties to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, London, 27 August 1992, annexed to Report by the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights on the situation of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1993/50, 10 February 1993, Annex III, Article 3(i) and (ii).
Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict
Paragraph 16 of the 1994 Guidelines on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict provides: “States shall respect and ensure respect for the obligations under international law applicable in armed conflict, including the rules providing protection for the environment in times of armed conflict.”  
Revised Guidelines for Military Manuals and Instructions on the Protection of the Environment in Times of Armed Conflict, prepared by the International Committee of the Red Cross and presented to the UN Secretary-General, annexed to Report of the Secretary-General on the United Nations Decade of International Law, UN Doc. A/49/323, 19 August 1994, pp. 49–53, § 16.
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
Principle 5 of the 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement provides:
All authorities and international actors shall respect and ensure respect for their obligations under international law, including human rights and humanitarian law, in all circumstances, so as to prevent and avoid conditions that might lead to displacement of persons. 
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement, presented to the UN Commission on Human Rights by the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1998/53/Add.2, 11 February 1998, Principle 5.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 1 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides: “Every State has the obligation to respect, ensure respect for and enforce international human rights and humanitarian law norms.” 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 1.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law (2000)
Article 3 of the 2000 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law provides:
The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and enforce international human rights and humanitarian law includes, inter alia, a State’s duty to:
(a) Take appropriate legal and administrative measures to prevent violations;
(b) Investigate violations and, where appropriate, take action against the violator in accordance with domestic and international law;
(c) Provide victims with equal and effective access to justice irrespective of who may be the ultimate bearer of responsibility for the violation;
(d) Afford appropriate remedies to victims; and
(e) Provide for or facilitate reparation to victims. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, annexed to The Right to Restitution, Compensation and Rehabilitation for Victims of Gross Violations of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms: Final Report of the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights, submitted in accordance with UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1999/33, UN Doc. E/CN.4/2000/62,18 January 2000, Article 3.
Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses
The 2005 Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses states:
Reaffirming that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law and should adopt such measures in conformity with the Charter of the United Nations and international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,
Declare as follows:
4. We welcome the entry into force of the United Nations Convention against Transnational Organized Crime and two of its Protocols. We call upon all States that have not yet done so to seek to ratify or accede to and implement the provisions of that Convention and its Protocols, as well as the provisions of the United Nations Convention against Corruption and the international instruments against terrorism. In implementing the provisions of those instruments, we commit ourselves to full compliance with our obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law and humanitarian law. We support every effort to facilitate the implementation of those instruments. 
Bangkok Declaration on Synergies and Responses: Strategic Alliances in Crime Prevention and Criminal Justice, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/177 of 16 December 2005, preamble and § 4.
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL (2005)
Paragraphs 1 to 3 of the 2005 Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of IHL provide:
I. Obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law
1. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law as provided for under the respective bodies of law emanates from:
(a) Treaties to which a State is a party;
(b) Customary international law;
(c) The domestic law of each State.
2. If they have not already done so, States shall, as required under international law, ensure that their domestic law is consistent with their international legal obligations by:
(a) Incorporating norms of international human rights law and international humanitarian law into their domestic law, or otherwise implementing them in their domestic legal system;
(b) Adopting appropriate and effective legislative and administrative procedures and other appropriate measures that provide fair, effective and prompt access to justice;
(c) Making available adequate, effective, prompt and appropriate remedies, including reparation, as defined below;
(d) Ensuring that their domestic law provides at least the same level of protection for victims as that required by their international obligations.
II. Scope of the obligation
3. The obligation to respect, ensure respect for and implement international human rights law and international humanitarian law as provided for under the respective bodies of law, includes, inter alia, the duty to:
(a) Take appropriate legislative and administrative and other appropriate measures to prevent violations;
(b) Investigate violations effectively, promptly, thoroughly and impartially and, where appropriate, take action against those allegedly responsible in accordance with domestic and international law;
(c) Provide those who claim to be victims of a human rights or humanitarian law violation with equal and effective access to justice, as described below, irrespective of who may ultimately be the bearer of responsibility for the violation; and
(d) Provide effective remedies to victims, including reparation. 
Basic Principles and Guidelines on the Right to a Remedy and Reparation for Victims of Gross Violations of International Human Rights Law and Serious Violations of International Humanitarian Law, annexed to UN General Assembly resolution 60/147 of 16 December 2005, §§ 1–3.
N’Djamena Declaration on Ending Recruitment and Use of Children by Armed Forces and Groups
In June 2010, Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria, Niger and Sudan adopted the N’Djamena Declaration reiterated their “concern regarding the precarious situation of children affected by conflict and the consistent presence of children within armed forces and groups in [their] region” and pledged
1. …
(a) To take all possible measures for effective implementation of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, its Optional Protocols, the African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and other relevant regional and international instruments;
(b) To ratify the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, African Charter on the Rights and Welfare of the Child, and other signed regional, international instruments, and to implement them in an effective manner;
(c) To sign and ratify the two Optional Protocols to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and other relevant regional and international instruments, if not already done;
2. To harmonize national legislations with regional and international instruments in order to prohibit the recruitment and use of children by armed forces and armed groups, and prosecute perpetrators before competent courts;
8. To integrate and provide response to all fundamental and specific needs of children within national poverty reduction strategies, social protection and Security Sector Reform (SSR);
10. To strengthen the cross-border dimensions of the Monitoring Reporting Mechanism on grave child rights violations, on the recruitment and use of children by armed forces and armed groups and establish an appropriate information sharing mechanism in the region, including on child trafficking and proliferation of small arms and light weapons.
12. To establish a Follow-up Committee for the Declaration of N’Djamena. The members of the committee are representatives of the states of Chad, Sudan, Central African Republic, Nigeria, Niger and Cameroon. The committee will be open to contributions from Liberia and the Democratic Republic of the Congo as well. UNICEF will ensure the secretariat of the committee. 
N’Djamena Declaration adopted at the Regional Conference on Ending Recruitment and Use of Children by Armed Forces and Groups: Contributing to Peace, Justice and Development, signed by Cameroon, the Central African Republic, Chad, Nigeria, Niger and Sudan, N’Djamena, 7–9 June 2010, Preamble and §§ 1, 2, 8, 10 and 12.
Accra Declaration on the Chemical Weapons Convention
In April 2011, Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone signed the Accra Declaration on the Chemical Weapons Convention, in which the parties stated:
Bearing in mind that the Governments of ECOWAS Countries have resolved to cooperate with the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons and the Chemical Weapon Convention in ensuring the safety and security of the region against chemical weapons;
Convinced that the implementation of the said Convention requires the cooperation, collaboration and coordination of the efforts of our respective countries and governments;
Realizing that there is a need for the setting up of a technical structure and the duly operational and functioning implementation mechanism and machinery in every ECOWAS Nation;
Convinced that West African nations need more awareness and commitment and are grateful for the trainings and awareness provided by OPCW;
We call on ECOWAS to:
Encourage, facilitate and ensure that all member states of its region domesticate the Convention on the Prohibition of the Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction;
Ensure that there are Functional Analytical Laboratories (OPCW) for every nation in the ECOWAS region;
Undertake the establishment of National Emergency Response Teams for Chemical accidents and chemical weapons disasters in every country of West Africa and collaborate to form a regional response team;
Apply all efforts to prevail on its respective Governments to provide adequate annual budgetary support to the activities of the OPCW on the CWC by and through the National Authority. 
Accra Declaration on the Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone at the Planning Meeting for English Speaking Countries in the West African Sub–Region, Accra, 20 April 2011, pp. 1–2, Preamble and §§ 1–3 and 5.
The parties also recommited “to a vigorous implementation of the Convention on the Prohibition of The Development, Production, Stockpiling, and Use of Chemical Weapons and on Their Destruction.” 
Accra Declaration on the Chemical Weapons Convention, signed by Gambia, Ghana, Liberia, Nigeria and Sierra Leone at the Planning Meeting for English Speaking Countries in the West African Sub–Region, Accra, 20 April 2011, p. 4, § 1.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states:
States have the responsibility to respect the treaties that they have ratified. The Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I expressly oblige States not only to respect [those agreements], but also to ensure respect by issuing orders and instructions for that purpose. 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.01.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states that “Australia is responsible for ensuring that its military forces comply with LOAC” and that “all ADF [Australian Defence Force] members are responsible for ensuring that their conduct complies with the LOAC.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, §§ 1201–1202.
The Guide adds:
Mission planners are responsible for ensuring that operations plans and ROE fully comply with LOAC. To discharge this responsibility, all operations plans and ROE should be reviewed by ADF legal advisers experienced in operations law. In addition, targeting lists and individual missions are to be carefully scrutinised by military planners and their operations law advisers. 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 1205.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) states: “Australia is responsible for ensuring that its military forces comply with the laws of armed conflict (LOAC) … All ADF [Australian Defence Force] members are responsible for ensuring that their conduct complies with LOAC.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, §§ 1301 and 1302.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
1.1 … Commanders must be aware of their legal obligation to prevent unnecessary injury and suffering and to alleviate as much as possible the calamities of war.
1.13 … [M]embership of the armed forces requires knowledge of the LOAC.
3.1 Nations are bound by the LOAC either by way of an international agreement or under customary international law. Where the LOAC is applicable in a particular conflict it is not only binding on nations but also on individuals, and in particular on the individual members of the armed forces of nations.
3.3 … The LOAC applies to any armed conflict (whether there is a declared war or not) and whether or not a state of armed conflict is recognised by all parties to the conflict. The Geneva Conventions also apply to all cases of partial or total occupation of the territory of a party to the Convention, even if that occupation meets with no armed resistance.
13.1 Australia … is responsible for ensuring that its military forces comply with the LOAC.
13.2 All ADF [Australian Defence Force] members are responsible for ensuring that their conduct complies with LOAC. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 1.1, 1.13, 3.1, 3.3, 13.1 and 13.2.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states: “The States signatory to the [1949 Geneva] Conventions have undertaken to take a series of measures to promote respect thereof.” 
Belgium, Droit Pénal et Disciplinaire Militaire et Droit de la Guerre, Deuxième Partie, Droit de la Guerre, Ecole Royale Militaire, par J. Maes, Chargé de cours, Avocat-général près la Cour Militaire, D/1983/1187/029, 1983, p. 55.
Belgium
Belgium’s LOAC Teaching Directive (1996) states: “The general aim to be reached is to ensure in all circumstances full respect for the law of armed conflicts and the rules of engagement by all members of the Armed Forces.” 
Belgium, Directive sur l’enseignement du droit des conflits armés et des règles d’engagement au sein des Forces Armées belges, Ordre Général J/185, Forces Armées, Etat-Major Général, Division Opérations, 8 February 1996, Section 1.
Belgium
Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Soldiers states that the purpose of the instruction is “to bring the soldier in an armed conflict to react spontaneously in conformity with the elementary principles of humanity”. The manual also provides the following rule for the combatant: “I must behave like a disciplined soldier and I respect humanitarian rules.” 
Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Dossier d’Instruction pour Soldat, à l’attention des officiers instructeurs, JS3, Etat-Major Général, Forces Armées belges, undated, pp. 3 and 10.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states that every combatant must “respect and ensure respect in all circumstances for the laws and customs of war, that means the law of war”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule I, preamble, p. 3.
The manual emphasizes: “The commander of forces engaged in a military operation is responsible for ensuring respect for the law of war.” 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 14.
The manual further states:
If the duty of the commander is to ensure respect for and the application of the law of war in all circumstances, it is important for the soldier to know and to understand that this law aims to limit and alleviate to the greatest extent possible the calamities of war. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule II, p. 17.
Brazil
Brazil’s Military Strategic Planning System (2005) states:
The Military Strategic Planning System is conditioned by international documents ratified by Brazil, such as conventions, treaties, agreements, commitments and resolutions, whether multilateral or bilateral, in particular those related to weapons, security and defence matters, and sensitive technologies from the Armed Forces; [as well as] by the international laws of war [and] public international law. 
Brazil, Sistemática de Planejamento Estratégico Militar, Ministério da Defesa, Secretaria de Política, Estratégia e Assuntos Internacionais, MD51-M-01, Ordinance No. 998/SPEAI/MD of 24 August 2005, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 167, Section 2, p. 4, 30 August 2005, p. 7.
Brazil
Brazil’s Operations Manual for the Evacuation of Non-Combatants (2007) states:
The Joint Command and its subordinate commands shall be assisted by a Legal Adviser with regard to military matters and their consequences pursuant to the Law of Armed Conflict and to ensure that all [its] personnel comply with the provisions of the international conventions and agreements to which Brazil is a party, as well as with the provisions of the Rules of Engagement for Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, § 6.4.6.
The Operations Manual also states:
1.2.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations are conducted by the Ministry of Defence, upon request by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs, for the evacuation of non-combatants whose lives are in danger, from their host country to a safe place of destination …
3.4.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations … may be triggered by sudden changes in the government of the host country, changes in its political or military orientation with regard to Brazil, or hostile threats to Brazilian citizens by internal or external forces in that country.
Annex A. Rules of Engagement and the Law of Armed Conflict
3. The Law of Armed Conflict
According to the policy of the Ministry of Defence, the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict regulate the actions taken by the Joint Command in the defence of its personnel, property and equipment. 
Brazil, Manual de Operações de Evacuação de Não-Combatentes, Ministério da Defesa, Estado-Maior de Defesa, MD33-M-08, Ordinance No. 1351/EMD/MD of 11 October 2007, published in Diário Oficial da União, No. 198, 15 October 2007, §§ 1.2.1 and 3.4.1, and Annex A, § 3.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states:
By ratifying these treaties [the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols], Burundi has pledged to respect them and ensure respect for them …
The treaties and conventions stipulate that States parties must “respect and ensure respect” for the obligations which ensue. This means in particular:
- to respect and ensure respect for the content of these texts;
- to implement the requirements of these treaties and conventions into domestic law;
- to incorporate the content of these texts into different programs of instruction at different levels of training, both in the armed forces and in the civilian sphere. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 65; see also Part I bis, pp. 96 and 99.
The Regulations adds: “These various tasks must be carried out by the different branches of the State (parliament, government, legislature …).” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 96; see also Part I bis, p. 46.
The Regulations also states:
The respect for the law of war by soldiers depends on several factors, of which the most important are prevention and repression. Regarding prevention, this includes in particular … dissemination: [through] initial instruction and training. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 113; see also Part I bis, p. 98.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) states that action against the enemy must be conducted “within the framework of respect for the laws and customs of war”. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 26.
The Regulations also provides: “The Armed Forces shall conduct their operations … with the intent to respect sincerely … international humanitarian law.” 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 31.
The Regulations further provides: “Respect for the rules of international law must be a natural duty for a Cameroonian soldier.” 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 35.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “The Armed Forces shall be subject to a regime of internal discipline which ensures respect for the Law of War.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 15, § 15.
The manual also states: “Each commander ensures respect for the Law of War within his sphere of command … The Law of War is above all a question of order and discipline.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 86, §§ 11 and 12.
The manual further specifies that “the State must respect and ensure respect for the Law of Geneva and its rules” and that “from the beginning of the hostilities, the parties to the conflict: … shall ensure respect for the Law of War in their sphere of authority”. 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, pp. 133 and 138, § 462.22.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “The State is bound to respect and ensure respect for the law of Geneva and its rules.” 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 285; see also p. 100, § 361 and p. 142, § 421.
The manual also states that in time of peace: “The [State] parties … must examine in an adequate way the measures taken … and must take supplementary measures necessary to respect the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.” 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 289, § 652.
The manual continues: “After the opening of hostilities, the parties to the conflict … [must] ensure respect for the law of armed conflict in their sphere of authority.” 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 290, § 652.
The manual further states: “The Armed Forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which ensures respect for the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law.” 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 90, § 351.5; see also p. 121, § 402, p. 132, § 411.5, p. 175, § 481 and p. 219, § 531.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 26: Principles
The strength and cohesion of combat units require that each soldier, at all levels, participate with energy and selflessness in the action against the enemy.
That action must be carried out, whatever happens, until the full completion of the mission.
It must be conducted within the framework of respect for the laws and customs of war.
Article 31: Humanitarian rules
The Defence Forces must carry out their operations until the completion of the mission, with the intent to respect sincerely … international humanitarian law.
Article 35. Responsibility and instruction
Within the framework of the rules of this chapter, the soldiers of the Cameroonian Defence Forces must make themselves thoroughly familiar with their responsibility as regards respect for international humanitarian law and the law of armed conflicts: the violation of these rules makes them war criminals who may be brought before national military courts or international criminal courts.
Thus, respect for the rules of international law must be a natural duty for the Cameroonian soldier. If, in a particular situation, he is in doubt as regards the rules of international law, he must ask his superior for a decision; if that is impossible to him, he acts in accordance with his conscience. 
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Articles 26, 31 and 35.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:
The means for securing observance [of the law of armed conflict] depends upon the actions of the States which are bound by particular treaties in accordance with the terms of those treaties, or on their obligation to give effect to the requirements of customary international law. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 15-1, § 2.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) instructs soldiers: “You must obey the Law of Armed Conflict.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Introduction, § 14.
The Code of Conduct specifies that: “It is CF [Canadian Force] policy to respect and abide by the Law of Armed Conflict in all circumstances.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 1.
The Code of Conduct also states: “All CF personnel, allied and coalition personnel and opposing forces are required to abide by the Law of Armed Conflict and the basic principles these rules represent.” 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 2.
The Code of Conduct further states:
It might appear that a momentary advantage may be gained from a breach of the Law of Armed Conflict or the Code of Conduct. However, experience has shown that even a momentary lapse in your duty may dishonour your country and also adversely affect the accomplishment of the overall mission. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 7.
The Code of Conduct adds:
The obligation to obey these rules and the Law of Armed Conflict is a requirement under Canadian military law which includes the Criminal Code of Canada. Breaches of the Law of Armed Conflict or these rules by CF personnel will be dealt with regardless of which side is successful. Canada is committed to see that its forces conduct their operations in compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict. The Code of Service Discipline applies to CF members worldwide. As a result, your conduct must always be governed by the principles of Canadian law and society incorporated in the Code of Conduct. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 11, § 8.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states:
The obligations binding on Canada in accordance with Customary International Law and Treaties to which Canada is a party are binding not only upon the Government and the CF [Canadian Forces] but also upon every individual. Members of the CF are obliged to comply and ensure compliance with all International Treaties and Customary International Law binding on Canada. This manual assists CF members in meeting those obligations. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, p. i.
In its chapter entitled “Preventative and enforcement measures and the role of protecting powers”, the manual further states:
The means for securing observance [of the law of armed conflict] depends upon the actions of the States, which are bound by particular treaties in accordance with the terms of those treaties, or on their obligation to give effect to the requirements of customary international law. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1502.1.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs members of the Canadian Forces (CF):
You must obey the Law of Armed Conflict. Failure to do so is contrary to the direction of your government; can adversely affect the successful completion of your military mission; dishonours you and your country; and ultimately can leave you or your subordinates open to prosecution. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Introduction, § 14.
Rule 11 of the Code of Conduct (2005) states:
1. It is CF policy to respect and abide by the Law of Armed Conflict in all circumstances …
2. All CF personnel, allied and coalition personnel and opposing forces are required to abide by the Law of Armed Conflict and the basic principles these rules represent …
7. It might appear that a momentary advantage may be gained from a breach of the Law of Armed Conflict or the Code of Conduct. However, experience has shown that even a momentary lapse in your duty may dishonour your country and also adversely affect the accomplishment of the overall mission.
8. The obligation to obey these rules and the Law of Armed Conflict is a requirement under Canadian military law which includes the Criminal Code of Canada. Breaches of the Law of Armed Conflict or these rules by CF personnel will be dealt with regardless of which side is successful. Canada is committed to see that its forces conduct their operations in compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict. The Code of Service Discipline applies to CF members world wide. As a result, your conduct must always be governed by the principles of Canadian law and society incorporated in the Code of Conduct. There is no exception to your obligation to follow Canadian law even when confronted with an opposing force which refuses to comply with the Law of Armed Conflict. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 11, §§ 1–2 and 7–8.
Canada
Canada’s Use of Force Manual (2008) states:
CHAPTER 1: THE USE OF FORCE AND LAW
SECTION I – GENERAL
101. INTRODUCTION
1. The Canadian Forces (CF) are an instrument of national policy and power. Therefore, deployment of the CF on operations and the use of force or actions which may be construed as provocative by the CF are controlled by, and subject to the authority and direction of the Canadian government. The Canadian government, military commanders and all members of the CF are subject to national and international laws. …
SECTION II - LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
102. REQUIREMENTS TO CONTROL THE USE OF FORCE
1. Canadian domestic law and international law are considered when authorizing, planning and conducting CF operations. The authority to conduct an operation will rest on either or both of these legal foundations. Related to but distinct from the legal basis for an operation, domestic and international law will also govern how force may lawfully be used in the conduct of an operation. Whether an operation is domestic or international or takes place in the context of an armed conflict or in other circumstances, the use of force during the operation must be controlled to protect people and property from unnecessary damage or injury. This control is found in international and domestic laws which define the situations in which force may be used and delineate the intensity and duration of the applied force.
2. As the interpretation of the law will affect the definition of the operation’s mission and its execution, commanders at all levels and their subordinates are responsible for the correct and comprehensive application of the law in planning and conducting an operation.
104. INTERNATIONAL LAW
2. International law is comprised of treaty law (based on treaties and conventions) as well as customary international law (based on state practice or custom). Certain treaties create bases for CF international operations (e.g., [the 1945] UN Charter), set out the rules governing the manner in which force may be used in the conduct of those operations (e.g., [the 1977] Additional Protocol I to the Geneva Conventions), and/or otherwise contain provisions affecting such use (e.g., a specific SOFA [Status of Forces Agreement] between Canada and another country authorizing CF to be present and use force under certain conditions in that country). In addition, customary international law provides a separate and distinct legal basis to conduct international operations and to use force (e.g., customary right of national self-defence and customary rules governing the conduct of armed conflicts). Like most rules of conduct, international law is in a continual state of development and change. As with any legal issue, an operational commander is not expected to be a legal expert, but is required to understand the principles in sufficient detail to ensure the following:
a. that international law is correctly applied in planning and conducting operations; and
b. that all members of the force understand their legal responsibilities with respect to the use of force, whether during an armed conflict or not.
105. OTHER LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO OPERATIONS
1. Duty to Comply. Legal considerations will have a variety of applications in domestic and international operations. All members of the CF have a duty to comply with Canadian and international law. Legal considerations are not just a matter for the military legal staff, as the correct interpretation of these laws by all military operators will affect the definition of the operation’s mission and its execution at all levels.
2. Planning. In planning an operation, strategic, operational and tactical-level commanders must take into account legal considerations. …
3. Strategic Guidance and Direction. The strategic-level guidance provided to the commander and any direction on the use of force (such as ROE) authorized for the operation must be based upon legal considerations and requirements. There also must be a clear and coherent link between the approved political objectives, military objectives, the legal basis for the operation, the commander’s concept of operations, and the ROE which are authorized for the operation. Therefore, legal staff shall be involved in the planning process at all levels. 
Canada, Use of Force for CF Operations, Canadian Forces Joint Publication, Chief of the Defence Staff, B-GJ-005-501/FP-001, August 2008, §§ 101–102, 104.2 and 105.1–3.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 1 (Basic and team leader instruction): “Even though killing the enemy is their duty, combatants are obliged at all times to respect, and ensure respect for, the laws and customs of war, also known as the law of war.” 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 1: Formation élémentaire toutes armés (FETA), formation commune de base (FCB), certificat d’aptitude technique No. 1 (Chef d’équipe), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Preface.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “Respect for the law of war is a matter of order and discipline, which must be respected and applied in all circumstances.” 
Chad, Droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces armées et de sécurité, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 76.
Colombia
Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) notes: “States must … respect and ensure respect for the norms [of IHL] in all circumstances.” 
Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 37.
Colombia
Colombia’s Instructors’ Manual (1999) states: “The States which have ratified … international conventions and treaties on the law of war must respect them and ensure their respect in all circumstances.” 
Colombia, Derechos Humanos & Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual de Instrucción de la Guía de Conducta para el Soldado e Infante de Marina, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, Oficina de Derechos Humanos, Fuerzas Militares de Colombia, Santafé de Bogotá, 1999, p. 14.
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides that combatants must not “violate the laws and customs of war established by international conventions signed by the Congolese Government”. 
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 30.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) notes in Book I (Basic instruction):
In 1961, Côte d’Ivoire acceded to the four Geneva Conventions. In 1977, it signed the two Additional Protocols, and ratified them in 1989. Since then, it has committed itself to respect and to ensure respect for the law of war. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre I: Instruction de base, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 5.
In Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers), the Teaching Manual provides:
Lesson 3. Obligations and responsibilities
The authors of the Conventions were aware that there can be no respect for the law of armed conflicts [LOAC] without knowledge of the rules of that law. This is a necessary but not sufficient condition. In fact, it still needs the will of the authority to respect these rules, to ensure their respect and to punish perpetrators of grave violations.
I. Obligations
The Law of Armed Conflicts contains a series of obligations to which States have subscribed by its ratification. They are mainly:
- the obligation to respect and to ensure respect for the LOAC,
I.2. Obligation to respect and to ensure respect
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” (Common Article 1 to the four Geneva Conventions)
To do this, States undertake
- to take without delay all necessary measures for the execution of these obligations;
- to give orders and instructions to ensure observance of the Conventions, and to supervise the execution.
III.4. Mechanisms to engage the responsibility of the State
Signatory States to the Geneva Conventions undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 35–36 and 41; see also Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre IV: Instruction du chef de section et du commandant de compagnie, Manuel de l’élève, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, p. 65.
Croatia
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) notes: “Each State undertakes to respect and to ensure respect for the law of war in all circumstances.” 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, Introduction.
Cuba
Cuba’s Regulation of the Internal Order of the Revolutionary Armed Forces (2002) states:
The serviceman, independently of his or her hierarchical level and the post he or she holds, has the following general duties:
f) Have knowledge of, and apply during armed conflict, in accordance with his or her category or military hierarchy, the norms and principles of International Humanitarian Law. 
Cuba, Reglamento de Orden Interior de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, 2002, Ministerio de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, aprobado por Orden No. 349 del Ministro de las Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias, Havana, 30 September 2002, Article 79 (f).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “Combatants shall on no account … violate the laws and customs of war established in international conventions signed by the Government of Djibouti.” 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 28(1).
The Regulations also states: “Throughout the mission, the armed forces must carry out their operations with due regard for the rules of international humanitarian law.” 
Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 30(2).
Djibouti
Djibouti’s Manual on International Humanitarian Law (2004) states:
States are bound to respect [international] humanitarian law. The preventive mechanisms include in particular … the adoption of legislative and regulatory provisions in order to ensure respect for [international] humanitarian law [and] … the translation of treaty texts. 
Djibouti, Manuel sur le droit international humanitaire et les droits de l’homme applicables au travail du policier, Ministère de l’Intérieur, Direction Générale de la Police, 2004, p. 13.
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Naval Manual (1989) states:
During wartime or other periods of armed conflict, the rules of engagement reaffirm the right and responsibility of the operational commander to seek out, engage, and destroy enemy forces consistent with … the law of armed conflict. 
Ecuador, Aspectos Importantes del Derecho Internacional Marítimo que Deben Tener Presente los Comandantes de los Buques, Academia de Guerra Naval, 1989, § 5.5.1.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Human Rights Charter of the Armed Forces begins with the order to “respect and ensure respect for human rights”. 
El Salvador, Derechos Humanos. Decálogo de la Fuerza Armada de El Salvador, Ministerio de la Defensa Nacional, Departamento de Derecho Humanitario, undated, p. 4.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Soldiers’ Manual begins by exhorting combatants to “always respect the rules stated in this manual”. 
El Salvador, Manual del Combatiente, undated, p. 2.
France
France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states:
Combatants shall respect at any place and in all circumstances the rules of the law of armed conflicts. They may in no case release themselves from those rules, regardless of the framework and the mandate of their mission. 
France, Fiche didactique relative au droit des conflits armés, Directive of the Ministry of Defence, 4 January 2000, annexed to the Directive No. 147 of the Ministry of Defence of 4 January 2000, p. 7.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “Combatants shall respect the law of armed conflict in all circumstances.” 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 14.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “The members of the Federal Armed Forces are obliged to comply and ensure compliance with all treaties of international humanitarian law binding upon the Federal Republic of Germany.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, § 135.
The manual further states:
It shall be a natural duty for a member of the Federal Armed Forces to follow the rules of international humanitarian law. With whatever means wars are being conducted, the soldier will always be obliged to respect and observe the rules of international law and take them as a basis for his actions. 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, § 139.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
International humanitarian law serves the protection of human beings in armed conflicts, by subjecting the behaviour of the States party to the conflict to certain rules.
As soon as a State uses armed force against another state, international humanitarian law becomes applicable. Also in internal armed conflicts, e.g. in a civil war, the fundamental guarantees of international humanitarian law apply as minimum protective provisions. As far as practically feasible, the service men or service women of the Federal Armed Forces adhere to the rules of international humanitarian law in military operations in all types of armed conflicts. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 2.
Guinea
Guinea’s Soldier’s Manual (2010), under the heading “Rules of conduct in combat”, states: “Seek to prevent any violation of the present rules. Inform your superior about the violations committed. All violations of laws of war are punishable.” 
Guinea, Soldier’s Manual, Ministry of National Defence, 2010, p. 16.
Guinea
Guinea’s Code of Conduct (2011) states:
Article 6: In performing their missions, defence forces personnel must respect national law, international humanitarian law and human rights.
Article 12: The political authority shall ensure that the military and security operations it orders, including operations to maintain public order and peace, are executed in accordance with the relevant provisions of this code of conduct, national law, international law and international humanitarian law.
Article 30: During periods of exceptional circumstances, state of emergency or state of siege, actions of the defence forces must conform to national law and international humanitarian law. 
Guinea, Code de Conduite des Forces de Défense (Code of Conduct of the Defence Forces), 2011, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, approved by Presidential Decree No. D 289/PRG/SGG/2011, 28 November 2011, Articles 6, 12 and 30.
Guinea
Guinea’s Code of Conduct (2014) states:
Article 6: In performing their missions, defence forces must respect national law, international humanitarian law, as well as human rights.
Article 12: The political authority shall ensure that the military and security operations it orders, including operations to maintain public order and peace, are executed in accordance with the relevant provisions of this code of conduct, national law, international law and international humanitarian law.
Article 30: During periods of exceptional circumstances, state of emergency or state of siege, actions of the defence forces must conform to national law and international humanitarian law. 
Guinea, Code de Conduite des Forces de Défense (Code of Conduct of the Defence Forces), 2014 edition, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 28 November 2011, Articles 6, 12 and 30.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states: “The laws of war are binding on every IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldier, also by virtue of their legal validity vis-à-vis himself as an IDF soldier.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 9.
The manual further states: “It is incumbent on combatants to behave in compliance with the rules and customs of war. This is the most basic of conditions.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 48.
The manual also states: “GHQ regulations and the conduct code obligate IDF soldiers to observe the laws of war which Israel recognizes.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 66.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:
The rules of warfare, as their name implies, are a collection of laws and rules that are binding upon a soldier in the battlefield. They are a collection of international conventions and customs that have become entrenched in the course of hundreds of years, and that are considered today by the international community as an aspect of international law that is binding upon every country in the world. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 7.
The manual also states: “The rules of warfare are binding upon every soldier in the IDF [Israel Defense Forces].” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 11.
The manual further states: “Combatants are required to conduct themselves as required by the rules and customs of war. This is the most basic condition.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 31.
In addition, the manual states: “Both General Headquarters orders and the code of conduct require IDF soldiers to comply with the rules of warfare that have been recognised by Israel.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 41.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) notes: “Each State undertakes to respect and to ensure respect for the law of war in all circumstances.” 
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Introduction, p. 1.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states:
The States and the belligerent Parties have to undertake to respect the law of armed conflict in all circumstances and to give full implementation to its provisions. This means that it has to be respected by the government at strategic level, by the military at operational and tactical levels, and by the civilians. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 2, p. 7.
The manual also states:
The armed forces have to behave correctly, that means in accordance with the international rules ratified by their respective governments, when facing the double responsibility of accomplishing a military mission and of managing the results or consequence of their action or behaviour. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 1.
The manual provides the following rule for behaviour in combat:
Be a disciplined soldier. Disobedience of the law of war dishonours your Armed Forces and yourself and causes unnecessary suffering; far from weakening the enemy’s will to fight, it often strengthens it. 
Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 3, p. 14.
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) states: “Belligerent States and Parties undertake to respect and ensure respect for the law of war.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 1-T, § 24(4).
The manual also states: “Military personnel … must strictly observe the rules and the laws established by the law of war.” 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Presentation, p. 69, § 1.
The manual adds:
Be a disciplined soldier. Disobedience of the law of war dishonours your armed forces and yourself: it causes unnecessary suffering; far from weakening the enemy’s will to fight, it often strengthens it. 
Madagascar, Le Droit des Conflits Armés, Ministère des Forces Armées, August 1994, Fiche No. 5-T, § 1.
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “Under this [1949 Geneva] Convention [I], the High Contracting Parties undertake to: … respect and ensure respect for the Convention in all circumstances.” 
Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 84(A).
Mexico
Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009) states:
The purpose of these guidelines is to provide military personnel with a brief and concise overview of the general principles of international humanitarian law, also known as the law of war or the international law of armed conflict. They provide commanders and their subordinates with a quick and ready reference and outline how a professional combatant must act, when engaged in military operations, to comply with the rules established in the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and other international treaties to which Mexico is party. … Moreover, they are a valuable tool for disseminating the doctrine and culture of the rules of international humanitarian law. 
Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, Preface.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states:
The rules of the law of war must be respected. They must be respected in all circumstances … States parties to law of war treaties must take all necessary measures to ensure respect for their obligations under these treaties. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-1.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “each individual soldier is bound to apply the rules of the humanitarian law of war in an armed conflict, under all circumstances”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, p. 16; see also §§ 0233 and 0308.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
1004. … [T]he parties should always obey the rules of the humanitarian law of war which are applicable to internal armed conflicts. Members of the Dutch armed forces are always bound to consider this legal system in all applicable situations.
1074. … [C]ompliance should take place at all times. No one may be ordered to break these rules. Such an order is unlawful and must not be obeyed. The commanding officer is responsible for the behaviour of the unit(s) under his orders. A commanding officer (and any other senior military officer) is bound to prevent planned and actual violations and to take measures where necessary, and where they may be expected of him, to prevent repetition and/or make punishment possible. A commanding officer, like those who break these rules, may be punished if he does not properly fulfil his duty as a commanding officer. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 1004 and 1074.
In its chapter on the prevention and punishment of war crimes, the manual states: “The rules of the humanitarian law of war must be applied in an armed conflict under all circumstances.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1102.
In its chapter on peace operations, under the heading “Code of Conduct for the Armed Forces”, the manual states: “Members of the armed forces must scrupulously obey the rules of national and international law.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, p. 198.
In this chapter, the manual further states:
1231. Applicability of humanitarian law of war in UN peace operations
Although the United Nations as such is not a party to the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols, it is now generally accepted that UN troops are bound by international customary law when implementing peace operations. The four Geneva Conventions and parts of the Additional Protocols are viewed as international customary law. Naturally, the various countries participating in such an operation under the UN flag are bound by the customary law, treaties and conventions which they have signed and ratified.
1232. UN instructions on operations under UN command (with UN Guidelines)
To ensure that UN troops under UN command and control correctly apply the principles of the humanitarian law of war, the Secretary-General has issued Guidelines [Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999]. These instructions are applicable if UN troops are involved in an armed conflict, a peace enforcement operation or if they have to act in self-defence during a peacekeeping operation. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 1231–1232.
[emphasis in original]
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states: “New Zealand is required to comply with the LOAC which is part of international law.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, Introduction, p. ii, § 2.
The manual further states:
The law of armed conflict, like other branches of international law, possesses no permanent means to secure its observance or enforcement. Observance is secured by the States which are bound by particular treaties both themselves acting and persuading other States to act in accordance with the terms of those treaties, and themselves giving effect to and persuading other States to give effect to the requirements of the customary law. 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1601.1.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) tells troops: “We are in honor bound to observe the rules of the Geneva Convention in whatever action you will be taking against the rebel.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, § 3.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
a. Preventive measures and mechanisms
The obligations assumed by States Parties to international humanitarian law treaties require them to ensure the proper implementation of the preventive measures and mechanisms provided for in these treaties, including, in particular, the following:
(1) Integration of international humanitarian law into the doctrine of the armed forces, particularly the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocols I and II of 1977 and the Hague agreements and conventions.
(4) Adoption of legislation and regulations by the State (cabinet and congress) to ensure strict compliance with international humanitarian law.
b. Enforcement measures and mechanisms
Provision must be made for measures and mechanisms to be in place for the duration of the armed conflict to continuously monitor and enforce strict compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 10.a.(1) and (4), and b.
The manual also states:
(1) Parties to the conflict and neutral States are bound to take the measures necessary to fulfil their obligations under international humanitarian law.
(2) From the start of the hostilities, the parties to the conflict shall endeavour to:
(b) ensure respect for international humanitarian law;
(4) At the start of the hostilities, each party to the conflict must verify the application of international humanitarian law in respect of:
(a) general international humanitarian law treaties;
(b) specific regulations on the use of certain weapons;
(c) any interpretative declarations and/or reservations made by States with regard to specific treaties;
(d) customary international law and local customs;
(e) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 25.a.(1), (2).(b) and (4).(a)–(e).
The manual further states: “The parties to the conflict must ensure that any violations of international humanitarian law are punished by means of disciplinary or criminal sanctions.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 25.b.(4).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
a Preventive measures and mechanisms
The obligations assumed by States Parties to international humanitarian law treaties require them to ensure the proper implementation of the preventive measures and mechanisms provided for in these treaties, including, in particular, the following:
[(1)] Integration of international humanitarian law into the doctrine of the armed forces, particularly the Geneva Conventions of 1949, Additional Protocols I and II of 1977 and the Hague agreements and conventions.
(4) Adoption of legislation and regulations by the State (cabinet and congress) to ensure strict compliance with international humanitarian law.
b. Enforcement measures and mechanisms
Provision must be made for measures and mechanisms to be in place for the duration of the armed conflict to continuously monitor and enforce strict compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 10(a)(1) and (4) and 10(b), pp. 221–222.
The manual also states:
(1) Parties to the conflict and neutral States are bound to take the measures necessary to fulfil their obligations under international humanitarian law.
(2) From the start of the hostilities, the parties to the conflict shall endeavour to:
(b) ensure respect for international humanitarian law;
(4) At the start of the hostilities, each party to the conflict must verify the application of international humanitarian law in respect of:
(a) general international humanitarian law treaties;
(b) specific regulations on the use of certain weapons;
(c) any interpretative declarations and/or reservations made by States with regard to specific treaties;
(d) customary international law and local customs;
(e) Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 26(1), (2)(b) and (4), p. 231.
The manual further states: “The parties to the conflict must ensure that any violations of international humanitarian law are punished by means of disciplinary or criminal sanctions.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 25(b)(3), pp. 233–234.
Philippines
The Rules for Combatants (1989) of the Philippines directs “all military personnel in the field [to] strictly observe and apply these humanitarian principles embodied in the aforementioned rules in the performance of their duties”. 
Philippines, Rules for Combatants, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(II), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 2.
Philippines
The Soldier’s Rules (1989) of the Philippines instruct: “Be a disciplined soldier. Disobedience of the laws of war dishonours your army and yourself and causes unnecessary suffering; far from weakening the enemy’s will to fight, it often strengthens it.” 
Philippines, Soldier’s Rules, in Handbook on Discipline, Annex C(I), General Headquarters, Armed Forces of the Philippines, Camp General Emilio Aguinaldo, Quezon City, 1989, § 1.
Philippines
The Philippines’ Air Power Manual (2000) provides:
1-6.1. It is the individual combatant who acts as agent for the sovereign state to further its national interests. However, it is presumed that during an armed conflict, he is willing to accept the limits of his actions and recognize the prevailing concept of legitimacy in all aspects of conflict. The system that exists to regulate conduct in combat is known as the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC), otherwise referred to as the Law of War.
1-6.2. LOAC is the code of ethics for the profession of arms. And because of the serviceman’s burden of responsibility in combat, LOAC assumes a status of an inviolable moral compact. It signifies individual commitment to a nation’s dedication to principled behavior even amid the confusion and anxieties of battle, and regardless of the actions of the enemy.
1-6.6. Additional Protocol Two defines two things: limitations in the conduct of operations and principles relating to the protection of civilians in a non-international conflict. Thus, every combatant should understand the consequences of this Protocol. 
Philippines, Air Power Manual, Philippine Air Force, Headquarters, Office of Special Studies, May 2000, §§ 1-6.1.–1-6.2. and 1-6.6.
Philippines
The Philippines’ AFP Standing Rules of Engagement (2005) states:
6. Policy:
d. AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] units will comply with the Law of Armed Conflict (LOAC) during military operations, no matter how the conflict may be characterized under international law, and will comply with its principles and spirit during all other operations.  
Philippines, AFP Standing Rules of Engagement, Armed Forces of the Philippines, General Headquarters, Office of the Chief of Staff, 1 December 2005, § 6(d).
Poland
Poland’s Code of Honour of the Professional Soldier (2008), in the section entitled “A Professional Soldier in a Combat Situation”, states: “In a combat situation, [he] acts in accordance with the norms of international humanitarian law of armed conflicts.” 
Poland, Obwieszczenie Ministra Obrony Narodowej z dnia 3 marca 2008 r. w sprawie ogłoszeniaKodeksu Honorowego Żołnierza Zawodowego Wojska Polskiego, published in the Official Gazette of the Ministry of National Defence, No. 5, Item 55, 26 March 2008.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) provides:
Having declared that international law pre-empts national law and having ratified the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions on 4 August 1989, the Soviet Union has accepted the obligation to ensure respect for them by all State and public organizations and by its citizens, including the Armed Forces of the USSR. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 3.
The manual further provides that the “armed forces shall be subject to a disciplinary regime that ensures respect for the rules of IHL”. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 12.
The manual also states that, in time of war, commanders must “ensure the strict application of the rules of IHL by military personnel”. 
Russian Federation, Instructions on the Application of the Rules of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the USSR, Appendix to Order of the USSR Defence Minister No. 75, 1990, § 14(b).
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Members of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation shall know and unconditionally observe the rules of international humanitarian law.
While organizing and conducting combat operations the commander and staff must take into account the rules of international humanitarian law. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 4.
The Regulations further states:
The commander and staff while organizing and conducting combat operations, firmly securing combat mission accomplishment, shall ensure respect of international humanitarian law … While getting military units ready for combat operations and controlling them during hostilities commanders shall be guided by the principles of international humanitarian law: the principles of legality, distinction, proportionality, humanity and military necessity … The principle of legality means strict and precise respect of international humanitarian law by all military command bodies, military and civilian personnel. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, §§ 16–17.
[emphasis in original]
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Combat Manual (2005) states: “Every serviceman must know and respect the norms of international humanitarian law”. 
Russian Federation, Combat Manual on the Preparation and Conducting of Combined-Arms Battles (Boevoi ustav po podgotovke i vedeniu obshevoiskovogo boya), Part 3, Platoon, Subdivision, Tank, endorsed by Order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces No. 19, 24 February 2005, § 24.
Russian Federation
The Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (2007) states:
3. Military discipline makes it obligatory for every member of the Armed Forces:
- to respect the rules of international humanitarian law in accordance with the Constitution of the Russian Federation.
4. Military discipline is achieved:
- through knowledge and respect by members of the Armed Forces of the laws of the Russian Federation, other normative acts of the Russian Federation, requirements of military service regulations and IHL rules. 
Russian Federation, Disciplinary Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Disciplinarniy ustav vooruzhennikh sil Rossiskoi Federacii), approved by Decree No. 1495 of the President of the Russian Federation, 10 November 2007, §§ 3–4.
Russian Federation
The Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (2007) provides:
16. Defence of State sovereignty and of territorial integrity of the Russian Federation, ensuring the security of the State, repelling an armed attack and attaining objectives in accordance with international obligations of the Russian Federation shall be the essence of the military duty, which makes it obligatory for a member of military personnel:
- to respect general principles and rules of international law and international treaties of the Russian Federation.
22. A member of military personnel must know and respect IHL rules and regulations pertaining to treatment of the wounded, sick, shipwrecked, medical personnel, ministers of religion, civilian population in areas of hostilities and prisoners of war.
83. A commander (superior) must improve his personal professional level of training and methods of management of a unit:
- know the normative legal acts of the Russian Federation within the limits of the legal minimum and IHL rules and act in strict compliance therewith, and to demand that his subordinates respect them. 
Russian Federation, Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Ustav vnutrennei sluzhbi vooruzhennikh sil Rossiskoi Federacii), approved by Decree No. 1495 of the President of the Russian Federation, 10 November 2007, §§ 16, 22 and 83.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) states:
IHL principles are the best mankind can get in armed conflict situations …
Irrespective of rank, all members of the [Republic of Sierra Leone armed forces] must adhere to these rules religiously to avert prosecution for war crimes at the newly instituted Court Martial. The production of this manual is in part fulfilment of Government’s obligation to instruct its armed forces and civilian population alike in the provisions of international humanitarian law.
As this is the focal point of this training manual, all commanders are enjoined to integrate IHL training in their training curriculum on a regular basis so that it becomes second nature to their officers and men. 
Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, “Introduction” (unnumbered page).
South Africa
South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states:
The respect for and unconditional application of the LOAC by all members of the SANDF [South African National Defence Force] is of paramount importance to ensure the retention and maintenance of its moral and ethical standards. 
South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 94.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
1.1 Nature, status and purpose of LOAC [law of armed conflict] in accordance with international and domestic law.
LOAC in RSA [Republic of South Africa] Law
The RSA is a party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions and [1977 Additional] Protocols and is therefore bound by [them]. It is also bound by other treaties that deal with the use of force etc, to which it has become a party. …
For a large part, LOAC forms part of our International Law, not domestic (internal law). The effects of our involvement in the sphere of LOAC are, however, becoming more and more evident in our domestic law – for instance the Anti-mercenary Act.
- The Constitution of the RSA.
- The Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996 is the highest law in South Africa and [s]tates that:
National security must be pursued in compliance with the law, including international law (sec198(c)).
The security services must act, and must teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the law, including customary international law and international agreements binding on the Republic (Sec199(5)).
- Section 232 of the RSA Constitution requires compliance with international customary law as long as such law is not inconsistent with the Constitution or other national (domestic) law.
- The SANDF [South African National Defence Force] has, at all times, to be structured and managed, and will have to act, as a disciplined military force.
- There thus exists a constitutional obligation on the SANDF to abide by LOAC. It may also not deviate in any armed conflict from the requirements of International Law that is binding on the RSA. The national executive, in particular, may not contravene the law of armed conflict, or cause or require the SANDF or its members to commit unlawful acts of aggression.
- International Treaties.
- As a signatory to international treaties governing the waging of war, these treaties that place specific obligations upon the members of the SANDF bind South Africa.
- Failure to observe these conventions and protocols is unacceptable in South Africa and also makes the individual SANDF members liable for breaches thereof. It is therefore imperative that each and every member of the SANDF has a good knowledge of, and can apply LOAC.
Where does the LOAC fit into the South African Legal System? South African law is divided into domestic law and international law.
- International law
- International law is the law applicable between nations and which is accepted by those nations as binding on them.
- International law is based on
- Treaties, ie agreements between nations to respect and adhere to previously identified principles and to ensure that their subjects also respect and adhere to these principles;
- International customary law; and
- Ius cogens[.]
1.2 Reasons for compliance with LOAC and basic principles thereof.
Individuals’ Interests
Military Interests
Nations’ Interests
Legal Considerations. Apart from the abovementioned interests that are addressed by compliance with the LOAC, it must be borne in mind that non-compliance will have legal implications in that it will result in criminal as well as civil liability for both the offender and their commanders. South African law, including the Constitution, places a duty on the SANDF and its members to comply with the LOAC. After all has been said, irrespective of whether you agree with the principles of the LOAC, it is the law, it is binding on us all, and it must be complied with.
Conclusion
- Compliance with the LOAC is required by law and non-compliance is punishable.
1.3 Relationship between LOAC and Human Rights Law and Fundamental Protection Provided under LOAC
The following comparison can be made between Human Rights Law and the LOAC:
LOAC
- The obligation is equally strong on States and individuals to ensure compliance with LOAC. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 1, pp. 2, 7–8, 9–10, 13–16, 19, 21 and 22.
The manual also states:
4.4 Internal and Non-International armed conflict
The difference in approach between International Human Rights Law and the LOAC could be indicated by the following:
LOAC
- States and individuals are responsible for ensuring compliance. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 4, pp. 231 and 232.
The manual further states:
Criminal Liability / Responsibility under LOAC
Introduction
The command of the armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which enforces compliance with the law of war.
To effectively respect the law of war, armed forces need generally applicable rules.
Armed forces cannot be taught different ways of behaviour for international and no[n]-international armed conflicts.
5.2 Command Responsibility
[1977] Additional Protocol I article 87 places the following responsibilities on commanders with respect to members of the armed forces under their command and other persons under their control:
- To disseminate knowledge of the LOAC and to ensure members under their command are aware of their obligations under the LOAC.
This responsibility placed upon commanders by Additional Protocol I article 87, is a personal responsibility. This means that[:]
- The commanders themselves must ensure that their subordinates are aware of their obligations under the LOAC and the necessary measures are taken to prevent violations of the LOAC;
- The commanders themselves must ensure that their subordinates respect the LOAC; …
Through control, the commander makes sure that his subordinates respect and ensure respect for the law of war within their sphere of responsibility[.]
As was said in the beginning of the course, respect for the LOAC is a matter of order and discipline. As with discipline, the LOAC must be respected and enforced in all circumstances.
The LOAC places a duty upon states to respect and ensure respect for “the instruments” in all circumstances. This also places a legal responsibility on all commanders of forces engaged in military operations to ensure the enforcement of the LOAC in all circumstances.
Appropriate guidance, eg rules of engagement, must be given to subordinates to cover specific circumstances. Such guidance will[:]
- Ensure consistent action and behaviour; and
- Prepare subordinate commanders, especially those in command of independent missions, to take the necessary measures required by the situation by themselves.
Commanders are bound by similar rules of engagement in a non-international conflict. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 5, pp. 235, 239, 240 and 241.
[emphasis in original]
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) notes: “Each State undertakes to respect and to ensure respect for the Law of War in all circumstances.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, División de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, § 10.8; see also §§ 2.1, 10.1.a and 11.3.b.(1).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) notes: “States are under an obligation … to respect and ensure respect [for the law of armed conflict] in all circumstances.” 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 10.1; see also § 11.3.b.(1).
The manual also states:
In fulfilling their international obligations, the States Parties transfer a significant part of their responsibility to respect and ensure respect for the laws and customs of law to their armed forces. It is the duty of the armed forces, acting through their commanders-in-chief, to undertake the detailed application of the law of armed conflict. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, § 2.1.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states: “Switzerland has undertaken to respect the rules of the law [of armed conflict].” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, p. III, § 1.
The manual further states: “The laws and customs of war must be observed by Governments, the civilian and military authorities as well as by individuals, military or civilian.” 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 3.
The manual also provides that commanders “are responsible for ensuring that their troops respect the Conventions”. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 196.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Aide-Memoire on the Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict (2005) states: “Whenever possible, I shall prevent potential violations of the Law of Armed Conflict. I have to report violations to my superior as quickly as possible, even if comrades have committed them.”  
Switzerland, The Ten Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflict, Aide-memoire 51.007/IIIe, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance for Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports dated 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, Rule 9.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
4 Respect for and implementation of the legal rules in all types of operation are a command task and an integral part of individual discipline.
151 Understanding of the international law of armed conflict during operations is part of the armed forces’ basic readiness.
169 All military personnel must be familiar with the four principles [distinction, military necessity, proportionality and limitation] in a way that allows them to automatically make the right decision in the heat of battle. 
Switzerland, Bases légales du comportement à l’engagement (BCE), Règlement 51.007/IVf, Swiss Army, issued based on Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department for Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, entry into force on 1 July 2005, §§ 4, 151 and 169.
[emphasis in original]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on the Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property (2013) states: “I will prevent – whenever and wherever possible – any violation of the rules on cultural property protection and will report any such violation to my superiors at once.” 
Switzerland, Ten Basic Rules for the Protection of Cultural Property, Regulation 51.00705e, issued on the basis of Article 10 of the Ordinance on the Organization of the Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sports of 7 March 2003, signed on 21 March 2013, entry into force on 1 July 2013, Rule No. 10.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states that every combatant must “respect and ensure respect in all circumstances for the laws and customs of war, that means the law of the war”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule I, preamble, p. 3.
The manual emphasizes that: “The commander of forces engaged in a military operation is responsible for ensuring respect for the law of war.” 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 14.
The manual further states:
If the duty of the commander is to ensure respect for and the application of the law of war in all circumstances, it is important for the soldier to know and to understand that this law aims to limit and alleviate to the greatest extent possible the calamities of war. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule II, p. 17.
Uganda
Uganda’s LOAC Dissemination Directive (2006) provides: “[The Uganda People’s Defence Force] shall comply with IHL during armed conflict, however characterized (e.g. International armed conflict or Non-international armed conflict).” 
Uganda, Chief of Defence Forces Directive: Dissemination of the Law of Armed Conflict, Uganda People’s Defence Force (UPDF), Chief of Defence Forces, 5 May 2006.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Any commander, commanding officer or staff, while organizing combat operations and in the course of hostilities, is obliged to take into account the rules of international humanitarian law as required by the international obligations of Ukraine.
Servicemen and employees of the Armed Forces of Ukraine must be fully aware of the imperatives of international humanitarian law and comply with them strictly. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.1.1.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) contains Rules for Soldiers, which include: “I must … comply with military discipline and the laws of war which are made for my protection and to reduce unnecessary suffering.” 
United Kingdom, The Law of Armed Conflict, D/DAT/13/35/66, Army Code 71130 (Revised 1981), Ministry of Defence, prepared under the Direction of The Chief of the General Staff, 1981, Annex A, p. 44, § 1.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “Regardless of the justification for or the legitimacy of any resort to force, individual members of the armed forces must act in accordance with the law of armed conflict.” 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 1.7.
The manual further explains that “[t]he law of armed conflict, being part of international law, is binding on states”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 1.10.
In its chapter on the application of the law of armed conflict during peace-support operations, the manual further states:
14.3. The extent to which PSO [peace support operations] forces are subject to the law of armed conflict depends upon whether they are party to an armed conflict with the armed forces of a state or an entity which, for these purposes, is treated as a state. Although the United Nations (and regional organizations) are not states and are not parties to the various treaties on the law of armed conflict, states providing contingents to PSOs remain bound by the treaties to which they are parties.
14.4. Where PSO forces become party to an armed conflict with such forces, then both sides are required to observe the law of armed conflict in its entirety. In those circumstances, recourse must be had to the whole of this manual. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, §§ 14.3–14.4.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) states: “The treaty provisions quoted herein will be strictly observed and enforced by United States forces without regard to whether they are legally binding upon this country.” It adds: “The unwritten or customary law of war is binding upon all nations. It will be strictly observed by United States forces.” 
United States, Field Manual 27-10, The Law of Land Warfare, US Department of the Army, 18 July 1956, as modified by Change No. 1, 15 July 1976, § 7.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states: “Compliance [with the law of armed conflict] is important because states have reciprocal interests in the law’s continued application.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 1-4(d).
It also recognizes that
States have important customary and treaty obligations to observe the law of armed conflict, as a matter of national policy, and to insure its implementation, observance and enforcement by [their] own armed forces. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 10-3.
The Pamphlet further provides: “Article 1 [common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions] requires all parties to respect and insure respect for the Conventions in all circumstances.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 11-3; see also § 10-1(b).
The Pamphlet also states: $
The US … ensures observance and enforcement through a variety of national means including close command control, military regulations, rules of engagement, the Uniform Code of Military Justice and other national enforcement techniques. 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 15-2(e).
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (1995) states: “During wartime or other periods of armed conflict, U.S. rules of engagement reaffirm the right and responsibility of the operational commander to seek out, engage, and destroy enemy forces consistent with … the law of armed conflict.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 5.5.
The Handbook quotes Navy Regulations which provide: “At all times, commanders shall observe, and require their commands to observe, the principles of international law.” It adds: “It is the responsibility of the Chief of Naval Operations and the Commandant of the Marine Corps … to ensure that: 1. The U.S. Navy and Marine Corps observe and enforce the law of armed conflict at all times.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-2.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Transportation, US Coast Guard, October 1995 (formerly NWP 9 (Rev. A)/FMFM 1-10, October 1989), § 6.1.2.
United States of America
The US Naval Handbook (2007) states:
It is the policy of the United States to apply the law of armed conflict to all circumstances in which the armed forces of the United States are engaged in combat operations, regardless of whether such hostilities are declared or otherwise designated as “war”. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, p. 19; see also § 5.2.
The Handbook refers to US Navy Regulations (1990), which require US naval commanders to observe international law:
Article 0705, Observance of International Law states:
At all times, a commander shall observe, and require their commands to observe, the principles of international law. Where necessary to fulfill this responsibility, a departure from other provisions of Navy Regulations is authorized. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, p. 20.
[emphasis in original]
The Handbook also states: “U.S. service members are bound by the law of armed conflict as embodied in customary international law and all treaties to which the United States is a party.” 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 6.1.1.
The Handbook also states:
Various means are available to belligerents under international law for inducing compliance with the law of armed conflict. To establish the facts, the belligerents may agree to an ad hoc inquiry. In the event of a clearly established violation of the law of armed conflict, the aggrieved nation may:
1. Publicize the facts with a view toward influencing world public opinion against the offending nation.
2. Protest to the offending nation and demand that those responsible be punished and/or that compensation be paid.
3. Seek the intervention of a neutral party, particularly with respect to the protection of prisoners of war and other of its nationals that have fallen under the control of the offending nation.
4. Execute a belligerent reprisal action …
5. Punish individual offenders either during the conflict or upon cessation of hostilities. 
United States, The Commander’s Handbook on the Law of Naval Operations, NWP 1-14M/MCWP 5-12.1/COMDTPUB P5800.7, issued by the Department of the Navy, Office of the Chief of Naval Operations and Headquarters, US Marine Corps, and Department of Homeland Security, US Coast Guard, July 2007, § 6.2.
[emphasis in original]
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states: “U.S. forces must be prepared to properly control, maintain, protect, and account for all categories of detainees in accordance with … the law of war”. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. vii.
The manual also states:
Legal Considerations
a. As a subset of military operations, detainee operations must comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and in all other military operations. Often referred to as the law of armed conflict, the law of war is that part of international law that regulates the conduct of armed hostilities and occupation.
b. The law of war encompasses all international law for the conduct of hostilities binding on the United States or its individual citizens, including treaties and international agreements to which the United States is a party, and applicable customary international law …
c. The four Geneva Conventions of 1949 are fully applicable as a matter of international law to all military operations that qualify as international armed conflicts. These treaties are intended to provide comprehensive humanitarian standards for the treatment of war victims without discrimination. The principles reflected in these treaties are considered customary international law, binding on all nations during international armed conflict. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. I-2.
The manual further states: “[T]he Armed Forces of the United States comply with the law of war as a matter of DOD [Department of Defense] policy during all operations, … [including] all detention operations.” 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-14.
The manual also states: “DODD [Department of Defense Directive] 2310.01E requires that all DOD personnel and contractors will apply, without regard to a detainee’s legal status, at a minimum, the standards articulated in Common Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions of 1949”. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, pp. III-11–III-12.
Uzbekistan
Uzbekistan’s Internal Service Manual (1996) states: “A soldier must know and comply strictly with international rules of warfare, the treatment of the wounded, sick persons, shipwrecked, and civilians in a war zone, as well as prisoners of war.” 
Uzbekistan, Manual of the Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Uzbekistan, adopted by Presidential Decree No. UP-1571, 9 October 1996, Article 19.
Armenia
Armenia’s Law on the Manual of Internal Service (1996) provides: “Servicemen are obliged to know and to implement international rules on conduct of hostilities.” 
Armenia, Law on the adoption of the Manual of Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Armenia, adopted by Parliament on 3 December 1996, Article 19.
Belgium
Belgium’s Royal Decree on the Reorganization of the Interdepartmental Commission on Humanitarian Law (2000) provides:
Article 1
The Interdepartmental Commission on Humanitarian Law … is reorganised under the name of “Interministerial Commission on Humanitarian Law.”
Article 2
The Interministerial Commission on Humanitarian Law, hereinafter “the Commission”, is tasked to:
1. Identify and examine the national measures required to implement the rules of international humanitarian law, notifying the federal ministers concerned and submitting to them the relevant proposals;
2. Ensure the follow-up and coordination of the national implementing measures envisaged in Article 1;
3. In its capacity as permanent advisory body, assist the Federal Government, at its own initiative or upon the request of the latter, through studies, reports, opinions, and proposals relating to the development of international humanitarian law. 
Belgium, Royal Decree on the Reorganization of the Interdepartmental Commission on Humanitarian Law, 2000, Articles 1 and 2(1)–(3).
Brazil
Brazil’s Decree on the National Commission on IHL (2003) states:
The National Commission for the Dissemination and Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Brazil is [hereby] established … [It has] the objective of proposing the necessary measures to be taken by the competent authorities for the implementation … of international humanitarian law in Brazil, notably the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols … , as well as other instruments on the matter to which Brazil is a party. 
Brazil, Decree on the National Commission on IHL, 2003, Article 1.
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Interdepartmental Order on the Dissemination of IHL (2008) states:
Art. 1: A Committee for the Dissemination of International Humanitarian Law to the Defence and Security Forces is created.
Art. 2: The committee is responsible for the coordination and the efficiency of International Humanitarian Law activities within the Defence and Security Forces.
In this respect, it is responsible for:
- Defining the standard norms for the rules of engagement [and for the] structure of orders within the Defence and Security Forces during their respective missions;
- Creating International Humanitarian Law cells in the units and services of the Defence and Security Forces present in territorial communities;
- Ensuring the application of International Humanitarian Law at the strategic, tactical and operational levels during the conduct of operations. 
Central African Republic, Interdepartmental Order on the Dissemination of IHL, 2008, Articles 1–2.
Colombia
Colombia’s Directive No. 10 (2007), whose objective is to prevent the killing of protected persons, states:
The state of Colombia is party to instruments of public international law which regulate international humanitarian law and thus is obliged to respect and apply international humanitarian law. This obligation applies to the members of the armed forces who are the obvious addressees of such humanitarian norms. Consequently, in carrying out the mission assigned to the armed forces by Article 217 of the Political Constitution [of Colombia], the armed forces must be strictly subjected to international humanitarian law. 
Colombia, Directive No. 10, 2007, § IV.
France
France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states:
When exercising the authority of a commander, the member of the military … [h]as the right and the duty to demand obedience from subordinates; he cannot order the performance of acts contrary to the laws, rules of international law applicable to armed conflicts and international conventions in force. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-2.
The Code of Defence also states:
Combatants are subject to the obligations arising from the international law applicable to armed conflicts, in particular the laws and customs of war as well as the four [1949] Geneva Conventions”. 
France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-7.
Indonesia
Indonesia’s Decree on the Implementation of IHL and Human Rights in State Defence (2002) provides:
Considering:
2. that the administration of State Defense shall always be guided by humanitarian law, customary international law, and national human rights law as well as by universal international law;
3. that in view of the considerations referred to in points 1 and 2, it is necessary to stipulate a Decree of the Minister of Defense on the application of humanitarian law and human rights law in the administration of State Defense.
Resolves
To stipulate:
1. The application of the humanitarian law from the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, of international customary law, and of human rights law in the administration of State Defense.
2. The law from the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 comprises the following:
a. Convention I for the amelioration of the condition of the wounded and sick in armed forces in the field
b. Convention II for the amelioration of the condition of wounded, sick, and shipwrecked members of armed forces at sea
c. Convention III relative to the treatment of prisoners of war
d. Convention IV relative to the protection of civilian persons in time of war
3. The customary international law comprises international conventions in humanitarian law that are already accepted and applied by the international community.
4. The human rights law comprises human rights provisions that are regulated in various pieces of national legislation and in already ratified human rights conventions or covenants, universal and international. 
Indonesia, Decree on the Implementation of IHL and Human Rights in State Defence, 2002, preamble (§§ 2–3) and §§ 1–4.
Japan
Japan’s Law concerning the Peace and Independence of the Nation and National Security in Situations of Armed Attack (2003) states:
Article 21 – Basic Plans on the Preparation of Legislation relating to the Response to Situations [of Armed Attack]
2. [All such] legislation must ensure the appropriate implementation of international humanitarian law applicable in international armed conflict. 
Japan, Law concerning the Peace and Independence of the Nation and National Security in Situations of Armed Attack, 2003, Article 21(2).
Liberia
Liberia’s National Defense Act (2008) states: “All members of the AFL [Armed Forces of Liberia] shall comply fully with International Humanitarian Laws and the laws of armed conflict including the [1949] Geneva Conventions and the additional protocols.” 
Liberia, National Defense Act, 2008, Section 8.6.
Mexico
Mexico’s Order establishing the IHL Commission (2009) states:
The Interdepartmental Commission on International Humanitarian Law, whose acronym is CIDIH-Mexico, is hereby permanently established as a consultative and technical organ of the Federal Government whose objective is to … promote respect for the norms, principles and institutions of international humanitarian law and to advance the implementation at the national and international level of the obligations acquired by Mexico by virtue of being a party to international treaties in this field. 
Mexico, Order establishing the IHL Commission, 2009, Article 1.
The Order also states:
In order to fulfil its objectives, the Commission shall have the following tasks:
I. Formulate recommendations and elaborate draft legislation on measures to be taken for the effective application of the norms of international humanitarian law contained in international treaties to which Mexico is a party with the purpose of facilitating their implementation in legislation, rules, regulations and administrative practices.
III. Promote the implementation and continuous updating of the actions necessary to comply with the obligations contained in the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the other instruments of international humanitarian law to which the State of Mexico is a party. 
Mexico, Order establishing the IHL Commission, 2009, Article 3(I) and (III).
Peru
Peru’s Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan (2005) states that an objective of this plan is “to ensure that the legislation and national practice is in accordance with the
State’s obligations stemming from international human rights law and international humanitarian law”. 
Peru, Presidential Decree on the National Human Rights Plan, 2005, § 4.
Peru
Peru’s Law on the Ministry of Defence (2007) states that the functions of the Ministry of Defence include “laying down rules for and supervising the institutional objectives and actions of the armed forces in the field of international human rights law and international humanitarian law”. 
Peru, Law on the Ministry of Defence, 2007, Article 7(15).
Peru
Peru’s Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces (2010), in a chapter entitled “Applicable normative framework”, states:
Members of the armed forces who participate in the planning, decision-making, and conduct of military operations or in situations after military operations as identified by Article 51 of the present Legislative Decree [i.e. when a state of emergency has been declared] are subject to the norms of international humanitarian law and of the applicable norms of international human rights law. 
Peru, Decree on the Use of Force by the Armed Forces, 2010, Article 8.1.
Peru
Peru’s Law on the Organization of the Ministry of Defence (2010) states:
The Ministry of Defence has the following functions:
n) To lay down rules for the armed forces and to supervise the institutional objectives and activities of the armed forces in the field of international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 
Peru, Law on the Organization of the Ministry of Defence, 2010, Article 9(n).
Philippines
The Philippines’ Executive Order No. 404 (2005), Creating the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Monitoring Committee (GRP-MC) on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, states:
Whereas, the Government recognizes that respect for human rights and international humanitarian law is of crucial importance and urgent necessity in laying the ground for a just and lasting peace;
Whereas, the parties signed the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) on 16 March 1998 in The Hague to guarantee the protection of human rights to all Filipinos under all circumstances by primarily addressing violations and abuses of human rights and the principles of international humanitarian law;
Whereas, Part V of the CARHRIHL provides for the formation of a Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) that shall monitor the implementation of this Agreement;
Whereas, the parties signed the Operational Guidelines for the JMC on 14 February 2004 in Oslo which provided the manner by which to operationalize the JMC and monitor the implementation of and achieve the purposes of the CARHRIHL;
Now, Therefore, I, Gloria Macapagal – Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested in me by law, do hereby order:
Section 1. Creating the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Monitoring Committee (GRP-MC) on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law – There is hereby created the Government of the Republic of the Philippines Monitoring Committee (GRP-MC) on Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law which shall be composed of a Chairperson and two (2) Members, with two (2) Observers from human rights organizations, all of whom shall be designated by the GRP Panel in the peace negotiations with the CPP/NPA/NDF. The GRP-MC shall operate under the supervision of the GRP Panel, which shall also provide overall support in the management and operation of the GRP-MC.
Section 2. Powers and Functions – The GRP-MC shall have the following powers and functions:
b. Monitor the status of the implementation of the CARHRIHL by concerned units and agencies of the Government, and request the concerned agencies to address through appropriate actions the non-implementation or any violation of the Agreement;
c. Work closely with the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) of the Philippines with regard to its constitutional mandate to investigate human rights violations and monitor the Governments’ compliance with international treaty obligations on human rights. For this purpose, the GRP-MC shall provide CHR with regular updates concerning its work;
d. Coordinate with concerned units and agencies of the Government, as well as civil society groups and other entities, for any assistance as may be necessary in the performance of its functions;
e. Create, if necessary, local monitoring teams and other similar bodies throughout the country to provide assistance in the performance of its functions;
f. Submit, as often as necessary, reports to the GRP Panel on the status of its work, including recommendations to address reported cases of violations of human rights and IHL principles;
i. Perform such other functions as may be assigned by the GRP Panel and necessary to ensure the effective and efficient monitoring of the implementation of the CARHRIHL. 
Philippines, Executive Order No. 404, 2005, preamble and Sections 1–2.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Law on Status of Members of Armed Forces (1993), as amended, provides:
Protection of the State sovereignty and territorial integrity of the Russian Federation … constitutes the essence of the soldier’s duty, which obliges military servicemen: … to observe universally recognized principles and legal regulations of international law and international treaties [ratified] by the Russian Federation. 
Russian Federation, Law on Status of Members of Armed Forces as amended, 1993, Article 26.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Service Regulations of the Armed Forces (1993) provides:
A serviceman is obliged to know and pronouncedly observe international rules regarding the conduct of military operations and the treatment of the wounded, sick, shipwrecked and the civilian population in the military operations area, as well as prisoners of war. 
Russian Federation, Service Regulations of the Armed Forces, 1993, Article 19.
Senegal
Senegal’s Decree on the High Commission for Human Rights and the Promotion of Peace (2004) states:
The High Commission for Human Rights and the Promotion of Peace is … tasked with monitoring all questions regarding the promotion and protection of human rights [and] the implementation of international humanitarian law …
To this effect:
- it watches over … the implementation of international conventions in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law, and contributes to the adaption of domestic law to these conventions. 
Senegal, Decree on the High Commission for Human Rights and the Promotion of Peace, 2004, Article 2.
South Africa
South Africa’s Constitution (1996), as amended to 2003, states:
199. Establishment, structuring and conduct of security services.
(1) The security services of the Republic consist of a single defence force, a single police service and any intelligence services established in terms of the Constitution.
(2) The defence force is the only lawful military force in the Republic.
(3) Other than the security services established in terms of the Constitution, armed organisations or services may be established only in terms of national legislation.
(5) The security services must act, and must teach and require their members to act, in accordance with the Constitution and the law, including customary international law and international agreements binding on the Republic. 
South Africa, Constitution, 1996, as amended to 2003, Section 199(1)–(3) and (5).
[footnote in original omitted]
South Africa
South Africa’s Implementation of the Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
2. Objects of Act
The objects of this Act are to –
(a) enact the Conventions into law as is required by section 231(4) of the Constitution;
(b) ensure that the Republic complies with the Conventions; and
(c) ensure prevention of, and punishment for, breaches of the Conventions.
3. Applicable law
In addition to the Constitution and the law, any court in the Republic hearing any matter arising from the application of this Act must also consider and, where, appropriate, may apply –
(a) conventional international law;
(b) customary international law; and
(c) comparable foreign law. 
South Africa, Implementation of the Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Sections 2–3.
Spain
Spain’s Royal Decree Establishing the Spanish IHL Commission (2007) states that this Commission is to:
Ensure the effective application of and respect for norms of international humanitarian law through the elaboration of proposals to the Government regarding draft legislation or concerning the adoption of regulations or other measures within the domestic legal framework or at the international level. 
Spain, Royal Decree Establishing the Spanish IHL Commission, 2007, Article 2(1)(d).
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Military Career (2007) states:
The following essential rules define military conduct:
First. [He or she] shall make his/her conduct comply … with the international law applicable to armed conflicts. 
Spain, Law on the Military Career, 2007, Article 4(1).
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces (2009) states that members of the armed forces “[m]ust adjust their conduct to the respect … of international law applicable in armed conflicts.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 11.
The Ordinances also states in the article on duties with regard to international humanitarian law:
Members of the armed forces must have knowledge of and … apply in the conduct of any armed conflict or military operation, the international conventions ratified by Spain relating to alleviating the plight of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked [members] of the armed forces, to the treatment of prisoners and the protection of civilians, as well as those concerning the protection of cultural property and the prohibition or restriction of the use of certain weapons. 
Spain, Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, 2009, Article 106.
Spain
Spain’s Law on the Rights and Duties of Members of the Armed Forces (2011) states:
Article 2. Scope of application
1. This law applies to all members of the Armed Forces who acquire the status of military personnel in accordance with Law 39/2007, of 19 November, on Military Career. Accordingly, it applies to official members of the armed forces, except for those persons in administrative roles whose status as military personnel is suspended and students undergoing military training.
2. This status applies to members of the reserves and aspirants when they are incorporated into the armed forces …
Article 6. Rules of conduct of military personnel
1. The essential rules governing the conduct of military personnel are the following:
Fifth
To act in accordance with respect for the person, the common good, and international law applicable during armed conflict. 
Spain, Law on the Rights and Duties of Members of the Armed Forces, 2011, Articles 2 and 6(1).
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Resolution Establishing the Commission on IHL Implementation (1999) states:
With a view [to implement] the international legal obligations of the Republic of Tajikistan arising from the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977 ratified by the Republic of Tajikistan on 13 January 1993 … the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan decrees:
1. … The Commission for the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan shall be set up. 
Tajikistan, Resolution Establishing the Commission for IHL Implementation, 1999, Preamble and Article 1.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Regulations of the Commission on IHL Implementation (1999) states:
1. The Commission for the implementation of international humanitarian law under the Government of the Republic of Tajikistan (hereinafter – the Commission) shall be a standing inter[-]departmental advisory body that was created in order to coordinate the activities of ministries, state committees, agencies and executive authorities, enterprises, institutions and organizations (hereinafter – the authorities concerned) for the implementation of international obligations of the Republic of Tajikistan arising out of the Geneva conventions of 12 August 1949, and the Additional Protocols of 8 June 1977 and other international instruments in the field of international humanitarian law.
3. The main task of the Commission shall be to promote the implementation of international obligations of the Republic of Tajikistan in the field of international humanitarian law (hereinafter – IHL).
4. In order to fulfill the main task, the Commission shall have the following functions:
- Promoting the harmonization of the legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan in accordance with the provisions of international treaties in the field of international humanitarian law, to which the Republic of Tajikistan is a State party;
- Providing assistance in the prescribed manner in the ratification by the Republic of IHL treaties or accession to such treaties;
- Providing assistance in the effective implementation of relevant provisions of IHL treaties;
- Studying and assessing of the national legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan regarding its compliance with IHL;
- Preparing proposals for the implementation of IHL in the legislation of the Republic of Tajikistan;
- Evaluating the participation of the Republic of Tajikistan in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977 and other international instruments in the field of international humanitarian law. 
Tajikistan, Regulations of the Commission on IHL Implementation, 1999, Articles 1 and 3–4.
United States of America
On 5 December 2007, the US Department of Defense and Department of State issued a Memorandum of Agreement that provided for relative areas of authority and responsibility for the accountability and operations of US government private security contractors (PSCs) in Iraq:
Mandatory training for PSCs prior to operating in Iraq will include review of relevant USG [US Government] and Iraqi laws, Rules for the Use of Force, Law of Armed Conflict, Graduated Force Procedures, and those relevant … rules and regulations applicable to their contracts, as well as scenario-based training on a standard set of Use-of-Force vignettes … based on recent incidents and threat reporting. Refresher training will occur annually … A failure to maintain training qualifications will generally result in revocation of firearms authorization for the individual. 
United States, Department of Defense and Department of State, Memorandum of Agreement Between the Department of Defense and the Department of State on USG Private Security Contractors, 5 December 2007, p. 8.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the National Armed Forces (2005) states: “All personnel belonging to the National Armed Forces must strictly comply with every principle of International Humanitarian Law duly signed and ratified by the Republic [of Venezuela].” 
Venezuela, Law on the National Armed Forces, 2005, Article 79.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (2008) states:
Article 134. Respect for International Humanitarian Law
Members of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces must know, respect, comply with and ensure compliance with the national legal provisions and the international conventions, treaties and agreements signed and ratified by the Venezuelan State in the field of international humanitarian law. 
Venezuela, Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, 2008, Article 134.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (2008), as amended to 2011, states:
Article 137. Respect for International Humanitarian Law
Male and female members of the Bolivarian National Armed Forces must know, respect, comply with and ensure compliance with the national legal provisions and the international conventions, treaties and agreements signed and ratified by the Venezuelan State in the field of international humanitarian law. 
Venezuela, Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, 2008, as amended to 2011, Article 137.
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s National Security Act (2009) states:
Functions of [the National Security] Council
The Council shall, subject to the provisions of the Constitution, be responsible for–
(e) ensuring that the operations of the security services comply with the Constitution and any other law. 
Zimbabwe, National Security Council Act, 2009, Article 4(e).
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated: “At the international level, the State obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law is found in Article 1 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and has acquired customary status.” 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 57.
(footnotes in original omitted)
The Court added that this obligation includes “the obligation to take all necessary legislative, administrative or judicial measures to adapt their domestic legal framework, when applicable, to the norms established under humanitarian law”. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 61.
India
In its order in the Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi case in 2005, India’s High Court of Gujarat stated:
9. There is no law in India which contains any specific provision obliging the State to enforce or implement the international treaties and conventions including the implementation of International Humanitarian Law (IHL). Amongst the domestic legislation, the only law that directly deals with the principle of IHL is the Geneva Convention Act, 1960. The main objective of the Act is to implement the provisions of the 1949 Conventions relating to the punishment for grave breaches and prevent and punish the abuse of Red cross in other emblems. The apex Court in Rev. Mons. Sebastian Francisco Zavier Dos Remedious Monterio v. State of Goa reported in MANU/SC/0140/1969: 1970CriLJ499a examined the scope of Geneva Conventions Act, 1960 and observed about the efficacy of the Act, thus, (Para 15)
the Act by itself does not give any special remedy. It does give, indirect protection by providing for branches of Conventions. The Conventions are not made enforceable by the government against itself, nor does the Act give a cause of action to any party for the enforcement of the 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 respect of protected persons which the Court has been asked to enforce.
10. However, [the] constitution guarantees certain fundamental human rights to citizens as well as non-citizens. The preamble of the Constitution which declares the general purpose for which the several provisions of the Constitution have been made to, “assure the dignity of the individual” which is also the basic objective of the international humanitarian law …
18. … All member nations of the United Nations including our country are expected to respect … international treaties and conventions concerning Humanitarian law. In fact, Article 51(c) of the Constitution also casts a duty on the State to endeavour to “foster respect for international law and treaty obligations in the dealings of organized peoples with one another” …
PRINCIPLE FOR ENFORCEMENT OF HUMANITARIAN LAW:
19. From the conspectus of the aforesaid, [the] following principle emerges in the matter of enforcement of Humanitarian law:-
(1) The International Conventions and Treaties are not as such enforceable by the Government, nor [do] they give cause of action to any party, but there is an obligation on the Government to respect them.
(2) The power of the Government to expel a foreigner is absolute.
(3) Article 21 of the Constitution of India guarantees right of life on Indian Soil to a non-citizen, as well, but not right to reside and settle in India.
(4) The international covenants and treaties which effectuate the fundamental rights guaranteed in our constitution can be relied upon by the Courts as facets of those fundamental rights and can be enforced as such.
(5) the work of the UNHCR being humanitarian, on certification of Refugee, FS the Government of India is under obligation to ensure that Refugees receive international protection until their problem is solved.
(6) The principle of “non-refoulement” is encompassed in Article 21 of the Constitution of India and the projection is available, so long as the presence of the refugee is not prejudicial to the national security.
(7) In view of directives under Article 51(c) and Article 253, international law and treaty obligations are to be respected. The Courts may apply those principles in domestic law, provided such principles are not inconsistent with domestic law.
(8) Where no construction of the domestic law is possible, Courts can give effect to international conventions and treaties by a harmonious construction. 
India, High Court of Gujarat, Ktaer Abbas Habib Al Qutaifi case, Order, 12 October 1998, §§ 9–10 and 18–19.
India
In 2008, in the Noor Aga case, India’s Supreme Court allowed an appeal against the decision of the Additional Sessions Judge, who convicted an Afghan national of illegal import of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances to India. While addressing the appellant’s right to fair trial, the Court stated:
Application of international law in a case involving war crime[s] was considered by the Constitutional Court of South Africa in State v. Basson … Basson case, 2004] opining:
The rules of humanitarian law constitute an important ingredient of customary international law. As the International Court of Justice … has stated, they are fundamental to the respect of the human person and elementary considerations of humanity. The rules of humanitarian law in armed conflicts are to be observed by all States whether or not they have ratified the [1949 Geneva] Conventions that contain them because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law. The ICJ has also stressed that the obligation on all governments to respect the Geneva Conventions in all circumstances does not derive from the Conventions themselves, but from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the Conventions merely give specific expression. 
India, Supreme Court, Noor Aga case, Judgment, 9 July 2008, p. 8.
Israel
In its judgment in Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
Though we are unable to express a position regarding the specific events mentioned in the petition, which are, on the face of things, severe, we see fit to emphasize that our combat forces are required to abide by the rules of humanitarian law regarding the care of the wounded, the ill and bodies of the deceased. The fact that medical personnel have abused their position in hospitals and in ambulances has made it necessary for the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] to act in order to prevent such activities but does not, in and of itself, justify sweeping breaches of humanitarian rules. Indeed, this is also the position of the state. This stance is required, not only under the rules of international law on which the petitioners have based their arguments here, but also in light of the values of the State of Israel as a Jewish and democratic state.
The IDF shall once again instruct the combat forces, down to the level of the lone soldier in the field, of this commitment by our forces based on law and morality – and, according to the state, even on utilitarian considerations – through concrete instructions which will prevent, to the extent possible, and even in severe situations, incidents which are inconsistent with the rules of humanitarian law. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, Judgment, 8 April 2002.
Israel
In its ruling in the Barake case in 2002 dealing with the question of when, how and by whom the mortal remains of Palestinians who died in a battle in Jenin refugee camp should be identified and buried, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated: “Of course, the rules of the law apply always and immediately … Even during combat one should uphold the laws that govern combat.” 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Barake case, Ruling, 14 April 2002, § 12.
Israel
In its judgment in the Almandi case in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
9. Israel finds itself in the middle of difficult battle against a furious wave of terrorism. Israel is exercising its right of self defense … This combat is not taking place in a normative void. It is being carried out according to the rules of international law, which provide principles and rules for combat activity. The saying, “when the cannons roar, the muses are silent,” is incorrect. Cicero’s aphorism that laws are silent during war does not reflect modern reality. I dealt with this idea in HCJ 168/91 Marcus v. The Minister of Defense, at 470–71, noting:
When the cannons roar, the muses are silent. But even under the roar of the cannons, the Military Commander must uphold the law. The strength of society in withstanding its enemies is based on its recognition that it is fighting for values that are worth defending. The rule of law is one of those values.
In HCJ 3114/02 Barake, v. The Minister of Defense, decided only a few days ago, during the height of combat activities in “Operation Defensive Wall,” we stated
Even in a time of combat, the laws of war must be followed. Even in a time of combat, all must be done in order to protect the civilian population.
The foundation of this approach is not only the pragmatic consequence of a political and normative reality. Its roots lie much deeper. It is an expression of the difference between a democratic state fighting for its life and the aggression of terrorists rising up against it. The state fights in the name of the law and in the name of upholding the law. The terrorists fight against the law and exploit its violation. The war against terror is also the law’s war against those who rise up against it … Moreover, the State of Israel is founded on Jewish and democratic values. We established a state that upholds the law – it fulfills its national goals, long the vision of its generations, while upholding human rights and ensuring human dignity. Between these – the vision and the law – there lies only harmony, not conflict. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Almandi case, Judgment, 25 April 2002, § 9.
Israel
In its judgment in the Ajuri case in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
[T]he State of Israel is fighting a difficult war against terror. It is a war carried out within the law and with the tools that the law makes available. The well-known saying that “In battle laws are silent” (inter arma silent leges – Cicero, pro Milone 11; see also W. Rehnquist, All the Laws but One, 1998, at p. 218) does not reflect the law as it is, nor as it should be. This was well-expressed by Lord Atkin in Liversidge v. Anderson, at p. 361, when he said:
“In England amidst the clash of arms the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which … we are now fighting, that the judges … stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.”
Indeed, “… even when the cannons speak, the military commander must uphold the law. The power of society to stand against its enemies is based on its recognition that it is fighting for values that deserve protection. The rule of law is one of these values” (HCJ 168/91 Morcos v. Minister of Defence, at p. 470). “We have established here a law-abiding State, that realizes its national goals and the vision of generations, and does so while recognizing and realizing human rights in general, and human dignity in particular” (HCJ 3451/02 Almadani v. Minister of Defence [3], at p. 35). This was well expressed by my colleague, Justice M. Cheshin, when he said:
“We will not falter in our efforts on behalf of the rule of law. We committed ourselves by our oath to dispense justice, to be the servants of the law, and to be faithful to our oath and to ourselves. Even when the trumpets of war sound, the rule of law makes its voice heard” (Sabiah v. IDF Commander in Judaea and Samaria [21], at p. 369).
Indeed, the position of the State of Israel is a difficult one. Also our role as judges is not easy. We are doing all we can to balance properly between human rights and the security of the area. In this balance, human rights cannot receive complete protection, as if there were no terror, and State security cannot receive complete protection, as if there were no human rights. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Ajuri case, Judgment, 3 September 2002, § 40.
Israel
In its judgment in Physicians for Human Rights v Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip in 2004, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
7. “Israel is not an isolated island. She is a member of an international system.” HCJ 5592/02 Yassin v. Commander of the Kziot Military Camp. The military operations of the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] are not conducted in a legal vacuum. There are legal norms – of customary international law, of treaties to which Israel is party, and of the fundamental principles of Israeli law – which set out how military operations should be conducted. In HCJ 3451/02 Almandi v. The Minister of Defense, I noted that:
Israel finds itself in the middle of a difficult battle against a furious wave of terrorism. Israel is exercising its right of self defense. See The Charter of the United Nations, art. 51. This combat is not taking place in a normative void. It is being carried out according to the rules of international law, which provide principles and rules for combat activity. The saying, “When the cannons roar, the muses are silent,” is incorrect. Cicero’s aphorism that laws are silent during war does not reflect modern reality. The foundation of this approach is not only the pragmatic consequence of a political and normative reality. Its roots lie much deeper. It is an expression of the difference between a democratic state fighting for its life and the aggression of terrorists rising up against it. The state fights in the name of the law and in the name of upholding the law. The terrorists fight against the law and exploit its violation. The war against terror is also the law’s war against those who rise up against it. See HCJ 320/80 Kawasma v. The Minister of Defense, at 132. Moreover, the State of Israel is founded on Jewish and democratic values. We established a state that upholds the law – it fulfills its national goals, long the vision of its generations, while upholding human rights and ensuring human dignity. Between these – the vision and the law – there lies only harmony, not conflict.
Indeed, all of the IDF’s operations are subject to international law. For example, in HCJ 3114/02 Barake v. Minister of Defense I noted that “[e]ven in a time of combat, the laws of war must be followed. Even in a time of combat, all must be done in order to protect the civilian population.” 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of IDF Forces in the Gaza Strip, Judgment, 30 May 2004, § 7.
Israel
In the Adalah v. Minister of Interior case before Israel’s High Court of Justice in 2006, President Barak stated in his dissenting opinion:
Indeed, even if the rights of the foreign spouse have been violated under international human rights law and humanitarian human rights law – and even if the rights of the Israeli spouse to the extent that they are enshrined only in those laws were violated – this violation was made by virtue of the Citizenship and Entry into Israel Law. Express local legislation is capable, from the internal viewpoint of Israeli law, of violating rights given in international law. No matter how much the latter constitutes customary international law, it is unable to overcome Israeli legislation that expressly violates it. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Adalah v. Minister of Interior case, Judgment, 14 May 2006, Opinion of President Barak, § 17.
Israel
In its judgment in the Public Committee against Torture in Israel case in 2006, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
The State of Israel is fighting against severe terrorism, which plagues it from the area. The means at Israel’s disposal are limited. The State determined that preventative strikes upon terrorists in the area which cause their deaths are a necessary means from the military standpoint. These strikes at times cause harm and even death to innocent civilians. These preventative strikes, with all the military importance they entail, must be made within the framework of the law. The saying “when the cannons roar, the muses are silent” is well known. A similar idea was expressed by Cicero, who said: “during war, the laws are silent” (silent enim legis inter arma). Those sayings are regrettable. They reflect neither the existing law nor the desirable law (see Re. Application Under s.83.28 of the Criminal Code [2004] 2 S.C.R. 248, 260). It is when the cannons roar that we especially need the laws (see HCJ 168/91 Murkus v. The Minister of Defense, 45(1) PD 467, 470, hereinafter Murkus). Every struggle of the state – against terrorism or any other enemy – is conducted according to rules and law. There is always law which the state must comply with. There are no “black holes” (see JOHAN STEYN, DEMOCRACY THROUGH LAW: SELECTED SPEECHES AND JUDGMENTS 195 (2004)). In this case, the law was determined by customary international law regarding conflicts of an international character. Indeed, the State’s struggle against terrorism is not conducted “outside” of the law. It is conducted “inside” the law, with tools that the law places at the disposal of democratic states. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Public Committee against Torture in Israel case, Judgment, 14 December 2006, § 61.
Nepal
In its order in the Foundation for Human Rights, Environment and Alternative Development case in 2004, the Supreme Court of Nepal stated:
In considering whether the enactment of the national laws regarding the subject … is rational, the Geneva Conventions state that “the high contracting parties must undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present convention in all circumstances” and art 49 of the first convention, art 50 of the second convention, art 129 of the third convention and art 146 of the fourth convention also state that “the high contracting parties can undertake to enact any legislation necessary to provide effective penal sanctions for persons committing, or ordering to be committed, any grave breaches” … The above-mentioned articles and common article 1 of the Geneva Conventions provide that the high contracting parties have to respect the notion of the convention in all circumstances and enact laws at national level as well. Moreover, Art 9(1) of the Treaty Act 2047 provides that “if the provisions of the international treaties, which Nepal is party to, come in conflict with the acting law of nation, the acting law will be nullified to the extent of conflict and the provisions of the treaties will act as national law in this regard.” …
As this court on 2059/01/19 has already delivered its verdict that the laws have to be enacted in order to implement the agreements Nepal has signed in the previous case of certiorari writ registered as case no. 55, 2058 by Mira Dhungana against the opponents including Ministry of Law, Justice and Parliamentary System, the treaties and agreements Nepal has signed apply as the national laws and the acting laws of nation will be nullified to the extent that they come in conflict with these treaties and agreements. In this context, after the consideration of art 9(2) of the Treaty Act, it was noted as appropriate and necessary to enact the national laws in order to implement the Geneva Conventions and respect their spirit. 
Nepal, Supreme Court, Foundation for Human Rights, Environment and Alternative Development case, Order, 9 January 2004.
New Zealand
In the Tamil X case in 2009, New Zealand’s Court of Appeals allowed an appeal against the High Court’s refusal to grant judicial review of a decision made by New Zealand’s Refugee Status Appeals Authority that the appellant was not a refugee because he fell within the exclusion provision of Article 1F of the 1951 Refugee Convention. The Court of Appeals found that it had not been shown that there were serious reasons for considering that the appellant had committed a war crime or crime against humanity in terms of Article 1F(a) of the Convention. In his judgment, Justice Baragwanath further stated:
It is now established that such [customary international law] norms bind rebels engaged in armed conflict if they violate the laws of war. There must follow from such obligation the reciprocal right of a rebel to be treated as a lawful belligerent so long as the laws of war are complied with. 
New Zealand, Court of Appeals, Tamil X case, Judgment, 20 October 2009, § 214.
Peru
In 2009, in the Armed Forces case, 31 members of Peru’s Congress requested Peru’s Constitutional Court to declare unconstitutional Article 7(1)–(2) of Law No. 29166 of 20 December 2007 which establishes rules on the use of force by members of the armed forces on Peruvian territory. The Court declared the law partially unconstitutional and held:
66. … Congress must adopt within six months of the publication of the present decision a law which regulates the use of force by the Armed Forces. This law shall be divided into two parts:
a) a first part concerning the use of force in situations of armed conflict regulated by the 1949 Geneva Conventions and the 1977 Additional Protocols;
b) a second part which regulates the use of force in states of emergency, internal tensions or riots in accordance with International … [Human Rights] Law. At the same time, these rules must comply with the common principles recognized by the United Nations. 
Peru, Constitutional Court, Armed Forces case, 17 September 2009, § 66.
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed. 
South Africa, Supreme Court, Petane case, Judgment, 3 November 1987, pp. 2–8.
South Africa
In 2004, in the Basson case before the Constitutional Court of South Africa, Justice Sachs stated in his concurring opinion:
Section 232 of the Constitution states:
“Customary international law is law in the Republic unless it is inconsistent with the Constitution or an Act of Parliament.”
The rules of humanitarian law constitute an important ingredient of customary international law. As the International Court of Justice [ICJ] has stated, they are fundamental to the respect of the human person and “elementary considerations of humanity”. The rules of humanitarian law in armed conflicts are to be observed by all states whether or not they have ratified the Conventions that contain them because they constitute intransgressible principles of international customary law. The ICJ has also stressed that the obligation on all governments to respect the Geneva Conventions in all circumstances does not derive from the Conventions themselves, but from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the Conventions merely give specific expression. 
South Africa, Constitutional Court, Basson case¸ Judgment, 10 March 2004, § 122.
South Africa
In its judgment in the Basson II case in 2005, the Constitutional Court of South Africa stated:
South Africa was a party to the Geneva Conventions. Yet as the ICJ [International Court of Justice] pointed out in Nicaragua v United States of America, even if South Africa had not been a party, it would have been obliged in the 1980s to respect the [1949 Geneva] Conventions in all circumstances “since such an obligation does not derive only from the Conventions themselves, but from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the Conventions merely give specific expression”. 
South Africa, Constitutional Court, Basson II case¸ Judgment, 9 September 2005, § 177.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, pp. 21–22.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, p. 66.
United States of America
In the Al-Bihani case in January 2010, involving an appeal by a Yemeni citizen held in detention at Guantánamo Bay since 2002 for the denial of a writ of habeas corpus by a district court, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia affirmed the order of the lower court, stating the following with regard to the relevance of international humanitarian law in determining the extent of detention powers granted to the US President by Congress:
[The appellant]’s many arguments present this court with two overarching questions regarding the detainees at the Guantánamo Bay naval base. The first concerns whom the President can lawfully detain pursuant to statutes passed by Congress. The second asks what procedure is due to detainees challenging their detention in habeas corpus proceedings. …
[The appellant] challenges the statutory legitimacy of his detention by advancing a number of arguments based upon the international laws of war. …
Before considering these arguments in detail, we note that all of them rely heavily on the premise that the war powers granted by the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224, 224 (2001)] and other statutes are limited by the international laws of war. This premise is mistaken. There is no indication in the AUMF, the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-148, div. A, tit. X, 119 Stat. 2739, 27 41-43, or the MCA [Military Commissions Act] of 2006 or 2009, that Congress intended the international laws of war to act as extra-textual limiting principles for the President’s war powers under the AUMF. The international laws of war as a whole have not been implemented domestically by Congress and are therefore not a source of authority for U.S. courts. See RESTATEMENT (THIRD) OF FOREIGN RELATIONS LAW OF THE UNITED STATES § 111(3)–(4) (1987). Even assuming Congress had at some earlier point implemented the laws of war as domestic law through appropriate legislation, Congress had the power to authorize the President in the AUMF and other later statutes to exceed those bounds. See id § 115(1)(a). Further weakening their relevance to this case, the international laws of war are not a fixed code. Their dictates and application to actual events are by nature contestable and fluid. See id § 102 cmts. b & c (stating there is “no precise formula” to identify a practice as custom and that “[i]t is often difficult to determine when [a custom’s] transformation into law has taken place”). Therefore, while the international laws of war are helpful to courts when identifying the general set of war powers to which the AUMF speaks, see Hamdi Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507] at 520, their lack of controlling legal force and firm definition render their use both inapposite and inadvisable when courts seek to determine the limits of the President’s war powers. Therefore, putting aside that we find Al-Bihani’s reading of international law to be unpersuasive, we have no occasion here to quibble over the intricate application of vague treaty provisions and amorphous customary principles. The sources we look to for resolution of Al-Bihani’s case are the sources courts always look to: the text of relevant statutes and controlling domestic case law.  
United States, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Al-Bihani case, Judgment, 5 January 2010, pp. 5–8.
In the Al-Bihani case in August 2010, the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia issued an en banc statement, denying a request for the court to rehear the case en banc. The statement, which referred to the obiter dicta nature of the 5 January 2010 judgment with respect to the role of international law-of-war principles in interpreting the AUMF [Authorization for Use of Military Force, Pub. L. No. 107-40, § 2(a), 115 Stat. 224, 224 (2001)], said:
We decline to en banc this case to determine the role of international law-of-war principles in interpreting the AUMF because, as the various opinions issued in the case indicate, the panel’s discussion of that question is not necessary to the disposition of the merits. See Al–Bihani v. Obama, 590 F.3d 866, 871, 873–74 (D.C.Cir.2010) (panel opinion); id. at 883–85 (Williams, J., concurring in the judgment); Al–Bihani v. Obama, No. 09–5051, slip op. at 1 (D.C.Cir. Aug. 31, 2010) (Kavanaugh, J., concurring in the denial of rehearing en banc); see also Gov’t’s Resp. to Pet. for Reh’g and Reh’g En Banc at 1–2 (stating that the dispute over the role of the law of war does not “change[ ] the outcome”). 
United States, Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, Al-Bihani case, Statement, 31 August 2010, p. 1.
Venezuela
In 2001, in the Ballestas case, the Colombian Government requested the preventive detention and extradition of a Colombian citizen belonging to the armed group known as the Ejército de Liberación Nacional (National Liberation Army) for the crimes of rebellion, kidnapping, wrongful death, seizure and diversion of aircraft. The Chamber of Criminal Appeals of Venezuela’s Supreme Tribunal of Justice stated:
The standards of Article 3 [of the 1949 Geneva Conventions] are considered to be a part of customary law and constitute the minimum – in terms of obligations – that belligerents must always respect. … [H]umanitarian … law has a peremptory nature and is non-derogable: “jus cogens”. This [branch of] law is not subject to legal lacunae and … remains applicable in very difficult situations (non-conventional, informal or “unstructured” armed conflicts) and when the civilian population is most exposed to violence. …
It is a firm and incontrovertible fact that political armed struggle must be governed by the laws of war. 
Venezuela, Supreme Tribunal of Justice, Ballestas case, Judgment, 10 December 2001, pp. 8–9.
[emphasis in original]
Note: As of 30 August 2014, 107 States  
Algeria, Argentina, Australia, Austria, Bahrain, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bolivia, Botswana, Brazil, Burkina Faso, Cabo Verde, Canada, Czech Republic, Chile, China, Colombia, Comoros, Cook Islands, Costa Rica Côte d’Ivoire, Croatia, Denmark, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Egypt, El Salvador, Finland, France, Gambia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Guatemala, Guinea-Bissau, Honduras, Hungary, Iceland, Indonesia, Iran (Islamic Republic of), Iraq, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, Korea (Republic of), Kyrgyzstan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Lesotho, Liberia, Libya, Lithuania, Macedonia (former Yugoslav Republic of), Madagascar, Malawi, Malaysia, Mauritius, Mexico, Moldova (Republic of), Mongolia, Morocco, Namibia, Nepal, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Nigeria, Norway, Panama, Paraguay, Peru, Philippines, Poland, Qatar, Romania, Samoa, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Seychelles, Sierra Leone, Slovakia, Slovenia, South Africa, Spain, Sri Lanka, Sudan, Swaziland, Sweden, Switzerland, Syrian Arab Republic, Tajikistan, Togo, Trinidad & Tobago, Tunisia, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, Uruguay, Yemen, Zambia, Zimbabwe.
had created national committees and other national bodies to assist them in ensuring respect for their obligations under IHL. 
Information referencing and summarizing the legal basis, composition and mandate of established committees can be found in the Table of National Committees and Other National Bodies on International Humanitarian Law of the ICRC’s Advisory Service on International Humanitarian Law. Official documents regarding the establishment of such committees or bodies are included in the ICRC’s Advisory Service’s National Implementation Database.
Australia
At the outset of the Iraq War in March 2003, Australia’s Department of Defence issued guidance to news organizations regarding the restrictions under IHL placed on the identification of prisoners of war:
Department of Defence is aware that some news organisations have shown images of prisoners of war (POWs) in the course of covering the events of the conflict in Iraq.
Media organisations should be aware of Article 13 of the Geneva Convention III, which states that POWs must at all times be “protected, particularly against acts of violence or intimidation and against insults and public curiosity”.
Article 27 of the Geneva Convention IV has the same provisions for civilian detainees and civilian internees. This includes restrictions of photographing and filming POWs, civilian detainees and civilian internees.
Defence requests media organisations “pixilate” the faces of both Coalition and Iraqi prisoners of war. 
Australia, Media release, “Identifying prisoners of war”, Department of Defence, Canberra, 24 March 2003.
Australia
In 2009, in a ministerial statement on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Australia’s Attorney-General stated:
Australia has … been involved in a number of the armed conflicts I referred to earlier, most notably in Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia’s record in involvement in conflict, in United Nations mandated peacekeeping operations and in missions such as those in which Australians are serving in East Timor and the Solomon Islands is distinguished by the respect for the principles of international humanitarian law displayed by members of the Defence Force and by others who have answered the call, including members of the Australian Federal Police. 
Australia, House of Representatives, Attorney-General, Ministerial statement: 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, Hansard, 12 August 2009, p. 27.
Belgium
In 1996, in its third periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, Belgium stated:
Paragraph 1 of article 5 [of the Act of 16 June 1993 concerning the prosecution and punishment of serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and of Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977 Additional to the Geneva Conventions] … includes the general principle of humanitarian law whereby certain basic minimum humanitarian standards must be respected in all circumstances. 
Belgium, Third periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 15 October 1997, UN Doc. CCPR/C/94/Add.3, submitted 23 August 1996, § 58.
Belgium
In 2007, in a statement before the UN Security Council on the humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa, the deputy permanent representative of Belgium stated, with reference to Somalia: “While stressing the primary responsibility of the Transitional Federal Government [of Somalia], Belgium … recalls [all parties’] obligation to respect international humanitarian law.” 
Belgium, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on the humanitarian situation in the Great Lakes region and the Horn of Africa, 21 May 2007, p. 18.
Belgium
In 2007, in a statement before the UN Security Council on the situation in Somalia, the permanent representative of Belgium stated: “All parties … are duty-bound to … respect international humanitarian law.” 
Belgium, Statement by the permanent representative of Belgium before the UN Security Council on the situation in Somalia, 17 December 2007, p. 10.
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in 2006, Bosnia and Herzegovina stated:
A concluding remark concerning the prevention and punishment of the crime of genocide. It seems to be beyond question … that all States are subject to the obligation to “respect and ensure respect” for the 1948 [Genocide] Convention, just as they must “respect and ensure respect” for the various international humanitarian law instruments, such as the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, whose common Article 1 expressly states this principle. 
Bosnia and Herzegovina, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), 20 April 2006, Verbatim Record CR 2006/34, p. 22, § 26.
Brazil
In 2009, on the occasion of the 60th anniversary of the 1949 Geneva Conventions, Brazil’s Ministry of Foreign Relations stated:
Today, August 12, 2009, the 60th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on International Humanitarian Law is celebrated. The Conventions, which are the main legal instrument in this area, lay down universal rules on the treatment of the wounded, prisoners of war and the protection of civilian persons. Brazil ratified the four Conventions in 1957. 
On the occasion of the 60th Anniversary of the Conventions, the Brazilian Government reaffirms its commitment to upholding International Humanitarian Law. 
Brazil, Statement by the Ministry of Foreign Relations, 60th Anniversary of the Geneva Conventions on Humanitarian Law, Note No. 377, 12 August 2009.
 
Burundi
In 2008, at the opening of the Seminar on Human Rights and IHL for the High Command of the National Defence Force, a spokesperson for the Ministry of National Defence and Former Combatants stated:
The unfortunate cyclical conflicts which our country has experienced have shown us that the failure to respect international humanitarian law has caused the loss of human lives which could have been spared, as well as huge material destructions. We should constantly remember that war, through military operations, is itself subject to limits, and that its means and methods are not at all unlimited, but rather governed by law.
… [T]he victories for which the FDN [National Defence Force] is preparing itself does not concern the conquest of hills and valleys but rather a true conquest of the minds of the population … [W]e are confident that the key for this bold ambition is certainly the respect for the civilian population, regarding both its physical integrity and its rights and objects. It is this humanitarian and responsible spirit which has to guide the decision making by all commanders anywhere and at all times.
Furthermore, within a national political context directed at the reconciliation of the Burundian people, the contribution of any serviceman shall be to carry out the missions assigned to him in strict respect for the laws and regulations. He must constantly have in mind the respect for persons and their objects. 
Burundi, Statement by the Ministry of National Defence and Former Combatants at the opening of the Seminar on Human Rights and IHL for the High Command of the National Defence Force, Bujumbura, 2 April 2008, pp. 4–5.
Canada
In 2007, in a report on “Canadian Forces in Afghanistan”, the Standing Committee on National Defence of Canada’s House of Commons stated:
In Canadian Forces operational doctrine, the main CIMIC [civil-military cooperation] objectives are to:
a. Fulfill obligations imposed by Canadian law (e.g. NDA [National Defence Act] and Criminal Code) and international law (e.g. Law of Armed Conflict, International Human Rights Law), the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two Additional Protocols of 1977, Treaties and such memoranda of understanding (MOU) and agreements, or technical arrangements reached between national authorities or parties. 
Canada, House of Commons, Report of the Standing Committee on National Defence, Canadian Forces in Afghanistan, 39th Parliament, 1st session, June 2007, p. 61.
Canada
In 2013, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on women, peace and security, the permanent representative of Canada stated: “Primary responsibility for the prevention of sexual violence in conflict lies with national governments as well as with the leadership of non-state armed groups.” 
Canada, Statement by the permanent representative of Canada during a UN Security Council open debate on women, peace and security, 24 June 2013, p. 1.
China
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of women, China stated:
China condemns all violent acts committed against women in armed conflict, urges all parties to the conflict to abide by international humanitarian and human rights law. Those who commit crimes against women should be brought to justice. The international community should intensify its effort to protect and assist conflict-affected women. 
China, Statement in the UN Security Council on the protection of women, 16 October 2003.
China
In 2006, in a statement before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the deputy permanent representative of China stated:
The issue of protection of civilians in armed conflict is an old topic. International humanitarian law, including the fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and its two Additional Protocols of 1977, sets out adequate provisions in this regard. While the provisions of international humanitarian law have been widely accepted, there are still many challenges in their implementation. We are deeply concerned by the fact that the lives and properties of civilians are threatened in relevant armed conflicts. We urge the relevant parties to armed conflicts to abide by international humanitarian law, render adequate protection to civilians, and avoid making damage to their lives and properties. 
China, Statement by the deputy permanent representative of China before the UN Security Council during a debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 4 December 2006.
Colombia
A working paper prepared by the Colombian Ministry of Foreign Affairs in October 1996 for a meeting of experts on commissions and other bodies entrusted with proposing national measures for the application of IHL stated:
The Colombian Government reaffirms its inescapable commitment to respect and ensure respect for the rules of International Humanitarian Law, especially the norms of the four Geneva Conventions of 1949 and of their Additional Protocols of 1977 which are in force for Colombia. 
Colombia, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Working paper prepared for the meeting of experts on commissions and other bodies entrusted with developing national measures for the application of International Humanitarian Law, 19 October 1996, p. 4, § 2.
Côte d’Ivoire
In 2009, in its report to the UN Human Rights Council, Côte d’Ivoire stated:
[T]he Ministry [of Justice and Human Rights] is responsible for chairing the Inter-Ministerial Committee whose task is to ensure that international humanitarian law is applied and respected in Côte d’Ivoire. One way in which it does this is to ensure that laws are in conformity with the principles of international humanitarian law. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Report to the UN Human Rights Council, 3 September 2009, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/6/CIV/1, § 12.
Cuba
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the Status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Cuba stated:
Cuba would like to reaffirm that only if all States foreswore expansionist wars and committed themselves to multilateralism, the United Nations and its Charter, would it be possible to enhance respect for humanitarian rules governing the protection of civilians in any armed conflict. Significant efforts should also be made to fully implement international humanitarian law at the national level and ensure its broadest dissemination.
Cuba highly values and lives up to its status as a party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, and reaffirms its commitment to the defence of international humanitarian law. Cuba has incorporated all the requisite guarantees in its domestic law to ensure strict compliance with those instruments, especially the rules relating to the protection of civilians. 
Cuba, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 27 September 2010.
Cuba
In 2010, in a statement before the UN General Assembly on the status of the Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts, the representative of Cuba stated:
Cuba would like to reiterate its resolute commitment to international humanitarian law, and especially, to the four Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereto. Nothing justifies the violation of these norms of international law and we oppose as a matter of principle the attempts by certain States to reinterpret these norms with the aim of evading strict compliance with them.
Increasingly, the civilian population are the victims and direct targets of all kinds of abuses committed by armed forces involved in conflicts. The constant imperialist aggression and permanent interference in the internal affairs of third world countries, the pillage of their wealth … , the systematic destruction of the infrastructure of these countries and the indiscriminate killing of innocent civilians, are the fundamental causes of current violations of international humanitarian law.
Today more than ever it is imperative to consolidate the legal regime applicable to armed conflicts through its universal acceptance. The United Nations is called on to secure strict compliance with the rules relative to the protection of civilians in armed conflict. We strongly support broad debate of this issue within the framework of the Sixth Commission of the United Nations General Assembly.
Cuba highly values and honours its status as State Party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the two 1977 Additional Protocols thereto and reaffirms its position with respect to upholding international humanitarian law. Cuba’s national legislation has incorporated all the necessary guarantees for the strict observance of these rules, and in particular those relating to the protection of civilians.
Finally, Cuba reiterates its willingness to work towards the global implementation of the rules of international humanitarian law and continues to collaborate with the International Committee of the Red Cross and its various associations in the noble endeavour of spreading … respect for international humanitarian law. 
Cuba, Statement by the representative of Cuba before the UN General Assembly on Item 86: The Status of the Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of Armed Conflicts, 13 October 2010, pp. 1–2.
Denmark
In 2008, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the representative of Sweden stated: “Respect for, and implementation of, international humanitarian law rests primarily with each state, but it must be recalled that all parties to an armed conflict must respect humanitarian law.” 
Denmark, Statement by the representative of Sweden before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on Item 76: Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, 23 October 2008.
Denmark
In 2010, in its written response to the UN Secretary General concerning the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, the Permanent Mission of Denmark to the United Nations in New York stated:
[I]n 1982 the Danish Government’s Red Cross Committee was established. The Committee consists of members from the Danish Red Cross, representatives from various Danish ministries and defense authorities.
The Committee has an advisory and coordinating function with regard to the Danish implementation of the humanitarian law.
The mandate of the Committee is to establish the need for, coordinate and implement administrative measures to secure the continuous compliance with the Additional Protocols and the [1949] Geneva Conventions, especially as regards educational and information activities. In addition, the Committee advises the Government about the interpretation and application of the rules of international humanitarian law. 
Denmark, Written response by the Permanent Mission of Denmark to the UN Secretary-General concerning the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, Ref. No. 6.B.2.FNNYC, 28 May 2010, p. 3.
France
In a white paper on “Defence and National Security” published in 2008, France’s Ministry of Defence stated:
The sovereignty of a State consists, first of all, of protecting its population. Neither the principle of non-interference nor the one of sovereignty can be evoked by a State in order to justify atrocities such as massacres and other massive violations of international humanitarian law. 
France, Ministry of Defence, Defence and National Security: The White Paper, 17 June 2008, p. 123.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
In a period of armed conflict there is in fact a body of rules and principles that all parties to the conflict must obey: international humanitarian law.
… [A]ll states parties to the conventions [1949 Geneva Conventions and their protocols] must … obey them …
I am convinced that compliance with international humanitarian law must be made the subject of depoliticized discussions at the United Nations, since such compliance is the duty of all, irrespective of the legitimacy of the military action undertaken by a specific state or armed group. 
France, Minister of Foreign and European Affairs, “The Savaging of Humanitarian Law”, New York Times, 28 January 2009, pp. 1–3.
France
In 2009, the President of the French Republic stated:
We cannot resign ourselves to the suffering of millions of women and men who are victims of wars …
We would like to give priority to … imposing the effective application of international humanitarian law …
All parties to a conflict, and in the first place States, shall strictly respect their commitment to apply the provisions of international humanitarian law.
The respect for international humanitarian law is not negotiable. It is not subject either to the requirements of the fight against terrorism.  
France, Address by the President of the French Republic on the 90th Anniversary of the International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies, 4 May 2009, pp. 2–3.
France
In 2009, the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs of France stated:
France is firmly committed to the respect of the principles of international humanitarian law. At the initiative of France, a meeting of the Security Council dedicated to respect for international humanitarian law in armed conflicts in January 2009 reaffirmed that. On that occasion, the members of the Council agreed upon a presidential declaration reiterating that all parties to a conflict, whatever conflict it is, are required to respect international humanitarian law. It is crucial that any violation of international humanitarian law and human rights law can be identified and treated in an adequate manner, and that everyone’s responsibilities are made evident. Regarding in particular the crisis in Gaza, France has constantly affirmed that it would support any investigation provided that it is independent and impartial and covers all violations of international humanitarian law, regardless of who are the victims: Palestinians or Israeli civilians. 
France, Response from the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs to parliamentary written question No. 56220, Journal officiel de la République française, 22 September 2009, p. 8983.
Germany
In 2005, in its Seventh Human Rights Policy Report submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Part A – Core areas of the German Human Rights Policy
Focal point: Human rights and combating terrorism
At the 28th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent in Geneva in December 2003, the then Federal Government Commissioner for Human Rights Policy and Humanitarian Aid at the Federal Foreign Office, Claudia Roth, stated the following with regard to the treatment of prisoners of war in Guantánamo:
“International humanitarian law and the international human rights protection standards create legal protection, without gaps, for the individual human being. No grey areas can be allowed in this comprehensive protective mechanism, to which States have committed themselves.
This applies to prisoners of war, suspects and also to a war criminal, who, rightly so, is held to account. He also is entitled to humane treatment and a fair trial, in accordance with the rule of law.
Also in the fight against terrorism we must remain committed to our humanitarian standards, even if the adversary has disregarded them in a cruel and unscrupulous way. I would like to stress this expressly with a view to the detainees in Guantánamo.”
2 Council of Europe
The guidelines [on human rights and the fight against terrorism] adopted by the Council of Europe in 2002 stress the obligation of member States to take the measures needed to protect the fundamental rights of everyone within their jurisdiction against terrorist acts, especially the right to life. The measures taken by States to fight terrorism must respect human rights and must be subject to appropriate supervision. In their fight against terrorism, States may never act in breach of peremptory norms of international law nor in breach of international humanitarian law, where applicable.
In its measures taken to fight terrorism the Federal Government has adhered to these principles.
5 United Nations
To a large extent, it is owed to the efforts also of Germany that the UN Security Council in its resolutions has affirmed in a legally binding and unequivocal way the universal validity of human rights standards in the fight against terror. In this sense, the UN Security Council declared in its resolution 1456 (2003) that States, when combating terrorism, must adhere to their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee law and international humanitarian law.
As regards terrorism, the legal committee of the UN General Assembly primarily deals with negotiations on the draft of a comprehensive convention against terrorism and a Russian draft of a convention against nuclear terrorism … Germany has signed and ratified the twelve already existing UN conventions against terrorism and in the context of the current negotiations expressly works towards an inclusion in the texts of references to international human rights standards and international humanitarian law as well as of the obligations of States in this area. Germany clearly and without exception condemns all terrorist acts, no matter by whom they are committed.
The efforts for an adoption of this comprehensive convention against terrorism for years have not come to a conclusion. One of the decisive reasons for this is the demand … to limit the scope of application of such a convention by an “exception clause” for liberation movements and similar non-State powers in a “popular fight” against “foreign occupation, aggression, colonialism and hegemony”. The position of Germany and its EU partners on this question is clear: Such a very broad “exception clause” can be accepted neither politically nor legally, since terrorist acts are liable to prosecution irrespective of their motivation and since in situations of armed conflict it is not the rules of the anti-terrorism conventions, but the rules of international humanitarian law which are applicable.
C 3 Near and Middle East, North Africa
With the Iraq war of the coalition under US leadership and the fall of Saddam Hussein in April 2003 the conditions of the human rights situation [in Iraq] have changed fundamentally since the last reporting period.
The Multinational Forces are mandated by UN Security Council resolution 1546 of 8 June 2004 … to provide for public security in Iraq. In this, they are bound by, inter alia, international humanitarian law and the Geneva Conventions. 
Germany, Federal Government, Seventh Human Rights Policy Report, 17 June 2005, pp. 24–25, 26–27, 29–30, 95–98 and 164–165.
Germany
In 2005, in reply to a question by a Member of the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), a German Parliamentary State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Defence, stated:
For all Member States of the United Nations, resolution 1373 (2001) lays down the obligation to “[t]ake the necessary steps to prevent the commission of terrorist acts”, and to “[e]nsure that any person who participates in the financing, planning, preparation or perpetration of terrorist acts or in supporting terrorist acts is brought to justice”. It goes without saying that the Federal Armed Forces respect the obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law and the human rights minimum standards, as well as the value decisions of the Basic Law of the Federal Republic of Germany. This applies also to the deployment of the special forces in the framework of the Operation Enduring Freedom in Afghanistan. 
Germany, Bundestag, Stenographic Report, 7th Sitting, Berlin, Wednesday, 14 December 2005, Reply by Parliamentary State Secretary, Federal Ministry of Defence, Plenarprotokoll 16/7, 14 December 2005, p. 372.
Germany
In 2006, in a report in response to a request by the Parliamentary Control Panel (parliamentary body controlling intelligence services) regarding incidents relating to the Iraq war and the fight against international terrorism, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
2. Capture and transport of detainees by foreign authorities outside a formal legal procedure; reports of secret prisons and torture
abb) Assessment of the allegations under international law by the Federal Government
All measures taken to fight international terrorism must be in accordance with international law. Resolution 1566 (2004), unanimously adopted in the UN Security Council on 8 October 2004, in this context reminds States:
“that they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law” (preambular paragraph 6).
The obligation to adhere to international law also applies when States, fighting off a terrorist attack, an ongoing terrorist attack or an imminent attack, in a legally permissible manner invoke the right to self-defence according to Article 51 of the UN Charter.
If the right to self-defence is exercised in the context of an armed conflict, the rules of international humanitarian law, in particular the law of the 1949 Geneva Red Cross Conventions as well as the minimum human rights standards are to be respected. When fighting international terrorism outside an armed conflict, the rules of peacetime international law, in particular those on the protection of human rights, apply. This can lead to differing international law bases for capture, detention and the treatment of detainees.
With regard to the five following thematic issues, the details of the position of the Federal Government under international law are:
Terrorism and right to self-defence
It is now accepted that terrorist attacks, led from outside against a State, can give rise to the right to self-defence according to Article 51 of the UN Charter (or, for the NATO allies, Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty). The right to self-defence can further also be drawn upon in the case of an imminent attack …
To start with, the recognition of the right to self-defence against terrorist attacks according to Article 51 UN Charter or Article 5 North Atlantic Treaty leaves open which rules apply in the exercise of this right. One needs to differentiate: If the right to self-defence is exercised in the context of an armed conflict in the sense of international humanitarian law (armed confrontation between armed forces or between armed forces and dissident armed forces or other organized armed groups which, under responsible command, exercise such control over a part of a territory as to enable them to carry out sustained and concerted military operations and to apply the provisions of international humanitarian law), international humanitarian law applies.
When fighting international terrorism outside an armed conflict, from the viewpoint of international law the human rights guarantees apply. Terrorists outside armed conflicts are criminals and can be put to trial wherever a State can exercise its jurisdiction according to the rules of international law.
abc) Result and consequences for the Federal Government
The Federal Government is convinced that the fight against international terrorism must only be fought while respecting the rule of law and international law … The Federal Government, in particular, tolerates only such measures by foreign governments on its territory which are consistent with German and international law.
Within the EU framework, together with other EU member States, it has therefore supported the clarification of the allegations raised in media reports. In the context of bilateral talks with the US government, it has also pressed for clarification.
Should the Federal Government, in the course of the clarification efforts …, become aware of cases in which national law has been violated, the competent authorities will initiate the steps required under German law. 
Germany, Federal Government, Report in response to request by Parliamentary Control Panel (2006), 23 February 2006, pp. 34, 55, 69-71 and 78-79.
Germany
In 2006, in a white paper on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr, Germany’s Federal Ministry of Defence noted:
The Bundeswehr [Federal Armed Forces] is firmly integrated into the constitutional structure of Germany’s Basic Law and is subject to the primacy of democratically legitimized politics.
The Basic Law and international law form the foundation for all German Armed Forces operations. Their observance and enforcement are indispensable components of international peace policy. International humanitarian law and the Rules of Engagement (ROE) laid down for operations are integral to the command and control process in the German Armed Forces.  
Germany, Federal Ministry of Defence, White Paper 2006 on German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr, 25 October 2006, p. 56.
Germany
In 2007, in a written reply to a minor interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Basic Law and international law in deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces: Treatment of persons taken into custody”, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
16. To what extent does the Federal Government share the view that German authorities, also by subordinate support actions, may not participate in human rights violations by other States?
The legal order of the Federal Republic of Germany prohibits all State authorities and offices from committing violations of human rights or from participating in them.
21. Is the Federal Government prepared to include a passage in the motions for continuation of the German participation in ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] or OEF [Operation Enduring Freedom] which clarifies that Germany, during deployments of German armed forces, ensures the guarantee of the rights recognized in the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR] to all persons, insofar as they are subject to its jurisdiction?
The mandates of the German Parliament on the deployment of German armed forces are the constitutive bases of their armed participation in foreign deployments permissible under international law. Compliance with the applicable (domestic law and international law) legal provisions is a self-evident condition of the approval of the German Parliament. Insofar as part of the motion of the Federal Government for the approval of the German Parliament an express reference for example to the human rights obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany following from the ICCPR, the ECHR [European Convention on Human Rights], Geneva Convention III or other international law provisions is not necessary.
23. According to the view of the Federal Government, which human rights or international law questions in connection with deployments of the Federal Armed Forces abroad require further internal or international clarification?
The human rights obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany have been and are respected in the framework of deployments of the Federal Armed Forces abroad. In this context, the Federal Government does not consider it to be conducive to speculate in a general way on the abstract need to clarify questions of international law. 
Germany, Bundestag, Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Alexander Bonde, Volker Beck (Cologne), further Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN – BT-Drs. 16/6174, Basic Law and international law in deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces: Treatment of persons taken into custody, BT-Drs. 16/6282, 29 August 2007, pp. 12–13.
Germany
In 2007, in a written reply to a minor interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Statements of the State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of the Interior on the development of international law with a view to the terrorist threat”, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
Preliminary remarks by the Federal Government
International law is in a process of permanent development – this applies not only to the area of combating terrorism. New international law cannot be decided or decreed by one State. The development of international law rather depends decisively on the consensual cooperation of States. International treaty law can unfold its binding effect only on the basis of the express acceptance by States, and then also only with regard to the States which accede to such a treaty. Customary international law evolves from general and consistent State practice, supported by opinio iuris.
1. Is the Federal Government of the view that international law needs to be developed with a view to the terrorist threat, if yes, with what aim and in what direction, and what are the reasons for its view?
Also today, international law still is a basis for the security policy challenges of the 21st century, even if since 2001 Al-Qa’ida and other terror groups have confronted politics with radically new challenges.
This includes that in specific areas of inter-State cooperation a development of existing international law instruments for combating terrorism is examined. This is also why the Federal Government, on the international level, strongly supports a comprehensive convention on international terrorism. The negotiations in the UN General Assembly on the draft convention regrettably are not progressing, because some States would like to politically privilege certain cases of terrorist acts and exclude them from the scope of application of the convention. The latter is collectively rejected for conceptual reasons by the majority of the UN General Assembly, including all EU member States. They rather are convinced that terrorist acts must be treated independent of their political motivation, because even justified political concerns must never be pursued with terrorist means, in particular attacks against uninvolved civilians.
3. Does the Federal Government intend a different interpretation of legal terms of international law, and if yes, what are the terms it is thinking of in this context, and in what direction shall they be developed?
The Federal Government at all times acts in compliance with international law binding in Germany. A development of international law by an individual State is not possible. We further refer to the preliminary remark of the Federal Government.
4. What regulation gaps does the Federal Government see in applicable international law in context with combating international terrorism, and what are the reasons for its views?
We refer to the reply to question 1.
5. In connection with combating international terrorism, what are the essential differences in the interpretation of international law in the United States on the one hand, and in Europe and especially Germany on the other hand?
Germany and the United States agree that international terrorism must be combated in compliance with international law, including the rules of international humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights law. There are differences in the evaluation of the relation between international humanitarian law and other regulation systems of international law. There are differing assessments as regards the rights of detainees in the fight against terrorism, in particular with a view to the conditions in the Guantánamo camp. This also applies to the question whether specific parts of international humanitarian law regulated by treaty (in particular stemming from the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Red Cross Conventions) today already apply as customary law and therefore also bind States which have not become parties to these treaties. Differing assessments also apply to the territorial scope of application of specific international law instruments and the requirements of international law concerning the access of detained persons to courts.
6. Is it correct that the Federal Foreign Office discusses with European and US international law experts on a development of international law, and if yes, with whom, since when, and with what aim?
Since 2006, the Federal Government is in an intense dialogue with the United States, dedicated to the issue “Legal questions in the fight against terrorism”. In parallel, on the European level, the Council Working Group on International Law discusses the same legal questions both within the group and with the United States. This dialogue takes place between the international law experts of the States involved. The aim is that the normative common ground of the principles of the rule of law also in the future connects Europeans and the United States.
7. What is the current state of discussions?
The Federal Government and the United States have affirmed their determination to cooperate in the fight against terrorism as well as their obligation to respect human rights …
9. In the view of the Federal Government, what would be the advantages in the fight against terrorism if one granted a combatant status to terrorists, and what are the reasons for the Federal Government’s view?
The term “combatant” is defined under international humanitarian law; it is not in the power of the Federal Government unilaterally to grant the quality of combatant to a specific category of persons. We refer to the preliminary remarks of the Federal Government.
10. What additional rights of intervention is the Federal Government further hoping for, in consequence of the application of international law provisions to the fight against terrorism?
International law provisions are applicable to the fight against terrorism. This is not a question of additional rights of intervention.
11. Has the question of the combatant status of terrorists been the object of the discussions between the Federal Foreign Office and international law experts, and if yes, what is the current status of discussions?
The question of the status of terrorists in the categories of international humanitarian law has been the object of the discussions mentioned. So far no complete agreement could be achieved on this. We further refer to the reply to question 5.
17. During the talks with the international law experts, is it discussed to subject terrorists, “enemies” or “potential offenders” [Gefährder] to a specific legal regime, if yes, what would be the consequences on their position as subjects of law, human dignity and the protection of the Basic Rights?
No. Object of the discussion is rather the opposite, which regulation systems of international law are applicable to specific situations of the fight against terrorism, and, as the case may be, what exact content they have.
19. Does the Federal Government want to work towards a new definition of the situation of war under international law, and does it regard this as in accordance with the Basic Law, if yes, how does it come to this view?
The answer to the first question is “no”. Questions two and three therefore do not arise. 
Germany, Bundestag, Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Gisela Piltz, Florian Toncar, Jens Ackermann, further Members and the Parliamentary Group FDP – BT-Drs. 16/6861, Statements of the State Secretary of the Federal Ministry of the Interior on the development of international law with a view to the terrorist threat, BT-Drs. 16/7122, 13 November 2007, pp. 1–5.
Germany
In 2009, in a statement at the 21st Forum on Global Issues in Berlin, Germany’s Secretary of State at the Federal Office of Foreign Affairs stated: “Where war and violence govern … , the rule of law means that there may be no space and time void of law. The rule of law-concept requires respect for and compliance with international humanitarian law.” 
Germany, Statement by the Secretary of State at the Federal Office of Foreign Affairs at the 21st Forum on Global Issues, Berlin, 15 January 2009, § 8.
Germany
In 2009, in reply to a Minor Interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Gaza War”, Germany’s Federal Government wrote: “The Federal Government has always emphasized that fundamental rules of international humanitarian law must also be respected in Gaza”.  
Germany, Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Dr. Norman Paech, Monika Knoche, Wolfgang Gehrcke, further Members and the Parliamentary Group DIE LINKE, BT-Drs. 16/12087, 27 February 2009, p. 4; see also Lower House of Federal Parliament (Bundestag), Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Kerstin Müller (Cologne), Jürgen Trittin, other Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN, BT-Drs. 16/12673, 20 April 2009, p. 2.
Germany
In 2010, in its report on German humanitarian aid abroad between 2006 and 2009 which was submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated: “The Federal Government advocates the respect of international humanitarian law in its international relations”. 
Germany, Report by the Federal Government on German Humanitarian Aid Abroad 2006 to 2009, 5 August 2010, p. 24.
Indonesia
In its written statement submitted to the ICJ in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, Indonesia stated:
The Government of the Republic of Indonesia underlines the fact that a High Contracting Party to the Fourth Geneva Convention has legal obligations to respect and to ensure respect for the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention in all circumstances. 
Indonesia, Written statement submitted to the ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, 29 January 2004, § 11.
Israel
In 2007, the Government of Israel stated in a diplomatic note:
In responding to the threat posed by Hizbullah’s terrorist attacks, and notwithstanding the fact that Hizbullah made no effort to comply with the principles of humanitarian law, the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] regarded itself as bound to comply with the established principles of the law of armed conflict.
Indeed, IDF orders, doctrine and education make clear that soldiers are obligated to act in accordance with international law and custom, including the Geneva Conventions. For example, the Chief of Staff’s Order No. 33.0133 obligates every IDF soldier to conduct him/herself in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. See also a recent IDF educational publication on the Law of Armed Conflict entitled, “The Law of War on the Battlefield” which also makes clear the obligation of IDF forces to abide by the laws and rules of international law. 
Israel, Israel’s War with Hizbullah. Preserving Humanitarian Principles While Combating Terrorism, Diplomatic Notes No. 1, Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Israel, April 2007, p. 9.
Israel
In 2010, in a statement before the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (the Turkel Commission), established by the Israeli Government to examine the Gaza flotilla incident, Israel’s Military Advocate General advised:
IDF [Israel Defense Forces] soldiers’ and commanders’ best interest [is] to act according to the law. … It is impossible to find in a meeting of top military officials in the General Staff or in a meeting of senior Israeli Navy officials that someone would be given instructions to violate international law. 
Israel, statement by the Military Advocate General before the Public Commission to Examine the Maritime Incident of 31 May 2010 (the Turkel Commission), 26 August 2010.
Italy
In 2005, in reply to a question concerning the use of non-conventional weapons in Iraq, the Italian Under-Secretary of State for Defence stated:
[T]he Italian contingent, included in the multinational division under the British command and deployed in the province of Dhi Khar … carries out its activity of humanitarian and stabilization mission as a force authorized by the UN, according to Resolution No. 1546. This contingent has always carried out its activities in compliance with the international conventions and international humanitarian law. These norms are moreover mentioned in the national operational directive, and it is therefore a specific duty and responsibility of the commander to denounce any act contrary to them. 
Italy, Chamber of Deputies, Statement by the Under-Secretary of State for Defence, 17 February 2005, published in Italian Yearbook of International Law, vol. XV, 2005, p. 379.
Lao People’s Democratic Republic
In 2009, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Lao People’s Democratic Republic (Lao PDR) stated:
2. Children in armed conflict (art. 38 [of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child]), including physical and psychological recovery and social reintegration (art. 39 [of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child])
121. The Lao PDR is a signatory to the four Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as the [1977] Additional Protocols to the Conventions and has, in practice, always complied with the provisions of those instruments, particularly the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, Protocol I relating to the Protection of Victims of International Conflicts and Protocol II relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Conflicts. …
124. … In the event of the threat of war and emergency general mobilization, the administrative authorities, the State bodies, the mass organizations and the social organizations will take care of the families of those who have been mobilized to perform their patriotic duty (art. 24, subpara. 4, of the Act on National Service Obligations ) and to protect the civilian population generally; if fighting takes place, the Government will apply the provisions of the [1949] Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War (arts. 14 to 17 on the general protection of populations against certain consequences of war).
125. The international humanitarian law applicable to the Lao PDR in such circumstances will consist in the 1949 Geneva Convention[s], and, more particularly, the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War to which the Lao PDR is a signatory. As for the measures to be taken to protect children, the Government does not yet know what they would be, as the Lao PDR is currently living in a time of peace, and the Lao Government has no intention of provoking anyone and will not be the first to engage in war. However, if the Lao PDR is attacked, the Government will take account of the circumstances at the time to seek humanitarian assistance from friendly countries and international organizations.
126. In the current situation where everything is normal, the Government applies the general principles of the [1989] Convention [on the Rights of the Child] where it can; in applying the provisions of article 38 of the Convention, it will, of course, respect those principles, except in emergency situations beyond its control. 
Lao People’s Democratic Republic, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 10 August 2010, UN Doc. CRC/C/LAO/2, submitted 22 April 2009, §§ 121 and 124–126.
Malaysia
In 2006, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
[The delegate of Malaysia said that] … Knowledge, awareness and understanding of the principles of international humanitarian law were the cornerstone of compliance therewith. In that connection, Malaysia was working on the establishment of a national committee on international humanitarian law which would review the country’s legislation for compliance with international norms, [and] study the international instruments on humanitarian law to determine the possibility of acceding to them. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 18 October 2006, as published in the summary record of the 8th meeting, 15 November 2006, UN Doc. A/C.6/61/SR.8, § 65.
Malaysia
In 2006, in its initial periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, Malaysia stated:
Malaysia is … a state party to the [1949] Geneva Convention (I) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field, [1949] Geneva Convention (II) for the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea, [1949] Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and [1949] Geneva Convention (IV) Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War. As a party to these Conventions, the Geneva Convention Act 1962 was enacted to enforce the said Conventions. 
Malaysia, Initial periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 22 December 2006, UN Doc. CRC/C/MYS/1, submitted 20 December 2006, § 326.
Malaysia
In 2010, during the consideration of the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows:
[The delegate of Malaysia said that] … [a]t the domestic level, Malaysia remained committed to ensuring respect and adherence to international humanitarian law. A national committee served as the focal point for the effective implementation of international humanitarian law in Malaysia. The Attorney-General’s Chambers was working with ICRC to develop a comprehensive legal framework for the implementation of the [1949] Geneva Conventions, in particular the criminalization of grave breaches of the Conventions and other serious international crimes, and to organize five workshops to disseminate knowledge of international humanitarian law at the inter-agency level, in order for relevant officials to understand their roles in the implementation of international humanitarian law. 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 18 October 2010, as published in the summary record of the 13th meeting, 8 December 2010, UN Doc. A/C.6/65/SR.13, § 12.
Malaysia
In 2012, during the consideration of the Status of the 1977 Additional Protocols by the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, a statement of the delegation of Malaysia was summarized by the Committee in its records as follows: “[The delegate of Malaysia] said that … [i]t had established the … International Humanitarian Law Committee to help implement international humanitarian law in Malaysia.” 
Malaysia, Statement by the delegation of Malaysia before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 22 October 2012, as published in the summary record of the 15th meeting, 24 December 2012, UN Doc. A/C.6/67/SR.15, §§ 47 and 49.
Mexico
In comments on the text of the Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, submitted in 1995 to the UN Commission on Human Rights, Mexico mentioned “the principle that States parties to the Geneva Conventions are under an obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law”. 
Mexico, Comments of 15 November 1995 on the Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards included in the Report of the UN Secretary-General prepared pursuant to UN Commission on Human Rights resolution 1995/29, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1996/80, 28 November 1995, § 10.
Mexico
In 2007, during a debate on the reaffirmation and implementation of international humanitarian law at the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, Mexico stated:
In the opinion of Mexico, the great variety of actors [involved in contemporary armed conflicts] must not result in vague or inaccurate interpretations of the application of International Humanitarian Law. Therefore, Mexico considers that all parties to an armed conflict must respect International Humanitarian Law, and the applicable International Human Rights Law and International Refugee Law. In this respect, Mexico welcomes the initiative of the Swiss Government and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) concerning the participation of private security companies in contemporary armed conflicts. 
Mexico, Statement by the delegation of Mexico during the debate on the topic “Reaffirmation and Implementation of International Humanitarian Law: Preserving Life and Human Dignity in Armed Conflict” in the Commission B of the 30th International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent, 28 November 2007.
Mexico
In 2008, in response to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, the Government of Mexico stated:
On 1 January 2008, the Ministry of Defence (Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional (SEDENA)) issued Press Release No. 001, announcing that “in order to strengthen the legal structure of the Ministry of Defence and to ensure that all activities of the Land and Air Forces are conducted with respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law, on 1 January 2008 approval was given to the General Directorate of Human Rights,” which shall have, inter alia, the following functions:
a) To advise this Ministry on matters of human rights and international humanitarian law;
b) To attend to human rights complaints submitted by public organs for the defence of human rights and by international organs;
c) To propose actions aimed at consolidating a culture of respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in the Armed Forces;
d) To assist agencies of the Federal Executive which so request in fulfilling international commitments assumed by Mexico in this regard;
e) To grant intervention to organs of this agency so that they may, within their sphere of competence, implement administrative or penal procedures appropriate to the resolution of matters in this area. 
Mexico, Replies of the Government of Mexico to the Conclusions and Recommendations of the Committee against Torture, 26 September 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/MEX/CO/4/Add.1, submitted 12 August 2008, § 28.
Mexico
In 2010, during a special session on international humanitarian law of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States, the representative of Mexico stated:
With last year’s establishment of the Interdepartmental Commission on International Humanitarian Law [CIDIH-Mexico], Mexico joined the group of States that have specific consultative organs on international humanitarian law (IHL).
A permanent technical organ established by presidential decree, CIDIH-Mexico’s main objective is to coordinate the federal government’s efforts to implement in the domestic legal system the various commitments that Mexico has made in the field of IHL.
The establishment of the Commission allows us to reaffirm Mexico’s commitment to the development, strengthening and promotion of IHL, to pursue efforts to adopt the necessary legislation and to take the necessary domestic measures with a view to ensuring the national application of IHL. 
Mexico, Statement by the delegation of Mexico during the special session on international humanitarian law of the Committee on Juridical and Political Affairs of the Organization of American States, Washington D.C., 29 January 2010.
Mexico
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Mexico stated:
In order to establish an institutional framework for activities concerning promotion and dissemination of respect for the rules, principles and institutions of international humanitarian law and its effective application within Mexico, on 19 August 2009 the Official Gazette published the Executive Agreement establishing the permanent Inter-Ministerial Commission on International Humanitarian Law; it came into force on the following day.
The Commission is a permanent advisory and technical body of the Federal Executive branch; its main purpose is to coordinate the Federal Government’s efforts with respect to international humanitarian law by … promoting the rules, principles and institutions pertaining to such law and facilitating harmonization of domestic law with Mexico’s international commitments. 
Mexico, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 29 September 2010, § 7.
Mexico also stated: “One of the … functions [of the Inter-Ministerial Commission on International Humanitarian Law] is to recommend measures to facilitate the application of international humanitarian law … through domestic law.” 
Mexico, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 29 September 2010, § 5.
Mexico
In 2010, at the First Meeting of States Parties to the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions, Mexico stated:
As a State committed to ensuring respect for International Humanitarian Law and to control inhuman weapons, Mexico shall seek to promote the universality of this instrument [i.e. the 2008 Convention on Cluster Munitions] as one of the main items on its regional and multilateral agenda. 
Mexico, Statement by the representative of Mexico at the First Meeting of States Parties to the Convention on Cluster Munitions, Laos, 9–12 November 2010.
Mexico
In 2010, during a debate in the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Mexico stated:
Our obligation to respect and enforce respect for international humanitarian law requires us not only to make use of the instruments at our disposal to ensure peace, security and international justice, but also to formulate a robust culture of respect that does away with impunity and repairs the harm inflicted on civilians in armed conflict. 
Mexico, Statement by the permanent representative of Mexico before the UN Security Council, 6427th meeting, UN Doc. S/PV.6427, 22 November 2010, p. 24.
Nepal
In 2004, in a declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, the Prime Minister of Nepal stated:
Reaffirming the priority of His Majesty’s Government for the fulfilment of its obligations and responsibilities in accordance with the international human rights and humanitarian laws, His Majesty’s Government (HMG) reaffirms its commitments as follows:
2. Every person shall have the right to life, dignity and security. Right to life shall be respected under all circumstances. For this purpose, immediate instructions shall be issued to implement and respect the provisions of the Geneva Conventions in particular Common Article 3 which provides for the protection of people who have laid down their arms, who are sick, wounded or detained, or who have abandoned or are not actively engaged in the armed activities.
20. Any anti-terrorist legislation will be in line with established international human rights norms.
21. HMG will establish an appropriate mechanism for dealing with past human rights and international humanitarian laws violations and to review the necessary measures. 
Nepal, Declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law, 26 March 2004, preamble and §§ 2 and 20–21.
Niger
At the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict in 2002, Niger declared:
We reiterate our determination to do everything in our power in order that our States and all parties to armed conflicts honour their duties as regards International Humanitarian Law and international instruments related to human rights and refugee law and respect, in all circumstances, the rights of the victims of armed conflicts and the dignity of the human person. 
Niger, Declaration made at the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, § 4.
Norway
In 2008, in an address to a meeting of the Sudan Consortium, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stated: “Joint international action must be based on agreed principles … [including] acceptance of international humanitarian law and respect for its institutions”. 
Norway, Address by the Minister of Foreign Affairs to a meeting of the Sudan Consortium, 5 May 2008.
Norway
In 2008, in a policy paper entitled “Norway’s Humanitarian Policy”, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that, in conformity with Norway’s humanitarian priorities, “Norway will: promote respect for international humanitarian law and counter efforts to undermine it”. 
Norway, Policy paper by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, “Norway’s Humanitarian Policy”, October 2008, p. 23.
Norway
In 2008, in a statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden, the representative of Sweden stated: “Respect for, and implementation of, international humanitarian law rests primarily with each state, but it must be recalled that all parties to an armed conflict must respect humanitarian law.” 
Norway, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly by the representative of Sweden made on behalf of Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway and Sweden on “Item 76: Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts”, 23 October 2008.
Norway
In 2009, in a white paper on “Norway’s Humanitarian Policy”, Norway’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
Norway will promote respect for humanitarian principles and international humanitarian law, and it will work to promote a clearer division of roles between humanitarian organisations, other civil society actors and the military in increasingly complex situations.
The Government will … respect and promote respect for international humanitarian law and counter attempts to undermine it. 
Norway, Report to Parliament, White Paper on “Norway’s Humanitarian Policy”, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, 29 May 2009, p. 35.
Norway
In 2009, in a statement before the UN Security Council on protecting women and girls in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Norway stated: “There is an urgent need to strengthen the respect for international humanitarian law in order to improve the protection of civilians in armed conflict.” 
Norway, Statement by the permanent representative of Norway before the UN Security Council on protecting women and girls in armed conflict, 26 June 2009.
Norway
In 2010, in a statement before the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the counsellor of Norway’s Permanent Mission to the UN stated:
There is now an urgent need to work towards a greater respect for international humanitarian law, including through the Security Council. In particular, there is a need for an open and frank discussion on how the law should be implemented in order to provide adequate protection of civilians affected by armed conflict. Norway, together with France and the ICRC, has initiated a process to facilitate such a discussion, aiming to strengthen the implementation of IHL in today’s armed conflicts. 
Norway, Statement by the counsellor at the Permanent Mission of Norway before the UN Security Council on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 7 July 2010.
Norway
In 2010, in a statement at a Conference on Humanitarian Access held in Oslo, Norway’s Minister of Foreign Affairs stated that “both states and non-state actors have the responsibility – the duty – to respect and uphold international humanitarian law”. 
Norway, Statement by the Minister of Foreign Affairs at a Conference on Humanitarian Access, Oslo, 6 September 2010.
Norway
In 2010, in a statement on the “Rule of Law” before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, the counsellor at Norway’s Permanent Mission to the UN stated:
Recent experience underscores the importance of international criminal justice measures and commissions of inquiry as legal tools to enhance respect for … international humanitarian law and to ensure accountability. These efforts supplement other numerous mechanisms, judicial and non-judicial, for monitoring compliance with international norms and standards by Member States …. We would like to commend the independent commissions of inquiry established to investigate serious violations of … international humanitarian law over the last years. In our view, to prevent conflict and combat impunity we should continue to strengthen international mechanisms to promote compliance with the rule of law. 
Norway, Statement on “Rule of Law” before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, 13 October 2010.
Peru
In 2004, in its fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, Peru stated:
Peru’s Ministry of Defence … is currently responsible … , amongst others, for ensuring observance of international legal human rights standards and international humanitarian law. The Armed Forces Joint Command is a regular part of the organic and functional structure of the Ministry of Defence. It is responsible for the planning, preparation, coordination, direction and management of the joint military operations of the Armed Forces within the legal framework of international humanitarian law in fulfilment of the objectives of national defence policy. 
Peru, Fourth periodic report to the Committee against Torture, 27 May 2005, UN Doc. CAT/C/SR.697, submitted 15 November 2004, § 317.
Philippines
In 2003, in a speech at the 12th anniversary of the Philippine National Police, the President of the Philippines stated:
… I have approved recently the government’s draft final peace agreement with the Communist Party of the Philippines …
… The draft agreement also proposes … the continual review of military and police doctrine to promote respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. 
Philippines, President of the Republic of the Philippines, Speech at the 12th anniversary of the Philippine National Police, 30 January 2003.
Russian Federation
In 1997, at a seminar on national implementation of IHL in the Russian Federation, a Russian Major-General of Justice and Deputy Chief for Training and Research Activities, stated:
Given that the 1993 Constitution of the Russian Federation recognized that the commonly accepted principles and norms of international law and international treaties to which the Russian Federation is a party are an integral part of its legal system (Article 15, Part 4), we can assert that in Russia there is a constitutional guarantee of respect of rules of international humanitarian law. 
Russian Federation, Mikhail Mikhailovich Korneev, Major-general of Justice, Deputy Chief for Training and Research Activities, cited in Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation and ICRC, National seminar on the implementation of international humanitarian law in the Russian Federation, Military University, Moscow, 2–3 December 1997, p. 84.
Russian Federation
In an Order issued in 2001 on measures to ensure respect for international humanitarian law by the armed forces of the Russian Federation, the Russian Federation’s Minister of Defence stated:
With a view of implementing the international treaties relative to the international humanitarian law, I Hereby Order:
- strict observance by the personnel of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation of the combat regulations and combat support regulations requirements, while strictly respecting international humanitarian law. 
Russian Federation, Order by the Minister of Defence of the Russian Federation No. 360, On Measures to Ensure Respect of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Prikaz Ministra Oboroni Rossiiskoi Federacii o merah po sobludeniu norm vezhdunarodnogo prava v vooruzhennikh silakh Rossiiskoi Federacii), 8 August 2001, § 2.
South Africa
In 1999, during a debate on the UN Decade of International Law in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, South Africa stated:
The rules of international humanitarian law should also be subject to constant revision, in the sense not of making new laws but of ensuring compliance with existing ones. States should work to instil a culture of compliance. 
South Africa, Statement before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly, UN Doc. A/C.6/54/SR.10, 19 October 1999, § 76.
South Africa
In 2010, in a statement at the Tenth Annual Regional Seminar on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Pretoria, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation stated:
I am convinced that this seminar will contribute to Africa’s ongoing efforts to develop a culture of respect for non-combatants and for prisoners of, and persons affected by war. Discussions and debate need to be followed by proper implementation of IHL and its instruments. Following from the implementation of IHL, we should also continue to publicly deplore any violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, and also bring to justice the perpetrators thereof.
I am also convinced that effective implementation of IHL enhances a rules-based international system, which directly ensures the protection of the peoples of the world against breaches of IHL and impunity, and ultimately contributes to the creation of a better world for all.
In view of this argument, I am sure you will agree that the region should also equally prioritise the implementation of IHL and its relevant instruments. We therefore[] need to ensure that all relevant role-players are properly sensitised to and advised on the importance of IHL, not only during times of conflict, but especially in underlining and supporting the very essence of our socio-economic upliftment by creating a conducive environment for lasting peace, security and stability. 
South Africa, Statement by the Deputy Minister of the Department of International Relations and Cooperation at the Tenth Annual Regional Seminar on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Pretoria, 4 May 2010.
South Africa
In 2011, in an opening statement at the Eleventh Annual Regional Seminar on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Pretoria, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation stated:
Member States on the African continent have shown a steady support for ratifying international instruments pertaining to IHL. However, we all acknowledge that more can and should be done. In this regard, I remain convinced that the effective implementation of IHL enhances a rules-based international system, which directly ensures the protection of civilians against breaches of IHL and impunity, and ultimately contributes to the creation of a better world for all. We therefore need to ensure that all relevant role-players are properly sensitised to and advised about the importance of IHL, not only during times of conflict, but also during times of peace. Lastly, we should also continue to publicly express our dissatisfaction about serious violations of International Human Rights and Humanitarian Law and remain unwavering in our resolve to bring to justice the perpetrators thereof.
Dr [Kellenberger], President of the ICRC highlighted in a statement in 2009 during the commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of [the 1949] Geneva Convention[s], that the polarisation of international relations and the humanitarian consequences of what has been referred to as the “global war on terror”, has posed a huge challenge for proponents of IHL. This, and the proliferation and fragmentation of non-state armed groups, and the fact that some of them reject the premises of IHL, remains a challenge today, particularly as IHL is tested as an adequate legal framework for the protection of victims of armed conflict.
Dr [Kellenberger] finally concluded that the essential spirit of the Geneva Convention[s] – to uphold human life and dignity even in the midst of armed conflict – is as important now as it was more than 60 years ago. It is a sentiment that the South African Government still shares and I also believe it is something that you as participants also believe in, hence your participation here today. We should remain committed to the promotion of the ideals and principles contained in international humanitarian law, as this is in the interest of all of us. 
South Africa, Opening statement by the Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation at the Eleventh Annual Regional Seminar on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Pretoria, 23 August 2011.
South Africa
In 2012, in an opening statement at the Twelfth Annual Regional Seminar on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Pretoria, South Africa’s Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation stated:
I am pleased to see that this year’s Regional IHL Seminar is dedicated to acknowledging the tremendous work undertaken by the International Humanitarian Law Committees in various countries. These Committees play a vital role in advising and assisting governments on appropriate and coordinated measures relating to the ratification, implementation and dissemination of IHL in their respective countries. 
South Africa, Opening statement by the Deputy Minister of International Relations and Cooperation at the Twelfth Annual Regional Seminar on the Implementation of International Humanitarian Law in Pretoria, 14 August 2012.
South Africa
In 2012, during a debate in the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, a statement of the delegation of South Africa was summarized by the Sixth Committee in its press release as follows:
[T]he need for States to respect international humanitarian law, whether in international or non-international armed conflict, had clearly been demonstrated throughout the previous century and in current times, as well. South Africa, this year, had incorporated the four Geneva Conventions and its two protocols into domestic legislation.
[South Africa] strongly supported the efforts of the ICRC to strengthen compliance with international humanitarian law. Such support was exemplified by South Africa’s hosting the annual ICRC international humanitarian law seminar for the Southern African Development Community and co-hosting the upcoming regional conference for Africa, aimed to protect persons deprived of their liberty during non-armed conflicts[.]
Through its mission in Geneva, … South Africa was also chairing the Open-ended Intergovernmental Working Group, with a mandate to consider the possibility of elaborating an international regulatory framework on the activities of private military and security companies. However, [South Africa] was concerned about the role mercenaries, private military and security companies had in undermining compliance with international humanitarian law during armed conflicts. To that end, South Africa had adopted domestic legislation to address the problem. 
South Africa, Statement by the delegation of South Africa before the Sixth Committee of the UN General Assembly during a debate on the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their 1977 Additional Protocols, 22 October 2012.
Spain
In 2010, in its report to the UN General Assembly on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Spain stated:
The Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces, adopted by Royal Decree No. 96/2009 of 6 February 2009, a compendium of rules that not only regulate military service but also comprise an ethical code governing the conduct of members of the armed forces, were a qualitative leap forward inasmuch as they introduced ethics, and, in particular, international humanitarian law, into military operations. An entire chapter of this code of ethics for all the armed forces is devoted to ethics in operations. That chapter, chapter VI, sets out the obligation to become familiar with … and apply the content of the international conventions ratified by Spain relative to the amelioration of the condition of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked members of the armed forces, to the treatment of prisoners of war and to the protection of civilian persons, as well as those relative to the protection of cultural property and to prohibitions or restrictions on the use of certain weapons. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 1.
In its report, Spain further stated:
Spain has applied the Additional Protocols relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts and taken measures to strengthen the existing body of international humanitarian law, as follows:
The Basic Act on National Defence, the Act on the Military Career and the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces comprise a compendium of the ethical principles and rules of conduct that serves as guidelines for all members of the Spanish armed forces.
This body of regulations incorporating the rules of conduct established in the international conventions ratified by Spain and the principles of international humanitarian law is comprehensive and completely up to date, as the relevant implementing legislation – namely, Basic Act No. 5/2005 on National Defence (17 November 2005); Act No. 39/2007 on the Military Career (19 November 2007); and Royal Decree No. 96/2009: “Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces” (6 February 2009) – was adopted recently.
It is highly significant that the Royal Ordinances for the Armed Forces give precedence to international humanitarian law. Article 11 of the Preliminary Title provides that members of the armed forces “shall conduct themselves in a manner that guarantees respect for individuals, the common good and international law applicable in armed conflicts”. 
Spain, Report on the Status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and relating to the protection of victims of armed conflict, 5 May 2010, Section 2.
Sweden
In 2005, in an answer to a written question in Parliament, Sweden’s Minister for Foreign Affairs stated: “It is the Government’s clear line that the work against terrorism must be conducted with full respect for international law, including international humanitarian law and human rights.” 
Sweden, Answer by the Minister for Foreign Affairs to written question 2005/06:913 in Parliament regarding methods for combating terrorism, 8 February 2005.
Switzerland
In a declaration adopted in 2002 with regard to respect for the 1949 Geneva Conventions in the context of the fight against terrorism, the Swiss National Council stated:
The Swiss National Council calls upon all States to respect the Geneva Conventions, in particular today with regard to the “war against terrorism”:
–in practical terms (treatment of combatants, of prisoners, of civilians);
–in legal terms (application de jure: unconditional and non-selective).
The Swiss National Council calls upon the authorities of all States in no way to question the legitimacy and legal force of the humanitarian rules which are established in the Geneva Conventions. 
Switzerland, National Council, Declaration concerning respect for the Geneva Conventions, 6 March 2002, Spring Session 2002, Third Session, Official Bulletin, No. 02.9100 (provisional version of the text).
Switzerland
In a resolution adopted in 2002 on the occasion of the 25th Anniversary of the Additional Protocols, the Swiss Council of States solemnly recalled “the importance to have and to respect universal humanitarian rules” and expressed its firm belief in “the essential role which the national Parliaments can play in order to protect the victims of armed conflicts”.  
Switzerland, Council of States, Declaration concerning the Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions, 12 June 2002, Summer Session 2002, Seventh Session, Official Bulletin, No. 02.048 (provisional version of the text).
Switzerland
In 2005, in a report in response to a parliamentary postulate on private aecurity and military companies, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
5.3.3 Obligations of the state with regard to private security companies
Common Article 1 of the four Geneva Conventions states that the States Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present convention under all circumstances. This means that the States Parties must see to it that all state players respect international humanitarian law. Moreover the contracting states have the duty to ensure that third parties, whether they are other states or private entities, also observe international humanitarian law. States cannot escape their obligations under international humanitarian law by placing certain tasks in the hands of private companies. In fact they have to ensure even more that the private security companies which they deploy in conflict situations, which are based in their state or which are operational on their territory, respect international humanitarian law. In addition, the contracting states are obliged to prosecute especially in cases of serious breaches of the Geneva Conventions regardless of where the act took place or the nationality of the perpetrator.
5.6 Switzerland’s obligations under international law and its role as a contracting party and depositary of the Geneva Conventions
As a contracting party to the Geneva Conventions, Switzerland has the duty to respect and “to ensure respect for the Conventions”. This involves the duty to see to it that the Geneva Conventions are observed by other states and individuals, including any Swiss-based private security companies active in conflict situations. This applies all [the] more so if Switzerland has itself mandated security companies to carry out certain tasks in conflict situations.
Under the Geneva Conventions, Switzerland, as a contracting party, also has the duty to call to account Swiss nationals or foreigners living in Switzerland, whether they are employees of private security companies or not, if they have committed war crimes.
6.3 List of measures proposed by the Federal Council
The Federal Council intends to take the following steps:
1. The Federal Council will call for administrative bodies to comply with the limits imposed by the Federal Constitution upon the delegation of security duties to private companies.
2. The Federal Council will invite the cantons to harmonise their legal systems.
3. The Federal Council is willing to review the possibility of setting minimum conditions for the Swiss government’s use of private security companies to perform security duties.
4. The Federal Council is willing to review the advisability of requiring providers of military or security services based in Switzerland with operations in crisis and conflict zones to obtain approval, or of subjecting them to a licensing system.
5. The Federal Council, as far as possible in cooperation with the ICRC, wishes to initiate an international process aimed at contributing to an intergovernmental discussion, enhancing and clarifying the obligations under international law on the part of states and other actors, and studying regulatory models on the national, regional and international levels. 
Switzerland, Report by the Swiss Federal Council on Private Security and Military Companies, 2 December 2005, Sections 5.3.3, 5.6 and 6.3, pp. 46, 50 and 58–59.
Switzerland
In 2008, in its response to a question by a member of the National Council, Switzerland’s Federal Council wrote:
3. As depository state and contracting party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions, Switzerland wishes to underline the importance of respect for international humanitarian law by all the parties to the conflict, whether this concerns state armed forces, armed groups or individuals. Its call to respect international norms is thus addressed to all the parties to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.
Israel has the right and the duty to protect its territory and population against attacks. However, as a party to the conflict, it is bound by the obligations emanating from international humanitarian law. Furthermore, disrespect of the rules of international humanitarian law by one party to the conflict cannot legitimize violations of the law by the other party. 
Switzerland, National Council, Response by the Federal Council to Interpellation No. 08.3127, 14 May 2008, pp. 1–2.
Switzerland
In 2008, in its response to a question by a member of the National Council, Switzerland’s Federal Council wrote:
The Federal Council follows the situation in the Middle East with interest and has, on several occasions, called upon the parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law and the protection of the civilian population anchored in it. On 29 February 2008, the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs once again called upon the parties to respect international law and to exercise the utmost restraint. 
Switzerland, National Council, Response by the Federal Council to Question No. 08.1003, 30 May 2008, pp. 1–2.
Switzerland
In 2009, the Swiss Federal Council created the Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law. Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs stated:
The Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law
Switzerland is obliged to implement and to further promote International Humanitarian Law at home as well. The Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law (ICIHL) fosters and coordinates activities in this area.
The Interdepartmental Committee is tasked with the administration/internal exchange of experience and information on International Humanitarian Law and its implementation in Switzerland. It ensures optimum coordination among the Federal authorities and maintains relations with the scientific community, civil society, and other organizations concerned with International Humanitarian Law, such as the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC).
Activities
The Interdepartmental Committee participates in the training of the Swiss authorities personnel and persons outside the Federal administration in matters of International Humanitarian Law. The Committee also supports the ICRC in its yearly up-date of its study on Customary International Humanitarian Law. In so doing, the Committee compiles new declarations, legal texts, and judgements on the part of Switzerland.
International recommendation
The Federal Council set up the Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law further to a recommendation of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement. Some 100 States already boast of this type of committee recognized by the ICRC.
Federal Department of Foreign Affairs FDFA
The Swiss Interdepartmental Committee is composed of representatives of the FDFA, the DDPS [Federal Department of Defence, Civil Protection and Sport], the FDJP [Federal Department of Justice and Police], the FDEA [Federal Department of Economic Affairs, Education and Research – EAER], and the FDHA [Federal Department of Home Affairs]. The Directorate of International Law (DIL) at the FDFA holds the Chairmanship. Every year, the Committee approves an action plan setting down the corresponding priorities and objectives. 
Switzerland, Mandate of the Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law, 2009.
[emphasis in original]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Strategy (2009) states:
The FDFA [Federal Department of Foreign Affairs] has thus defined three strategic objectives with corresponding specific outcomes for the next four years:
- The normative framework ensuring the protection of civilians in armed conflict is adequate, known and respected by all parties involved
- The involved parties, in particular non-state actors, comply with the normative framework and respect their obligations. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Protection of Civilians in Armed Conflict Strategy, 2009, p. 15; see also pp. 18–19.
[emphasis in original]
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Introduction
Although international humanitarian law is intended mainly for States and parties to a conflict (e.g. armed groups), many of its provisions must also be respected by individuals. States are obliged to respect the norms, to suppress any violations, and either themselves prosecute persons responsible for grave breaches, in particular of war crimes, or extradite such persons. …
The parties to a conflict must respect international humanitarian law in all circumstances and regardless of the behaviour of the other side. A State Party cannot evade its own obligations arguing that the other Party is failing to uphold international humanitarian law. Thus a State Party accused of a violation cannot justify its actions on the grounds that the other Party committed a similar violation. …
Dissemination
Respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law is one of the most important obligations of the States Parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949. The States Parties are also required to incorporate the provisions of the Geneva Conventions into their own national legislation and to work for the dissemination of international humanitarian law in peacetime as well as during Armed conflict.
Implementation
The term implementation refers to the measures necessary to ensure that international humanitarian law is respected. States are the first ones to be responsible for implementation. They must in all cases respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, by incorporating its provisions in national legislation including in criminal law to ensure that War crimes are punishable. Furthermore, governments must take all necessary measures to suppress violations. In the case of grave breaches, the States must themselves prosecute the perpetrators, or hand them over to another contracting party for prosecution. States are also responsible for disseminating international humanitarian law. …
Private military and security companies
There is a trend for States in conflict situations to pass on an increasing number of tasks to private military and security companies. These tasks include the protection not only of Civilians and civilian infrastructure but even of army personnel and military infrastructure, the training of soldiers and police, and services in the areas of consultancy, logistics, the operation of weapons systems as well as intelligence gathering and in some cases combat support. These private actors are regularly in contact with persons who are protected by international humanitarian law, and sometimes even participate directly in hostilities. The employees of these companies are obliged to respect international humanitarian law, and the States concerned must ensure that they do so.
In 2006, Switzerland in collaboration with the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) launched an international initiative to ensure that private military and security companies operating in conflict zones respect international humanitarian law and Human rights. In 2008 the initiative resulted in the release of the so-called Montreux Document.
Promotion of international humanitarian law
The global fight against Terrorism, the growing phenomena of the Direct participation in hostilities of civilians, the increase in the number of Non-state actors involved in conflicts as well as technological developments are only some of the challenges that international humanitarian law has currently to face. Although the existing rules of international humanitarian law are sufficient to respond to these challenges, the implementation of these rules is still incomplete. It is therefore important that the actors concerned ensure a higher degree of respect for and implementation of international humanitarian law, in particular through the reaffirmation and the dissemination of the existing rules as well as through the further clarification of some of them. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, pp. 4–5, 16–17, 24 and 35–36.
Switzerland
In 2009, in a statement before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the permanent representative of Switzerland stated:
The current situation in Gaza cries out to us the importance of the issue we are discussing today. The main victims of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict are civilians. … In this context, we must stress how important it is that the provisions of international law, in particular those of international humanitarian law, do not remain empty words but that they are effectively implemented on the ground to ensure the maximum protection of the civilian population. …
Switzerland therefore reiterates its call for … strict compliance with international law by all parties to the conflict. This includes in particular the obligation to respect the principles of distinction, proportionality and precaution. 
Switzerland, Statement by the permanent representative of Switzerland before the UN Security Council during an open debate on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 14 January 2009, p. 5.
Switzerland
In 2009, in response to a motion before the Council of States by the Commission on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
The humanitarian situation in Sri Lanka is of the highest concern to the Federal Council. It deplores the violations of international humanitarian law, in particular the undifferentiated and disproportional recourse to violence that has killed and wounded thousands of persons in the north of the country. …
...
Humanitarian aid
The Federal Council considers that what is most urgent is to ensure respect of international humanitarian law by all parties to the conflict, the protection of the civilian population and the rapid access of humanitarian organizations, without restriction. 
Switzerland, Council of States, Response by the Federal Council to Motion No. 09.3358, 13 May 2009, pp. 1–2.
Switzerland
In 2009, in response to a postulate before the National Council, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
The Federal Council has, on several occasions during and after the cessation of hostilities in the north of Sri Lanka, launched an urgent appeal to the parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law. It has notably reminded the authorities of Sri Lanka of their responsibilities to carry out inquiries concerning allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law and to bring to justice persons suspected of having committed violations of international law. 
Switzerland, National Council, Response by the Federal Council to Postulate No. 09.3472, 19 August 2009, p. 1.
Switzerland
In 2009, in its Report on Foreign Policy, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
Since 2005, the FDFA [Federal Department of Foreign Affairs] – through its Directorate of international law – has sought to ensure that private military and security companies [PMSC] better respect international humanitarian law and human rights in areas of conflict. It launched with the ICRC an intergovernmental initiative on the matter. … [T]he Montreux Document on private military and security companies was adopted on [17 September 2008].
The Montreux Document clarifies and reaffirms the obligations imposed by international law on States employing private military and security companies. According to the norms in force, States cannot circumvent [these obligations] by resorting to the use of private companies: they must take the necessary measures to prevent PMSC from violating international humanitarian law and human rights and put in place the necessary enforcement measures; they directly assume the responsibility for the acts of the PMSC they employ. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on Foreign Policy 2009, 2 September 2009, Section 3.3.7.3, pp. 5812–5813.
[footnotes in original omitted; emphasis in original]
Switzerland
In 2010, in response to a question by a member of the National Council, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
The Federal Council has, on several occasions during and after the cessation of hostilities in the north of Sri Lanka, launched appeals to the parties to the conflict to respect international humanitarian law. It has notably reminded the authorities of Sri Lanka of their responsibilities to carry out inquiries concerning allegations of violations of international humanitarian law and human rights law and to bring to justice persons suspected of having committed violations of international law. 
Switzerland, National Council, Response by the Federal Council to Interpellation No. 10.3457, 8 September 2010, p. 2.
Switzerland
In 2010, in its Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
3.1 Increasing importance of non-State actors
The analysis concerning private military and security companies does not fundamentally differ from that concerning other non-State actors. They are also bound by international humanitarian law. … Furthermore, questions of State responsibility also arise with regard to private military and security companies. In fact, the [1949] Geneva Conventions require that the High Contracting Parties commit to respecting and ensuring respect for international humanitarian law.
3.4 [Increasing use of] anti-guerrilla tactics
Military responses to guerrilla tactics must be in conformity with the requirements of international humanitarian law. …
5 Possible action by Switzerland
The following list offers a glimpse of the initiatives being carried out, or having been recently concluded, that aim to develop or reinforce the content of international humanitarian law:
- in December 2009, the Federal Council established the Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law, which is primarily responsible for questions relating to the application of the law[.] 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Sections 3.1, 3.4 and 5, pp. 8, 13 and 25–26.
[footnotes in original omitted]
Switzerland
In 2012, in a speech on the occasion of Public International Law Day, the head of Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs stated:
To be complete, I must add that Switzerland does not forget that, as a High Contracting Party to the [1949] Geneva Conventions, it, too, has the obligation to implement and disseminate international humanitarian law on its own territory. In 2009, the Federal Council, following insofar the example of numerous countries, decided to establish an Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law. Switzerland thus reinforces further its commitment on this matter with the support of the Swiss Red Cross. 
Switzerland, Speech by the head of the Federal Department of Foreign Affairs on the occasion of Public International Law Day, 19 October 2012.
Switzerland
In 2013, in the “Strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts”, Switzerland’s Federal Department of Foreign Affairs stated:
Axis 1 – Achieve greater compliance with the normative framework
In order to ensure that the law protects victims of armed conflicts, it is important that action be taken before conflicts arise. Examples of measures include the dissemination of information on international humanitarian law, adequate training of armed forces, the adoption of laws aimed at protecting emblems, or the act of punishing violations.
When conflicts arise, all of the parties involved are required to respect the law and ensure effective compliance. When allegations of violations are made, the parties to the conflict must see to it that investigations are carried out and that those who commit crimes are judged in order to avoid impunity.
Area of activities 2
Ensure greater understanding of the normative framework
One of the obstacles preventing compliance with the normative framework by parties to armed conflicts is the lack of knowledge (or lack of suitable familiarity) with this framework on the part of those called upon to comply with it.
Familiarity with the normative framework must not only be theoretical, but also practical. Each actor involved in an armed conflict must have sufficient awareness of its obligations in order to comply with them. It is also important that information about the normative framework be disseminated within the population. The normative framework must also be included in national legislation and transposed into doctrine, operational procedures, training and the internal system of sanctions, so that the parties to the conflict are better able to comply.
Lines of action
Switzerland will implement and disseminate information on international humanitarian law on its own territory through the Interdepartmental Committee for International Humanitarian Law (ICIHL). The ICIHL will be responsible for ensuring the exchange of experiences and information on international humanitarian law within the Federal Administration and how it is implemented in Switzerland. 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, Strategy on the protection of civilians in armed conflicts, 2013, pp. 11 and 13.
Tajikistan
In 2008, in its report to the UN Secretary-General on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, Tajikistan stated:
1. The Republic of Tajikistan takes the view that the rules of international humanitarian law must be strictly observed. A number of activities are pursued in the Republic in this [regard].
2. Since 2 June 1999 the Republic has had a Governmental Commission on the implementation of international humanitarian law, chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister (who is responsible for the military and for the law enforcement authorities). This Commission is a permanent consultative inter-agency body, and was established to coordinate the activities of ministries, State committees and departments, local government authorities, enterprises, institutions and organizations in performing the international legal obligations of the Republic arising from the 1949 Geneva Conventions, the 1977 Additional Protocols to those Conventions and other international treaties in the field of international humanitarian law.
The Commission’s principal duty is to further compliance with the international legal obligations of the Republic of Tajikistan relating to international humanitarian law. 
Tajikistan, Report on the Status of the 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, 14 October 2008, §§ 1–2.
Ukraine
In 2009, Ukraine’s president adopted the Strategy for the international peace-making activities of Ukraine, which states:
3. Priorities, tasks and mechanisms of attaining Ukraine’s national interests in international peace-making actions
… [I]t is necessary to:
pay primary attention to the emergence of the peace-makers’ [pride] for their peace-making mission accomplished on behalf of Ukraine, [and to ensure] respect for international humanitarian law …
5. Organization of the implementation of the Strategy of the international peace-making activities of Ukraine
The goals defined by the Strategy of the international peace-making activities of Ukraine can be achieved by the exercise of their respective powers by the bodies responsible for ensuring the national security of Ukraine, viz. the President of Ukraine, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine, the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine, the Council for National Security and Defence of Ukraine, ministries and other central governmental agencies, in accordance with the Constitution and laws of Ukraine. 
Ukraine, Strategy for the international peace-making activities of Ukraine, enacted by Decree of the President of the Ukraine, Decree No. 453/2009, 15 June 2009, §§ 3 and 5.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland takes its international humanitarian law commitments extremely seriously. As a state party to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their two additional Protocols of 1977, we observe the requirements of these and other international legal instruments and rules of customary international law which are binding upon us. We look to other states similarly to make every effort to meet their commitments. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 7 January 2003, Vol. 642, Written Answers, col. WA179.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister stated:
Details of rules of engagement are not routinely disclosed because they could give a potential enemy information about the permissions and restrictions imposed on our forces. As we have said many times, the Government are committed to acting in full conformity with International Law. Our rules of engagement will reflect this. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Prime Minister, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 24 February 2003, Vol. 400, Written Answers, col. 252W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, in a written reply to a question in the House of Lords, the UK Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
United Nations peacekeeping operations and their personnel are accountable, through the commander of the operation in the field, the Department of Peace-Keeping Operations at UN Headquarters and the UN Secretary-General, to the Security Council.
UN peacekeeping personnel are obliged to act in accordance with international humanitarian law and may be subject to prosecution for any breaches which they commit. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 10 March 2003, Vol. 645, Written Answers, col. WA143.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the UN Security Council, the UK representative stated: “The United Kingdom has operated in Iraq from the beginning strictly in accordance with the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations.” 
United Kingdom, Statement before the UN Security Council, UN Doc. S/PV.4761, 22 May 2003, p. 4.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2003, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Prime Minister stated:
I simply say in relation to any weapons or munitions that we use that we will use only those that are in accordance with international law and with the Geneva convention. That is the responsibility of the Government and is the commitment of this Government and has been of other British Governments in the past. We will do everything that we can to minimise civilian casualties. The reason why, in respect of any military action that we take, we get legal advice not merely on the military action itself but on the targeting is to make sure that that happens. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Prime Minister, Hansard, 19 March 2003, Vol. 401, Debates, col. 934.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2005, in a written answer to a question concerning, inter alia, the government’s assessment of its “responsibility towards Iraqi civilians under the Geneva Conventions”, the UK Minister of State for Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, stated:
The United Kingdom takes seriously its responsibilities and obligations under Geneva Conventions which identify civilians as “protected persons”. The Ministry of Defence has not previously published estimates of civilian casualties because there are no reliable means of producing such estimates. There is no specific requirement under the Geneva Conventions to produce estimates of civilian casualties.
We take great care to ensure that civilians are protected and that our obligations under the Geneva Conventions are met. All personnel serving in Iraq are fully briefed on the Law of Armed Conflict and appropriate measures are taken to avoid loss of civilian life or property. We always evaluate planned operations to ensure that they do not carry an unacceptable risk of causing unintended civilian casualties. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, Hansard, 27 January 2005, Vol. 430, Written Answers, col. 541W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2006, during a debate in the House of Commons, the UK Minister of State for Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, stated:
The use of all munitions is governed by international humanitarian law. In the United Kingdom, we have a clear audit trail from the legal framework, through doctrine and training, and into targeting procedures. Our military commanders judge the degree of force to employ to achieve the mission, subject always to strict compliance with international humanitarian law. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Statement by the Minister of State for Armed Forces, Ministry of Defence, Hansard, 23 November 2006, Vol. 453, Debates, col. 802.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning the United Kingdom’s compliance with the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, particularly with Articles 1 and 147 therein, the UK Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, stated:
The United Kingdom has signed and ratified the Fourth Geneva Convention and complies with its provisions. Every appropriate opportunity is taken in our bilateral relations and through appropriate international bodies to promote respect for the convention and its articles. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Minister of State for Trade, Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 25 June 2007, Vol. 462 Written Answers, col. 200W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Commons concerning measures taken by the United Kingdom to ensure compliance with UN Security Council Resolution 1738 on the protection of journalists in armed conflict, the UK Solicitor-General stated:
The United Kingdom takes seriously its obligations, under international humanitarian law, to protect journalists and other civilians in situations of armed conflict and already has in place the necessary measures to ensure compliance. 
United Kingdom, House of Commons, Written answer by the Solicitor-General, Hansard, 25 June 2007, Vol. 462, Written Answers, col. 3W.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
In 2007, in a written answer to a question in the House of Lords concerning civilian casualties in Afghanistan, the UK Government Spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office stated:
International forces, including UK forces, seek at all times to avoid loss of civilian life. The targeting process, weapons selection, doctrine, training and rules of engagement are all in line with international humanitarian and human rights law and the law of armed conflict. 
United Kingdom, House of Lords, Written answer by the Government Spokesman for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, Hansard, 5 July 2007, Vol. 693, Written Answers, col. WA183.
United States of America
The 1979 version of the US Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program stated: “It is the policy of the Department of Defense to ensure that: … the law of war and the obligations of the U.S. Government under that law are observed and enforced by the U.S. Armed Forces.”  
United States, Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 10 July 1979, Section C(1).
The Directive also stated: “The Armed Forces of the United States shall comply with the law of war in the conduct of military operations and related activities in armed conflict, however such conflicts are characterized.” 
United States, Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 10 July 1979, Section E (1)(a).
United States of America
In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense (DoD) stated:
Common Article 1 of the four 1949 Geneva Conventions for the Protection of War Victims requires that parties to those treaties “respect and ensure respect” for each of those treaties. The obligation to “respect and ensure respect” was binding upon all parties to the Persian Gulf War. It is an affirmative requirement to take all reasonable and necessary steps to bring individuals responsible for war crimes to justice. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 633.
Under “Observations”, the report stated:
DOD-mandated instruction and training in the law of war were reflected in US operations, which were in keeping with historic US adherence to the precepts of the law of war. Adherence to the law of war impeded neither Coalition planning nor execution; Iraqi violations of the law of war provided Iraq no advantage.
The willingness of commanders to seek legal advice at every stage of operational planning ensured US respect for the law of war throughout Operations Desert Shield and Desert Storm. 
United States, Department of Defense, Final Report to Congress on the Conduct of the Persian Gulf War, 10 April 1992, Appendix O, The Role of the Law of War, ILM, Vol. 31, 1992, p. 644.
United States of America
The 1998 version of the US Department of Defense (DoD) Directive on the Law of War Program, which aimed “to ensure DoD compliance with the law of war obligations of the United States”, stated: “It is the DoD policy to ensure that: … the law of war obligations of the United States are observed and enforced by the DoD Components.” 
United States, Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 9 December 1998, Sections 1(1) and 4(1).
The Directive further stated:
The Heads of the DoD Components shall: … ensure that the members of their Components comply with the law of war during all armed conflicts, however such conflicts are characterized, and with the principles and spirit of the law of war during all other operations. 
United States, Department of Defense Directive on the Law of War Program No. 5100.77, 9 December 1998, Section 5(3)(1).
United States of America
In 2007, in its comments on the Human Rights Committee’s concluding observations on the its second and third periodic reports, the United States stated: “U.S. personnel engaged in detention operations [in Guantánamo Bay, Afghanistan, Iraq and other overseas locations] are required to comply with U.S. domestic law, the law of war, and applicable international treaty obligations.” 
United States, Comments by the Government of the United States of America on the concluding observations of the Human Rights Committee, 12 February 2008, UN Doc. CCPR/C/USA/CO/3/Rev.1/Add.1, submitted 1 November 2007, p. 6.
United States of America
In December 2009, in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech, the US President stated:
Where force is necessary, we have a moral and strategic interest in binding ourselves to certain rules of conduct. And even as we confront a vicious adversary that abides by no rules, I believe the United States of America must remain a standard bearer in the conduct of war. That is what makes us different from those whom we fight. That is a source of our strength. … And that is why I have reaffirmed America’s commitment to abide by the Geneva Conventions. We lose ourselves when we compromise the very ideals that we fight to defend. And we honor – we honor those ideals by upholding them not when it’s easy, but when it is hard. 
United States, Remarks by the President of the United States at the Acceptance of the Nobel Peace Prize, Oslo, 10 December 2009.
United States of America
In March 2010, in a speech given at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, the US State Department’s Legal Adviser stated:
We live in a time, when, as you know, the United States finds itself engaged in several armed conflicts. …
[L]et me address a question on many of your minds: how has this Administration determined to conduct these armed conflicts and to defend our national security, consistent with its abiding commitment to international law? Let there be no doubt: the … Administration is firmly committed to complying with all applicable law, including the laws of war, in all aspects of these on-going armed conflicts. … We in the … Administration have worked hard since we entered office to ensure that we conduct all aspects of these armed conflicts – in particular, detention operations, targeting, and prosecution of terrorist suspects – in a manner consistent not just with the applicable laws of war, but also with the Constitution and laws of the United States. 
United States, “The Obama Administration and International Law”, Speech given by the Legal Adviser of the US Department of State at the Annual Meeting of the American Society of International Law, Washington DC, 25 March 2010.
[emphasis in original]
Venezuela
In 2011, in its core document forming part of Venezuela’s reports on international human rights instruments, Venezuela stated:
Department of Human Rights and International Law of the Ministry of People’s Power for Defence
145. This Department was established by Decision No. DG-98818 of 17 October 1997 of the Ministry of Defence (now the Ministry of People’s Power for Defence) by order of the President of the Republic. It has its basis in articles 133 to 136 of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces Organization Act, in accordance with the guiding principles of the Constitution. The Department is attached to the Office of the Inspector-General of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces in accordance with Decision No. DG-002936 of 8 August 2007. The Department’s remit is to manage, coordinate and implement activities related to human rights and international humanitarian law that are planned, decided or ordered by the Inspector-General of the National Bolivarian Armed Forces. This takes place in accordance with current legislation, in order to promote, facilitate, protect and guarantee those rights within the military and the defence sector and to provide technical assistance to such military and civilian personnel as may require it. It also acts as a body for receiving individual complaints. 
Venezuela, Human rights instruments core document forming part of Venezuela’s reports, 22 February 2013, UN Doc. HRI/CORE/VEN/2011, submitted 5 July 2011, § 145.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1991, the Federal Executive Council of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, in its “Statement regarding the need for respect of the norms of international humanitarian law in the armed conflict in Yugoslavia”, called on all the participants in the armed conflicts on the territory of Yugoslavia
to respect the fundamental rules and principles of international humanitarian law in conformity with the international conventions signed by Yugoslavia and which constitute a part of its legal system … The Federal Executive Council wishes once again to underline the importance of the observance of international humanitarian law for all the participants in the armed conflicts. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Federal Executive Council, Statement regarding the need for the respect of the norms of international humanitarian law in the armed conflicts in Yugoslavia, Belgrade, 31 October 1991.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on Liberia, the UN Security Council called upon “all parties to the conflict and all others concerned to respect strictly the provisions of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 788, 19 November 1992, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the UN Security Council reaffirmed that “all parties are bound to comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 822, 30 April 1993, § 3, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a adopted in 1993 resolution on Angola, the UN Security Council reiterated “its appeal to both parties strictly to abide by applicable rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 834, 1 June 1993, § 13, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 “recalling the statement made by the President of the Security Council” regarding the conflict in Angola, the UN Security Council reiterated its appeal “to both parties to abide by applicable rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 851, 15 July 1993, § 19, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan, the UN Security Council reaffirmed that “all parties are bound to comply with the principles and rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 853, 29 July 1993, § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the conflict in Angola, the UN Security Council reiterated “its appeal to both parties [to the conflict] … strictly to abide by applicable rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 864, 15 September 1993, § 15, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1994 following the massacre of Palestinians in a mosque in Hebron, the UN Security Council called upon Israel “to continue to take and implement measures, including, inter alia, confiscation of arms, with the aim of preventing illegal acts of violence by Israeli settlers”. The Security Council called “for measures to be taken to guarantee the safety and protection of the Palestinian civilians throughout the occupied territory”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 904, 18 March 1994, preamble and §§ 2 and 3, adopted without a vote.
UN Security Council
In two resolutions adopted in 1995 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council demanded that “all factions in Liberia … strictly abide by applicable rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 985, 13 April 1995, § 6; Res. 1001, 30 June 1995, § 13, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the former Yugoslavia, the UN Security Council:
Strongly condemns all violations of international humanitarian law and of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia and demands that all concerned comply fully with their obligations in this regard. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1034, 21 December 1995, § 1, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on UNOMIL, the UN Security Council demanded that all factions in Liberia “strictly abide by the relevant rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1041, 29 January 1996, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
This demand was reiterated in another resolution adopted the same year. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1059, 31 May 1996, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution on Liberia adopted in 1996, the UN Security Council demanded that “the factions and their leaders … strictly abide by the relevant principles and rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1071, 30 August 1996, § 10, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on the situation in Liberia, the UN Security Council demanded that the factions in the conflict in Liberia “strictly abide by the principles and rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1083, 27 November 1996, § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council reaffirmed that “all parties to the conflict are bound to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law and in particular the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1193, 28 August 1998, § 12, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 1998, the UN Security Council called on the Government of Angola and in particular the União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) “to respect international humanitarian, refugee and human rights law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1213, 3 December 1998, § 7, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on combating terrorism, the UN Security Council stated:
States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1456, 20 January 2003, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Reiterates that all parties claiming a role in the future of the Democratic Republic of the Congo must demonstrate their respect for human rights, International Humanitarian Law, as well as the security and well-being of civilian populations and emphasizes that the transitional government in the Democratic Republic of the Congo will have to restore law and order and respect for human rights, and end impunity, across the entire country. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1468, 20 March 2003, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 relating to the situation in Iraq, the UN Security Council called upon “all concerned to comply fully with their obligations under international law including in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Hague Regulations of 1907”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1483, 22 May 2003, § 5, voting record: 14-0-0-1.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all the parties to the conflict in Ituri and in particular in Bunia cease hostilities immediately and reiterates that international humanitarian law must be respected, and that there will be no impunity for violators. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1484, 30 May 2003, § 5, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council reaffirmed “that all Congolese parties have an obligation to respect human rights, international humanitarian law and the security and well-being of the civilian population”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1493, 28 July 2003, § 10, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004, the UN Security Council:
Reminding States that they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee, and humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1535, 26 March 2004, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004, the UN Security Council noted “the commitment of all forces promoting the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq to act in accordance with international law, including obligations under international humanitarian law, and to cooperate with relevant international organizations”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1546, 8 June 2004, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004, the UN Security Council condemned “all acts of violence and violations of human rights and international humanitarian law by all parties”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1547, 11 June 2004, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on reports by the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council recalled that “the Government of Sudan bears the primary responsibility to respect human rights while maintaining law and order and protecting its population within its territory and that all parties are obliged to respect international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1556, 30 July 2004, preamble, voting record: 13-0-2.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on a report by the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Recalling that the Sudanese Government bears the primary responsibility to protect its population within its territory, to respect human rights, and to maintain law and order, and that all parties are obliged to respect international humanitarian law,
Stressing that the Sudanese rebel groups, particularly the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudanese Liberation Army/Movement, must also take all necessary steps to respect international humanitarian and human rights law.  
UN Security Council, Res. 1564, 18 September 2004, preamble, voting record: 11-0-4.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Recalling its resolution 1502 of 26 August 2003, reaffirms the obligation of all parties to comply fully with the rules and principles of international humanitarian law applicable to them related to the protection of humanitarian and United Nations personnel. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1565, 1 October 2004, § 21, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council:
Recalling in this regard that all parties, including the Sudanese rebel groups such as the Justice and Equality Movement and the Sudanese Liberation Army, must respect human rights and international humanitarian law …
11. Demands that Government and rebel forces and all other armed groups … ensure that their members comply with international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1574, 19 November 2004, preamble and § 11, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council called for “full respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout Afghanistan”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1589, 24 March 2005, § 10, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council called for “full respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout Afghanistan”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1662, 23 March 2006, § 12, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council:
Demands that all parties concerned comply strictly with the obligations applicable to them under international law, in particular those contained in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907 and in the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols of 1977, as well as with the decisions of the Security Council. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1674, 28 April 2006, § 6, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Côte d’Ivoire, the UN Security Council affirmed “the importance for all forces promoting the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq to act in accordance with international law, including obligations under international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1723, 28 November 2006, preamble.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN Security Council:
18. Calls for full respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout Afghanistan; requests UNAMA, with the support of the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights, to continue to assist in the full implementation of the human rights provisions of the Afghan Constitution and international treaties to which Afghanistan is a state party.
25. Calls upon … all parties to uphold international humanitarian and human rights law and to ensure the protection of civilian life. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1746, 23 March 2007, §§ 18 and 25, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Stressing the primary responsibility of the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo for ensuring security in its territory and protecting its civilians with respect for the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law,
8. Requests the Government, with the support of the international community, to develop as a matter of urgency a national security strategy and to plan and carry out security sector reform in order to establish professional security organizations in the areas of defence, police and the administration of justice that are well managed, protect civilians and act in accordance with the Constitution and with respect for the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1756, 15 May 2007, preamble and § 8, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, the UN Security Council:
Reminds States that they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular, international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1787, 10 December 2007, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council:
Reiterates its call upon the Congolese authorities to put an end to impunity … and to establish a vetting mechanism to take into account when they select candidates for official positions, including key posts in the armed forces, national police and other security services, the candidates’ past actions in terms of respect for international humanitarian law and human rights. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1794, 21 December 2007, preamble and § 15, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Security Council
In 1993, in a statement by its President following the death of persons detained by Bosnian Serb forces when the vehicle transporting them for work at the front was ambushed, the UN Security Council stated: “The ICRC had already repeatedly called on all parties to the conflict in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina strictly to observe the provisions of international humanitarian law.” 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/25557, 8 April 1993.
UN Security Council
In 1993, in a statement by its President on Angola, the UN Security Council strongly condemned an attack by the União Nacional para Independência Total de Angola (UNITA) on a train carrying civilians and urged “UNITA leaders to make sure that its forces abide by the rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/25899, 8 June 1993.
UN Security Council
In 1993, in a statement by its President, the UN Security Council requested that the UN Secretary-General investigate the massacre of displaced civilians in Liberia and demanded that “the leaders of any faction responsible for such acts effectively control their forces and take decisive steps to ensure that such deplorable tragedies do not happen again”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/25918, 9 June 1993.
UN Security Council
In 1993, in a statement by its President on the situation in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the UN Security Council reiterated that “all the parties in the former Yugoslavia comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/26661, 28 October 1993.
UN Security Council
In November 1993, in a statement by its President on Angola, the UN Security Council called upon all the parties “strictly to abide by applicable rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/26677, 1 November 1993.
UN Security Council
In 1997, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Great Lakes region, the UN Security Council underlined “the obligation of all concerned to respect the relevant provisions of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1997/5, 7 February 1997, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 1998, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council urged all parties to “respect humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols of 1977, as applicable to them”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/1998/26, 31 August 1998, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2003, in a statement by its President on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council reiterates its call to all parties to armed conflict to comply fully with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and with the rules and principles of international law, in particular international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law, and to implement fully the relevant decisions of the Security Council. The Security Council recalls the obligations of States to respect and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, including the four Geneva conventions, and emphasizes the responsibility of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian law.  
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2003/27, 15 December 2003, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2004, in a statement by its President on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council reiterates its call to all parties to armed conflict, including non-State parties, to comply fully with the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations and with rules and principles of international law, in particular, international humanitarian law, and as applicable, human rights and refugee law, and to implement fully the relevant decisions of the Security Council. The Security Council recalls the obligations of all States to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, including the four Geneva conventions, and emphasizes the responsibility of States to end impunity and to prosecute those responsible for genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity and serious violations of humanitarian law. It further calls on all States which have not already done so to consider ratifying or acceding to major instruments of international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law, and to take appropriate measures to implement them. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2004/46, 14 December 2004, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2005, in a statement by its President on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, the UN Security Council reminded States that “they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2005/55, 10 November 2005, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on the situation in Chad and the Sudan, the UN Security Council reminded “all Governments in the region of their obligation to respect international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/19, 25 April 2006, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2006, in a statement by its President on threats to international peace and security caused by terrorist acts, the UN Security Council reminded States that “they must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/30, 12 July 2006, p. 1.
This statement was reiterated in 2006. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2006/56, 20 December 2006, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President regarding threats to international peace and security, the UN Security Council reiterated that “States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights law, refugee law, and humanitarian law. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/1, 8 January 2007, pp. 1–2.
This statement was reiterated on several occasions in 2007. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/10, 12 April 2007, p. 1; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/11, 13 April 2007, p. 1; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/26, 9 July 2007, p. 1; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/32, 7 September 2007, p. 1; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/36, 8 October 2007, p. 1; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/39, 22 October 2007, p. 1; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/45, 11 December 2007, p. 1; Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/50, 27 December 2007, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on women and peace and security, the UN Security Council reaffirmed “the need to implement fully international human rights and humanitarian law including the four Geneva Conventions that protect the rights of women and girls during and after conflicts”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/5, 7 March 2007, p. 2.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the situation in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Security Council stated:
The Security Council emphasizes the legitimacy of the new democratically elected institutions and the need for these institutions to ensure the protection of the population. At the same time, it underlines the importance of these institutions operating with respect for the rule of law, human rights and international humanitarian law, and avoiding any unnecessary or disproportionate use of force. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/9, 3 April 2007, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President regarding the situation in Somalia, the UN Security Council demanded that “all parties in Somalia comply fully with international humanitarian law”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/13, 30 April 2007, p. 1.
UN Security Council
In 2007, in a statement by its President on the situation in Somalia, the UN Security Council demanded that “all parties in Somalia … fulfil their responsibilities and obligations under international humanitarian law, and take the necessary measures to protect civilians”. 
UN Security Council, Statement by the President, UN Doc. S/PRST/2007/49, 19 December 2007, pp. 1–2.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1970 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly considered that “the principles of the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949 should be strictly observed by all States and that States violating these international instruments should be condemned and held responsible to the world community”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2674 (XXV), 9 December 1970, § 3, voting record: 77-2-36-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1970 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly called upon all parties to any armed conflict “to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2677 (XXV), 9 December 1970, § 1, voting record: 111-0-4-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1971 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly called upon “all parties to any armed conflict to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”. It also called upon “all States … to take all the necessary measures to ensure full compliance by their armed forces of humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2852 (XXVI), 20 December 1971, §§ 1 and 6, voting record: 110-1-5-16.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1971 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly reiterated its call upon all parties to any armed conflict “to observe the rules laid down in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925, the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and other humanitarian rules applicable in armed conflicts”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 2853 (XXVI), 20 December 1971, § 1, voting record: 83-15-14-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1972 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular, the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3032 (XXVII), 18 December 1972, § 2, voting record: 103-0-25-4.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1973 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the humanitarian instruments and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3102 (XXVIII), 12 December 1973, § 4, voting record: 107-0-6-22.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1974 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the humanitarian instruments and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3319 (XXIX), 14 December 1974, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1975 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the humanitarian instruments and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 3500 (XXX), 15 December 1975, § 1, adopted without a vote; see also Res. 31/19, 24 November 1976, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1977 on respect for human rights in armed conflicts, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all parties to armed conflicts to acknowledge and to comply with their obligations under the existing instruments of international humanitarian law and to observe the international humanitarian rules which are applicable, in particular the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907, the Geneva [Gas] Protocol of 1925 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 32/44, 8 December 1977, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1985 on the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly called upon the parties to the conflict “to apply fully the principles and rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 40/137, 13 December 1985, § 8, voting record: 80-22-40-17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992, the UN General Assembly urged “States to take all measures to ensure compliance with the existing international law applicable to the protection of the environment in times of armed conflict”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 47/37, 25 November 1992, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the United Nations Decade of International Law, the UN General Assembly reminded “all States of their responsibility to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in order to protect the victims of war”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 48/30, 9 December 1993, § 4, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on the situation of human rights in the Republic of Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Croatia and the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro), the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the obligation of all to respect international humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 50/193, 22 December 1995, preamble, voting record: 144-1-20-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the prevention of armed conflict, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming that the fulfilment of the obligation to respect and ensure respect in all circumstances for the provisions of international humanitarian law, particularly the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, will enhance the prospects for the peaceful resolution of armed conflict and for the prevention of its occurrence and recurrence. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 57/337, 3 July 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN General Assembly reiterated “the need for respect, in all circumstances, of international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/12, 19 September 2003, preamble, voting record: 133-4-15-39.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2003 on illegal Israeli actions in Occupied East Jerusalem and the rest of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN General Assembly reiterated its call upon “Israel, the occupying Power, to fully and effectively respect the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/13, 21 October 2003, preamble, voting record: 144-4-12-31.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly called upon “all Afghan groups to … respect human rights and international humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/27 A, 5 December 2003, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the scope of legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the UN General Assembly affirmed “the need to promote and ensure respect for the principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law, as well as relevant provisions of human rights and refugee law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/82, 9 December 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories, the UN General Assembly:
Stressing that Israel, the occupying Power, should comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law,
1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
2. Demands that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of the Convention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/97, 17 December 2003, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 164-6-4-7.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming also the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
1. Determines that all measures and actions taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, are illegal and have no validity;
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation of the Convention, including the extrajudicial executions. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/99, 9 December 2003, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 150-6-19-16.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and the protection of UN personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the need to promote and ensure respect for the principles and rules of international humanitarian law,
2. Urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the full and effective implementation of the relevant principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law, as well as the relevant provisions of human rights and refugee law related to the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations personnel. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/122, 17 December 2003, preamble and § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on special assistance for the economic recovery and reconstruction of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly:
6. Strongly condemns the acts of violence … and urges all parties, including the Government of the Democratic Republic of the Congo, to take all necessary steps to prevent further violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular those committed against civilians;
13. Urges all parties to fully respect international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/123, 17 December 2003, §§ 6 and 13, voting record: 169-1-0-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on strengthening international cooperation and technical assistance in promoting the implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism within the framework of the activities of the Centre for International Crime Prevention, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law and that such measures are adopted in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/136, 22 December 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, the UN General Assembly called upon “States and other parties to armed conflict to observe scrupulously the letter and the spirit of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict is one of the principal causes of forced displacement in Africa”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/149, 22 December 2003, § 4, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on assistance to unaccompanied refugee minors, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all States and other parties to armed conflict to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law and, in this regard, calls upon States parties to respect fully the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and related instruments, and to respect the provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which accord children affected by armed conflict special protection and treatment. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/150, 22 December 2003, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on human rights and mass exoduses, the UN General Assembly:
Stresses the importance of adherence to international humanitarian, human rights and refugee law in order to avert mass exoduses and to protect refugees and internally displaced persons, and expressing its deep concern at the lack of respect for those laws and principles, especially during armed conflict, including the denial of safe and unimpeded access to the displaced. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/169, 22 December 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on human rights and terrorism, the UN General Assembly emphasized the need to enhance international cooperation in combating terrorism “in conformity with international law, including relevant State obligations under international human rights and international humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/174, 22 December 2003, preamble, voting record: 120-42-18-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on human rights in the administration of justice, the UN General Assembly affirmed that States “must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism, including in the administration of justice, complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/183, 22 December 2003, § 6, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Noting the declaration on the issue of combating terrorism contained in the annex to Security Council resolution 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003 …
1. Reaffirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/187, 22 December 2003, § 1, voting record: 181-0-1-9.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all States to cooperate fully, through constructive dialogue, to ensure the promotion and protection of all human rights for all and in promoting peaceful solutions to international problems of a humanitarian character and, in their actions towards that purpose, to comply strictly with the principles and norms of international law, inter alia, by fully respecting international human rights and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 58/188, 22 December 2003, § 4, voting record: 106-55-19-11.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted during an emergency special session in 2004 on the advisory opinion of the ICJ on the Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming that all States have the right and the duty to take actions in conformity with international law and international humanitarian law to counter deadly acts of violence against their civilian population in order to protect the lives of their citizens,
6. … emphasizes that both Israel and the Palestinian Authority are under an obligation scrupulously to observe the rules of international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. ES-10/15, 20 July 2004, preamble and § 6, voting record: 150-6-10-25.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/33, 1 December 2004, § 3, voting record: 111-6-60-14.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the UN General Assembly:
Convinced of the continuing value of established humanitarian rules relating to armed conflicts and the need to respect and ensure respect for those rules in all circumstances within the scope of the relevant international instruments, pending the earliest possible termination of such conflicts. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/36, 2 December 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on measures to eliminate international terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with all their obligations under international law and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/46, 2 December 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the scope of the legal protection under the Convention on the Safety of United Nations and Associated Personnel, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “the need to promote and ensure respect for the principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law, as well as relevant provisions of human rights and refugee law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/47, 2 December 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security, the UN General Assembly called for “full respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout Afghanistan”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/112 A, 8 December 2004, § 13, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on operations of the UNRWA, the UN General Assembly called upon “Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/119, 10 December 2004, § 9, voting record: 163-6-7-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories, the UN General Assembly:
Stressing that Israel, the occupying Power, should comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law,
1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
2. Demands that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of the Convention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/122, 10 December 2004, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 160-7-11-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming … the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including the extrajudicial executions. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/124, 10 December 2004, preamble and § 2, voting record: 149-7-22-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the implementation of the universal conventions and protocols related to terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling that Member States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law and that such measures are adopted in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/153, 20 December 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on a new international humanitarian order, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the fundamental importance of adherence to and implementation of international humanitarian law, refugee law and human rights law as well as internationally accepted norms and principles, in particular the principles of humanity, neutrality and impartiality for the provision of humanitarian assistance,
5. Invites the Secretary-General to continue to promote strict adherence to refugee law, international humanitarian law, human rights law and internationally accepted norms and principles in situations of humanitarian emergency. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/171, 20 December 2004, preamble and § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon States and other parties to armed conflict to observe scrupulously the letter and the spirit of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict is one of the principal causes of forced displacement in Africa. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/172, 20 December 2004, § 9, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on missing persons, the UN General Assembly:
Urges States strictly to observe and respect and ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law, as set out in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and in the Additional Protocols thereto, of 1977. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/189, 20 December 2004, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/191, 20 December 2004, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on respect for the purposes and principles contained in the Charter of the United Nations to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon all States to cooperate fully, through constructive dialogue, to ensure the promotion and protection of all human rights for all and in promoting peaceful solutions to international problems of a humanitarian character and, in their actions towards that purpose, to comply strictly with the principles and norms of international law, inter alia, by fully respecting international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/204, 20 December 2004, § 6, voting record: 118-55-13-5.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly urged all parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
To respect international humanitarian law, in particular on the protection of civilians by ensuring the safety, security and freedom of movement of all civilians and United Nations and associated personnel, and the unhindered access of humanitarian personnel to all of the affected population throughout the territory of the Democratic Republic of the Congo in accordance with Security Council resolutions 1265 (1999) of 17 September 1999 and 1296 (2000) of 19 April 2000. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/207, 20 December 2004, § 5(i), voting record: 76-2-100-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of UN personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the need to promote and ensure respect for the principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law,
2. Urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the full and effective implementation of the relevant principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law related to the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations personnel;
3. Strongly urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and its associated personnel and to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 59/211, 20 December 2004, preamble and §§ 2–3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the 2005 World Summit Outcome, the UN General Assembly stated:
We recognize that international cooperation to fight terrorism must be conducted in conformity with international law, including the Charter and relevant international conventions and protocols. States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/1, 16 September 2005, § 85, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation in Afghanistan and its implications for international peace and security, the UN General Assembly called for “full respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout Afghanistan”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/32A, 30 November 2005, § 12, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:
Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/39, 1 December 2005, § 6, voting record: 156-6-9-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirms its determination that all relevant provisions of the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention of 1907, and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, continue to apply to the Syrian territory occupied by Israel since 1967, and calls upon the parties thereto to respect and ensure respect for their obligations under those instruments in all circumstances. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/40, 1 December 2005, § 3, voting record: 106-6-62-17.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on measures to eliminate international terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with all their obligations under international law and adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/43, 8 December 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on operations of UNRWA, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
8. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/102, 8 December 2005, preamble and § 8, voting record: 159-6-3-23.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories, the UN General Assembly:
Stressing that Israel, the occupying Power, should comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law,
1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
2. Demands that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of the Convention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/105, 8 December 2005, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 158-6-7-20.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;
4. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/106, 8 December 2005, §§ 2 and 4, voting record: 153-7-10-21.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming … the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all of its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as well as the extrajudicial executions;
6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/107, 8 December 2005, preamble and §§ 2 and 6, voting record: 148-7-17-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and protection of UN personnel, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the need to promote and ensure respect for the principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law,
2. Urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the full and effective implementation of the relevant principles and rules of international law, including international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law related to the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations personnel;
3. Strongly urges all States to take the necessary measures to ensure the safety and security of humanitarian personnel and United Nations and associated personnel and to respect and ensure respect for the inviolability of United Nations premises, which are essential to the continuation and successful implementation of United Nations operations. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/123, 15 December 2005, preamble and §§ 2–3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, the UN General Assembly called upon States and other parties to armed conflict “to observe scrupulously the letter and spirit of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict is one of the principal causes of forced displacement in Africa”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/128, 16 December 2005, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Noting the declaration on the issue of combating terrorism contained in the annex to Security Council resolution 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003, in particular the statement that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,
1. Reaffirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/158, 16 December 2005, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on human rights in the administration of justice, the UN General Assembly:
Affirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism, including in the administration of justice, complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/159, 16 December 2005, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN General Assembly urged all parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo “[t]o respect international humanitarian law, in particular on the protection of civilians”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/170, 16 December 2005, § 5 (e), voting record: 102-3-67-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in Turkmenistan, the UN General Assembly reaffirmed “that improving security and the fight against terrorism should be conducted in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, humanitarian and refugee law, and democratic principles”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/172, 16 December 2005, preamble, voting record: 71-35-60-25.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on permanent sovereignty of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and of the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan over their natural resources, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
6. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, in this regard, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/183, 22 December 2005, preamble and § 6, voting record: 156-6-8-21.
UN General Assembly
In the Plan of Action annexed to a UN General Assembly resolution on the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted in 2006, the UN Member States resolved:
To recognize that international cooperation and any measures that we undertake to prevent and combat terrorism must comply with our obligations under international law, including the Charter of the United Nations and relevant international conventions and protocols, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/288, 8 September 2006, Annex, § 3, adopted without a vote.
In section IV of the annex, on measures to ensure respect for human rights for all and the rule of law as the fundamental basis of the fight against terrorism, the UN Member States resolved:
To reaffirm that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with their obligations under international law, in particular human rights law, refugee law and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 60/288, 8 September 2006, Section IV, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly called for all parties to “fully respect human rights and international humanitarian law throughout Afghanistan”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/18, 28 November 2006, § 16, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly called upon “Israel, the occupying Power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/25, 1 December 2006, § 11, voting record: 157-7-10-18.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the continuing value of established humanitarian rules relating to armed conflicts and the need to respect and ensure respect for those rules in all circumstances within the scope of the relevant international instruments, pending the earliest possible termination of such conflicts,
Recalling that the Twenty-eighth International Conference of the Red Cross and Red Crescent stressed the need to reinforce the implementation of and respect for international humanitarian law,
Calling upon Member States to disseminate knowledge of international humanitarian law as widely as possible, and calling upon all parties to armed conflict to apply international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/30, 4 December 2006, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on measures to eliminate international terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with all their obligations under international law and adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/40, 4 December 2006, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on UNRWA operations, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
10. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/114, 14 December 2006, preamble and § 10, voting record: 169-6-8-9.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I, to the four Geneva Conventions,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, and also recalling General Assembly resolution ES-10/15,
Noting in particular the Court’s reply, including that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and that Israel is in breach of several of the provisions of the Convention,
Stressing that Israel, the occupying Power, should comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law,
1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
2. Demands that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of the Convention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/117, 14 December 2006, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 165-7-10-10.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;
7. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/118, 14 December 2006, preamble and §§ 2 and 7, voting record: 162-8-10-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all of its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, as well as the extrajudicial executions;
6. Calls upon Israel … to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
12. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice and as demanded in resolutions ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004 and ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, and that it immediately cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall, which has gravely impacted the human rights and the socio-economic living conditions of the Palestinian people. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/119, 14 December 2006, §§ 2, 6 and 12, voting record: 157-9-14-12.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemns attacks on refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons as well as acts that pose a threat to their personal security and well-being, and calls upon all concerned States and, where applicable, parties involved in an armed conflict to take all necessary measures to ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/137, 19 December 2006, § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, the UN General Assembly:
Notes with great concern that, despite all of the efforts made so far by the United Nations, the African Union and others, the situation of refugees and displaced persons in Africa remains precarious, and calls upon States and other parties to armed conflict to observe scrupulously the letter and spirit of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict is one of the principal causes of forced displacement in Africa. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/139, 19 December 2006, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the human rights situation arising from the recent Israeli military operations in Lebanon, the UN General Assembly:
Emphasizes that attacks against civilians, wherever they may occur, are contrary to international humanitarian law and constitute flagrant violations of human rights, condemns the killing of children, women, the elderly and other civilians in Lebanon, underlines that there should be no impunity for such acts, and calls particularly upon Israel to abide scrupulously by its obligations under human rights law, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/154, 19 December 2006, § 4, voting record: 112-7-64-9.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on missing persons, the UN General Assembly:
Urges States strictly to observe and respect and ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law, as set out in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and, where applicable, in the Additional Protocols thereto, of 1977. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/155, 19 December 2006, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Recognizing the importance of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy adopted by the General Assembly on 8 September 2006, and reaffirming its relevant clauses on the measures to ensure respect for human rights for all, international humanitarian law and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for the fight against terrorism,
1. Reaffirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 61/171, 19 December 2006, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the situation in Afghanistan, the UN General Assembly called for all parties to “fully respect human rights and international humanitarian law throughout Afghanistan”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/6, 11 November 2007, § 22, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on measures to eliminate international terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling Security Council resolution 1624 (2005) …
Affirming that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.  
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/71, 6 December 2007, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the peaceful settlement of the question of Palestine, the UN General Assembly:
13. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and to cease all of its measures that are contrary to international law and unilateral actions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, that are aimed at altering the character and status of the Territory, including via the de facto annexation of land, and thus at prejudging the final outcome of peace negotiations;
14. Demands, accordingly, that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion and as demanded in resolutions ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003 and ES-10/15 and, inter alia, that it immediately cease its construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and calls upon all States Members of the United Nations to comply with their legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/83, 10 December 2007, §§ 13–14, voting record: 161-7-5-19.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on UNRWA operations, the UN General Assembly:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Palestinian territory occupied since 1967, including East Jerusalem,
10. Calls upon Israel, the occupying Power, to comply fully with the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/104, 17 December 2007, preamble and § 10, voting record: 170-6-3-13.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the other occupied Arab territories, the UN General Assembly:
Recalling the Regulations annexed to the Hague Convention IV of 1907, the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and relevant provisions of customary law, including those codified in Additional Protocol I to the four Geneva Conventions,
Recalling the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice, and also recalling General Assembly resolution ES-10/15,
Noting in particular the Court’s reply, including that the Fourth Geneva Convention is applicable in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and that Israel is in breach of several of the provisions of the Convention,
Stressing that Israel, the occupying Power, should comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law,
1. Reaffirms that the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, is applicable to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967;
2. Demands that Israel accept the de jure applicability of the Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, and that it comply scrupulously with the provisions of the Convention. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/107, 17 December 2007, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 169-6-3-14.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan,
2. Calls upon Israel to accept the de jure applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to the occupied Syrian Golan and to abide scrupulously by the provisions of the Convention, in particular article 49;
6. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/108, 17 December 2007, preamble and §§ 2 and 6, voting record: 165-7-5-15.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN General Assembly:
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention of 1949 and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including all of its settlement activities and the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem;
6. Calls upon Israel … to comply strictly with its obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, with respect to the alteration of the character and status of the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem;
12. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice and as demanded in resolutions ES-10/15 of 20 July 2004 and ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, and that it immediately cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall, which has gravely impacted the human rights and the socio-economic living conditions of the Palestinian people. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/109, 17 December 2007, §§ 2, 6 and 12, voting record: 156-7-11-18.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the question of Western Sahara, the UN General Assembly called upon the parties to “abide by their obligations under international humanitarian law”. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/116, 17 December 2007, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN General Assembly:
Strongly condemns attacks on refugees, asylum-seekers and internally displaced persons as well as acts that pose a threat to their personal security and well-being, and calls upon all concerned States and, where applicable, parties involved in an armed conflict to take all necessary measures to ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/124, 18 December 2007, § 12, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on assistance to refugees, returnees and displaced persons in Africa, the UN General Assembly:
Notes with great concern that, despite all of the efforts made so far by the United Nations, the African Union and others, the situation of refugees and displaced persons in Africa remains precarious, and calls upon States and other parties to armed conflict to observe scrupulously the letter and spirit of international humanitarian law, bearing in mind that armed conflict is one of the principal causes of forced displacement in Africa. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/125, 18 December 2007, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN General Assembly:
Stressing that measures used in the fight against terrorism, including the profiling of individuals and the use of diplomatic assurances, memorandums of understanding and other transfer agreements or arrangements, must be in compliance with the obligations of States under international law, including international human rights law, international refugee law and international humanitarian law,
Recognizing the importance of the United Nations Global Counter-Terrorism Strategy, adopted on 8 September 2006, and reaffirming its relevant clauses on measures to ensure respect for human rights for all, international humanitarian law and the rule of law as the fundamental basis for the fight against terrorism,
1. Reaffirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/159, 18 December 2007, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on respect for the purposes and principles contained in the UN Charter to achieve international cooperation in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms and in solving international problems of a humanitarian character, the UN General Assembly:
Reaffirming the commitment of all States to fulfil their obligations under other important instruments of international law, in particular those of international human rights law and international humanitarian law,
6. Calls upon all States to cooperate fully, through constructive dialogue, to ensure the promotion and protection of all human rights for all and in promoting peaceful solutions to international problems of a humanitarian character and, in their actions towards that purpose, to comply strictly with the principles and norms of international law, inter alia, by fully respecting international human rights law and international humanitarian law. 
UN General Assembly, Res. 62/166, 18 December 2007, preamble and § 6, voting record: 120-55-10-7.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the strengthening of the coordination of emergency humanitarian assistance of the United Nations, ECOSOC called upon “all parties to armed conflicts to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, human rights law and refugee law”.  
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/5, 15 July 2003, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of and assistance to Palestinian women, ECOSOC:
Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with the provisions and principles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Regulations annexed to The Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War of 12 August 1949, in order to protect the rights of Palestinian women and their families. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/42, 22 July 2003, § 3, voting record: 42-2-4.
This demand was repeated in subsequent resolutions adopted in 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/56, 23 July 2004, § 3, voting record: 49-1-3; Res. 2005/43, 26 July 2005, § 3, voting record: 46-2-4; Res. 2006/8, 25 July 2006, preamble and § 3, voting record: 38-2-1; Res. 2007/7, 24 July 2007, preamble and § 3, voting record: 38-2-1.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan, ECOSOC welcomed:
The ongoing commitments made by the Afghan Transitional Authority to recognize, protect and promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to respect and promote respect for international humanitarian law. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2003/43, 22 July 2003, § 1(a), adopted without a vote.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the situation of women and girls in Afghanistan, ECOSOC welcomed:
The ongoing commitments made by the Afghan Transitional Authority to recognize, protect and promote all human rights and fundamental freedoms, and to respect and promote respect for international humanitarian law. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/10, 21 July 2004, § 1(a), adopted without a vote.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the conclusions of the Commission on the Status of Women on women’s equal participation in conflict prevention, management and resolution and in post-conflict peace-building, ECOSOC called for “the full respect of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, including the four Geneva Conventions of 1949, in particular the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War”. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2004/12, 21 July 2004, § 2, adopted without a vote.
UN Economic and Social Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the economic and social repercussions of the Israeli occupation on the living conditions of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the Arab population in the occupied Syrian Golan, ECOSOC:
Reaffirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967,
6. Urges all parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, and to refrain from violence against the civilian population in accordance with the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949;
10. Stresses that the wall being constructed at an accelerated pace by Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, is contrary to international law and is isolating East Jerusalem and dividing up the West Bank and is seriously debilitating to the economic and social development of the Palestinian people, and calls in this regard for full compliance with the legal obligations mentioned in the 9 July 2004 advisory opinion of the International Court of Justice and in General Assembly resolution ES-10/15. 
ECOSOC, Res. 2006/43, 27 July 2006, preamble and §§ 6 and 10, voting record: 45-3-3.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1991 on the situation of human rights in El Salvador, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls upon the parties to the conflict to guarantee respect for the humanitarian rules applicable to non-international armed conflicts such as that in El Salvador, particularly with regard to the evacuation of the war wounded and maimed … and the non-use of explosive devices affecting the civilian population. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1991/75, 6 March 1991, § 9, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1994, the UN Commission on Human Rights invited the Government of Myanmar “to fully respect its obligations under the [1949] Geneva Conventions … in particular their common article 3”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1994/85, 9 March 1994, § 17, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In resolutions adopted in 1995 and 1996, the UN Commission on Human Rights invited the Government of Myanmar “to respect fully its obligations under the [1949] Geneva Conventions”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1995/72, 8 March 1995, § 20, adopted without a vote; Res. 1996/80, 23 April 1996, § 18, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1998, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all the parties to the conflict in Afghanistan “to respect fully international humanitarian law”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1998/70, 21 April 1998, § 5(c), adopted without a vote; see also Res. 1990/53, 6 March 1990, § 5, adopted without a vote, Res. 1992/68, 4 March 1992, § 6, adopted without a vote, Res. 1995/74, 8 March 1995, § 6, adopted without a vote, Res. 1996/75, 23 April 1996, § 4, adopted without a vote, and Res. 1997/65, 16 April 1997, § 13, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all parties to the conflict in the Democratic Republic of the Congo:
To protect human rights and to respect international humanitarian law in the areas under their control and to allow free and secure access to those areas so as to permit and support investigations of the presumed serious violations of human rights and international humanitarian law, with a view to bringing those responsible to justice, and to cooperate fully with international human rights protection mechanisms to that end. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/15, 17 April 2003, § 4(c), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on human rights and terrorism, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Reaffirming that all measures to counter terrorism must be in strict conformity with international law, including international human rights standards and obligations,
5. Urges States to fulfil their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations in strict conformity with international law, including human rights standards and obligations and international humanitarian law, to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever, whenever and by whomever committed, and calls upon States to strengthen, where appropriate, their legislation to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/37, 23 April 2003, preamble and § 5, voting record: 30-12-11.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls upon all States to respect all human rights and fundamental freedoms and calls on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law, including their obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the two Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977, whose provisions extend protection to journalists in situations of armed conflict. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/42, 23 April 2003, § 7, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the integration of human rights of women throughout the United Nations system, the UN Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed “the need to implement fully international humanitarian and human rights law in order to protect fully the human rights of women and girls”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/44, 23 April 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Affirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/68, 25 April 2003, § 3, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all parties throughout Somalia “to respect human rights and international humanitarian standards as set out in international instruments, in particular those pertaining to internal armed conflicts”.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/78, 25 April 2003, § 8(k), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Sierra Leone, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all relevant parties in the region “to ensure respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms and international humanitarian law”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/80, 25 April 2003, § 3(b), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the situation of human rights in Iraq, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Mindful … that all the parties to the current conflict in Iraq are parties to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of victims of war,
1. Reiterates its strong condemnation of the systematic, widespread and extremely grave violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law by the Government of Iraq over many years, which have resulted in an all-pervasive repression and oppression sustained by broad-based discrimination and widespread terror;
2. Requests all parties to the current conflict in Iraq to abide strictly by their obligations under international humanitarian law, in particular the Geneva Conventions and the Hague Regulations including those relating to the essential civilian needs of the people of Iraq. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/84, 25 April 2003, preamble and §§ 1–2, voting record: 31-3-12.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the abduction of children in Africa, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling also the obligation to respect and strictly observe international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of victims of war, the additional Protocols thereto of 1977 and other applicable instruments of international law. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/85, 25 April 2003, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2003 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon:
All States and other parties to armed conflict to respect fully international humanitarian law and, in this regard, calls upon States parties to respect fully the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2003/86, 25 April 2003, § 42(a), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the grave situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking into consideration the provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and the provisions of the 1977 Additional Protocol I thereto, and the Hague Convention IV of 18 October 1907 and Annexed Regulations respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land,
3. Calls upon Israel to respect to the fullest the principles of international humanitarian law and to desist from all forms of violation of human rights in the Occupied Palestinian Territory. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/1, 24 March 2004, preamble and § 3, voting record: 31-2-18.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the question of the violation of human rights in the occupied Arab territories, including Palestine, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls once again upon Israel, the occupying Power, to desist from all forms of human rights violations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and other occupied Arab territories, and to respect the principles of international law, international humanitarian law, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, its international commitments and its signed agreements with the Palestine Liberation Organization. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/10, 15 April 2004, § 17, voting record: 31-7-15.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law, including their obligations under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 for the protection of victims of war and the two Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977, whose provisions extend protection to journalists in situations of armed conflict. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/42, 19 April 2004, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on human rights in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Affirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism, including in the administration of justice, in particular juvenile justice, complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international, refugee and humanitarian law as well as international human rights law, including the Convention on the Rights of the Child and its Optional Protocol on the involvement of children in armed conflict. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/43, 19 April 2004, § 10, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on human rights and terrorism, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Reiterating that all States have an obligation to promote and protect all human rights and fundamental freedoms and to ensure effective implementation of their obligations under international humanitarian law,
Reaffirming that all measures to counter terrorism must be in strict conformity with international law, including international human rights standards and obligations,
7. Urges States to fulfil their obligations under the Charter of the United Nations in strict conformity with international law, including human rights standards and obligations and international humanitarian law, to prevent, combat and eliminate terrorism in all its forms and manifestations, wherever, whenever and by whomever committed, and calls upon States to strengthen, where appropriate, their legislation to combat terrorism in all its forms and manifestations. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/44, 19 April 2004, preamble and § 7, voting record: 31-14-8.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the abduction of children in Africa, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the obligation to respect and strictly observe international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, as well as, for the States parties, the two Protocols additional to the Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/47, 20 April 2004, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon:
All States and other parties to armed conflict to respect fully international humanitarian law and, in this regard, calls upon States parties to respect fully the provisions of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/48, 20 April 2004, § 44(a), voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on missing persons, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Urges States to strictly to observe and respect and ensure respect for the rules of international humanitarian law, as set out in the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and, for States parties, the Additional Protocols thereto of 1977. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/50, 20 April 2004, § 1, voting record: 52-0-1.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on assistance to Somalia in the field of human rights, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon all parties throughout Somalia “to respect human rights and international humanitarian standards as set out in international instruments, in particular those pertaining to internal armed conflicts”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/80, 21 April 2004, § 12(b), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all parties “to protect human rights and to respect international humanitarian law”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/84, 21 April 2004, § 4(g), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2004 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking note also of the declaration on the issue of combating terrorism contained in the annex to Security Council resolution 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003, in particular the statement that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,
1.Reaffirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2004/87, 21 April 2004, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Commission on Human Rights demanded that “Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/6, 14 April 2005, § 7, voting record: 39-2-12.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on Israeli practices affecting the human rights of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and the relevant resolutions of the Security Council and the Commission on Human Rights,
1. Reiterates that all actions and punitive measures taken by Israel, the occupying Power, in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, in violation of the relevant provisions of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, and contrary to the relevant resolutions of the Security Council, are illegal and have no validity, and thereby demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its provisions and cease immediately all measures and actions taken in violation and in breach of the Convention, including extrajudicial executions;
8. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply with its legal obligations under international law, as mentioned in the advisory opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice and as demanded in resolution ES-10/15 and resolution ES-10/13 of 21 October 2003, and that it cease the construction of the wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including in and around East Jerusalem, dismantle forthwith the structure situated therein, repeal or render ineffective all legislative and regulatory acts relating thereto, and make reparation for all damage caused by the construction of the wall. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/7, 14 April 2005, preamble and §§ 1 and 8, voting record: 29-10-14.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the right to freedom of opinion and expression, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Calls on all parties to armed conflict to respect international humanitarian law, including their obligations under the Geneva Conventions, of 12 August 1949, for the protection of victims of war and the two Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977, whose provisions extend protection to journalists in situations of armed conflict. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/38, 19 April 2005, § 5, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the integration of human rights of women throughout the UN system, the UN Commission on Human Rights reaffirmed “the need to implement fully international humanitarian and human rights law in order to protect fully the human rights of women and girls”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/42, 19 April 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on abduction of children in Africa, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalls the obligation to respect and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law, including the Geneva Conventions, of 12 August 1949, relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War and to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, as well as, for the States parties, the two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 8 June 1977. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/43, 19 April 2005, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the rights of the child, the UN Commission on Human Rights called upon:
All States and other parties to armed conflict to respect fully international humanitarian law and, in this regard, calls upon States parties to respect fully the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, of 12 August 1949, and the Additional Protocols thereto of 8 June 1977. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/44, 19 April 2005, § 39(a), voting record: 52-1-0.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the protection of the human rights of civilians in armed conflicts, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
2. Urges all parties to armed conflicts to comply with their obligations under international humanitarian law, in particular to ensure respect for and protection of the civilian population, and also urges all States to comply with their human rights obligations in this context;
3. Stresses the importance of combating impunity in order to prevent violations of international human rights and humanitarian law perpetrated against civilians in armed conflicts, and urges States to end impunity for such crimes by bringing the perpetrators to justice in accordance with their international obligations;
4. Calls upon States to respect and to ensure respect for relevant international humanitarian law instruments and customary international law. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/63, 20 April 2005, §§ 2–4, voting record: 51-1-1.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on technical cooperation and advisory services in Nepal, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recalling the importance of the implementation of Security Council resolutions 1265 (1999) of 17 September 1999 and 1296 (2000) of 19 April 2000 on the protection of civilians in armed conflict, 1325 (2000) of 31 October 2000 on women and peace and security and 1539 (2004) of 22 April 2004 on children and armed conflict,
Conscious of the fact that the Commission’s appeals are mainly directed to the Government of Nepal as it is subject to international obligations; additionally gravely concerned at the serious breaches of humanitarian law committed by members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist), which may constitute war crimes and crimes against humanity,
Recalling His Majesty’s Government of Nepal’s declaration of commitment on the implementation of human rights and international humanitarian law of 26 March 2004,
6. Strongly urges the members of the Communist Party of Nepal (Maoist) to comply with international humanitarian law …
7. Calls upon all parties to the conflict to respect human rights and international humanitarian law, in particular common article 3 of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, as well as to act in conformity with all other relevant standards relating to the protection of civilians, particularly of women and children, and to allow the safe and unhindered access of humanitarian organizations to those in need of assistance;
8. Urges the Government of Nepal:
(c) To ensure that all anti-terrorism and security laws and measures are in accordance with all relevant international norms and standards as well as the Constitution of Nepal. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/78, 20 April 2005, preamble and §§ 6–7 and 8(c), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the protection of human rights and fundamental freedoms while countering terrorism, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Taking note also of the declaration on the issue of combating terrorism contained in the annex to Security Council resolution 1456 (2003) of 20 January 2003, in particular the statement that States must ensure that any measures taken to combat terrorism comply with all their obligations under international law, and should adopt such measures in accordance with international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law,
1.Reaffirms that States must ensure that any measure taken to combat terrorism complies with their obligations under international law, in particular international human rights, refugee and humanitarian law.  
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/80, 21 April 2005, preamble and § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on the situation of human rights in the Sudan, the UN Commission on Human Rights:
Recognizing the primary responsibility of the Government of the Sudan to protect and promote human rights within its territory, and its obligation to enhance the applicability of international humanitarian law,
4. Calls upon the Government of the Sudan:
(d) To promote the respect for human rights and international humanitarian law throughout the country. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/82, 21 April 2005, preamble and § 4(d), adopted without a vote.
UN Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2005 on technical cooperation and advisory services in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the UN Commission on Human Rights urged all parties “to protect human rights and to respect international humanitarian law”. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2005/85, 21 April 2005, § 5(d), adopted without a vote.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN Human Rights Council:
Affirming the applicability of the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civil Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to other occupied Arab territories,
2. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, end its military operations in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, abide scrupulously by the provisions of international humanitarian law and human rights law, and refrain from imposing collective punishment on Palestinian civilians. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-1/1, 6 July 2006, preamble and § 2, voting record: 29-11-5.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the grave situation of human rights in Lebanon caused by Israeli military operations, the UN Human Rights Council:
4. Calls upon Israel to abide, immediately and scrupulously, by its obligations under human rights law, in particular the Convention on the Rights of the Child, and international humanitarian law;
5. Urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-2/1, 11 August 2006, §§ 4–5, voting record: 27-11-8.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 entitled “Human rights violations emanating from Israeli military incursions in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including the recent one in northern Gaza and the assault on Beit Hanoun”, the UN Human Rights Council:
Affirming the applicability of the Fourth Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, to the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem,
6. Urges all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law, to refrain from violence against the civilian population and to treat under all circumstances all detained combatants and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-3/1, 15 November 2006, preamble and § 6, voting record: 32-8-6.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and in the occupied Syrian Golan, the UN Human Rights Council:
Mindful that Israel is a party to the Geneva Convention relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War, of 12 August 1949, which is applicable de jure to Palestinian and all Arab territories occupied by Israel since 1967, including East Jerusalem and the Syrian Golan, and recalling the declaration adopted by the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, held in Geneva on 5 December 2001,
7. Demands that Israel, the occupying Power, comply fully with its legal obligations, as mentioned in the Advisory Opinion rendered on 9 July 2004 by the International Court of Justice. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 2/4, 27 November 2006, preamble and § 7, voting record: 45-1-1.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2006 on the human rights situation in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, the UN Human Rights Council urged “all concerned parties to respect the rules of international humanitarian law”. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-1/1, 6 July 2006, § 5, voting record: 29-11-5.
This was reiterated in a further resolution adopted in 2007. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. S-3/1, 15 November 2006, § 6, voting record: 32-8-6.
Both resolutions were recalled in subsequent resolutions adopted in 2006 and 2007. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 3/1, 8 December 2006, § 6, voting record: 34-1-12; Res. 4/2, 27 March 2007, preamble, adopted without a vote; Res. OM/1/2, 20 June 2007, preamble, adopted without a vote; Res. 6/18, 28 September 2007, preamble, adopted without a vote.
UN Human Rights Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on the protection of cultural rights and property in situations of armed conflict, the UN Human Rights Council strongly urged all parties to an armed conflict “to strictly observe and respect, as applicable, the rules of international humanitarian law during armed conflicts”. 
UN Human Rights Council, Res. 6/1, 27 September 2007, § 1, adopted without a vote.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1989 on the situation of human rights in El Salvador, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights:
1. Expresses its deep concern at the continuing increase in the number of human rights violations being committed in El Salvador and at the persistent failure to observe the fundamental norms of humanitarian law proclaimed in the Geneva Conventions and in the Additional Protocols thereto.
5. Strongly urges the government of El Salvador to take all necessary measures to ensure … that human rights are respected by all military, paramilitary and police forces. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1989/9, 31 August 1989, §§ 1 and 5.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 2000 on the role of universal or extraterritorial competence in preventive action against impunity, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights recalled “the obligation of States parties to respect and to ensure respect for humanitarian law under the Geneva Conventions … an obligation explicitly provided for in common article 1 thereof”. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 2000/24, 18 August 2000, preamble.
UN Secretary-General
In 1998, in a report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, the UN Secretary-General stated: “Adherence to international humanitarian and human rights norms by all parties to a conflict must be insisted upon, and I intend to make this a priority in the work of the United Nations.” 
UN Secretary-General, Report on the causes of conflict and the promotion of durable peace and sustainable development in Africa, UN Doc. A/52/871-S/1998/318, 13 April 1998, § 50.
UN Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1997, in his second report on the situation of human rights in Burundi, the Special Rapporteur of the UN Commission on Human Rights stated:
It would … be unfair to put the rebel groups, no matter what their role in the violence and massacres has been, on the same footing as a State which has ratified the major international instruments on human rights and international humanitarian law and is therefore bound by strict obligations. While these obligations are not, technically speaking, binding to the same extent for the rebels or armed gangs, these groups do, nevertheless, also have an obligation to respect certain humanitarian principles that are part of international customary law and are recognized by all civilized nations. 
UN Commission on Human Rights, Special Rapporteur on the Situation of Human Rights in Burundi, Second report, UN Doc. E/CN.4/1997/12, 10 February 1997, § 11.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1987, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly invited “all sides in the conflict [in Sri Lanka] to respect the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the international humanitarian law applicable to armed conflicts”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 881, 1 July 1987, § 16.
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1992 on the crisis in the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly invited “the governments of member states: … to launch an appeal to the conflicting parties to respect the four Geneva conventions of 1949 which provide protection to wounded military personnel, to prisoners of war and to civilian persons in time of war.” 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 984, 30 June 1992, § 13(iii).
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1993 on the massive and flagrant violations of human rights in the territory of the former Yugoslavia, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly launched “a solemn appeal to all parties involved in the conflict in the territory of the former Yugoslavia to respect the Geneva conventions on humanitarian law”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 994, 3 February 1993, § 5(i).
Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996, the Council of Europe Parliamentary Assembly invited governments to “ensure that the Geneva Conventions of 1949, their 1977 protocols and other provisions of international humanitarian law are respected strictly and in all circumstances”. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Res. 1085, 24 April 1996, § 8(a).
Council of Europe (Rapporteur)
In 2000, the Rapporteur of the Council of Europe on the human rights situation in Chechnya called on the Chechen fighters to respect IHL. 
Council of Europe, Parliamentary Assembly, Opinion on the Russian Federation’s request for membership in the light of the situation in Chechnya, Doc. 7231, 2 February 1995, § 75.
OAS General Assembly
In a resolution adopted in 1996 on respect for IHL, the OAS General Assembly urged all members to “observe and fully enforce … the customary principles and norms contained in the 1977 Additional Protocols”.  
OAS, General Assembly, Res. 1408 (XXVI-O/96), 7 June 1996, § 4.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1965)
The 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965 adopted a resolution in which it recommended that “appropriate arrangements be made to ensure that armed forces placed at the disposal of the United Nations observe the provisions of the Geneva Conventions and be protected by them”. 
20th International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 2–9 October 1965, Res. XXV, § 1.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1981)
The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 adopted a resolution on the application of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV “to the occupied territories in the Middle East” in which it called upon “the occupying power to acknowledge and comply with its obligations under the Fourth Geneva Convention, and to this effect cease forthwith all policies and practices in violation of any article of this Convention”. 
24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Manila, 7–14 November 1981, Res. III, § 4.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1981)
The 24th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1981 adopted a resolution in which it solemnly appealed that “the rules of international humanitarian law and the universally recognized humanitarian principles be safeguarded at all times and in all circumstances”. 
24th International Conference of the Red Cross, Manila, 7–14 November 1981, Res. VI.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1986)
The 25th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1986 adopted a resolution in which it appealed to all parties involved in armed conflicts “to fully respect their obligations under international humanitarian law”. 
25th International Conference of the Red Cross, Geneva, 23–31 October 1986, Res. I, § 2.
CSCE Helsinki Summit (1992)
In 1992, at the Helsinki Summit of the CSCE, the participating States declared that they would “in all circumstances respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law including the protection of the civilian population”. 
CSCE, Helsinki Summit of Heads of State or Government, 9–10 July 1992, Helsinki Document 1992: The Challenges of Change, Decisions, Chapter VI: The Human Dimension, § 48.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
In the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, the participants declared:
We undertake to act in cooperation with the UN and in conformity with the UN Charter to ensure full compliance with international humanitarian law in the event of genocide and other serious violations of this law …
We affirm our responsibility, in accordance with Article 1 common to the Geneva Conventions, to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law in order to protect the victims of war. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, §§ I(6) and II.
CSCE Budapest Summit (1994)
In 1994, at the Budapest Summit of the CSCE, the participating States reaffirmed
their commitment to respect and ensure respect for general international humanitarian law and in particular for their obligations under the relevant international instruments, including the 1949 Geneva Conventions and their additional protocols, to which they are a party. 
CSCE, Budapest Summit of Heads of State or Government, 5–6 December 1994, Budapest Document 1994: Towards a Genuine Partnership in a New Area, Decisions, Chapter VIII: The Human Dimension, § 33.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1995)
In a resolution adopted in 1995 on challenges posed by calamities arising from armed conflict, the 93rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference stressed States’ “obligation to respect and enforce international humanitarian law, in particular by strengthening mechanisms for its implementation”. 
93rd Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Madrid, 27 March–1 April 1995, Resolution on the International Community in the Face of the Challenges posed by Calamities Arising from Armed Conflicts and by Natural or Man-made Disasters: The Need for a Coherent and Effective Response through Political and Humanitarian Assistance Means and Mechanisms Adapted to the Situation, § 13.
African Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers
In the Maputo Declaration on the Use of Children as Soldiers, the African Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers in 1999 called upon African States “to respect fully the provisions of international human rights and humanitarian law, in particular in the case of captured child soldiers”. 
African Conference on the Use of Children as Soldiers, Maputo, 19–22 April 1999, Maputo Declaration on the Use of Children as Soldiers, § 5.
Inter-Parliamentary Conference (1999)
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on the contribution of parliaments to ensuring respect for and promoting IHL, the 102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference urged the States concerned “to comply strictly and ensure compliance with their obligations under international humanitarian law”. 
102nd Inter-Parliamentary Conference, Berlin, 10–15 October 1999, Resolution on the contribution of parliaments to ensuring respect for and promoting international humanitarian law on the occasion of the 50th anniversary of the Geneva Conventions, § 2.
Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention
In 2001, the Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention adopted a declaration stating:
4 The participating High Contracting Parties call upon all parties, directly involved in the conflict [between Israel and Palestinians] or not, to respect and to ensure respect for the Geneva Conventions in all circumstances …
5 The participating High Contracting Parties stress that the Fourth Geneva Convention, which takes fully into account imperative military necessity, has to be respected in all circumstances.
12 The participating High Contracting Parties call upon the Occupying Power to fully and effectively respect the Fourth Geneva Convention in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, including East Jerusalem, and to refrain from perpetrating any violation of the Convention.
17 The participating High Contracting Parties welcome and encourage the initiatives by States Parties, both individually and collectively, according to art. 1 of the Convention and aimed at ensuring the respect of the Convention, and they underline the need for the Parties, to follow up on the implementation of the present Declaration. 
Conference of High Contracting Parties to the Fourth Geneva Convention, Geneva, 5 December 2001, Declaration, §§ 4–5, 12 and 17.
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict
In the Final Declaration adopted in 2002 by the African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, the participants stated:
1. We pledge our commitment to further uphold humanitarian principles and to the respect for international humanitarian law.
2. To this end, we resolve to ensure that our parliaments fully play their role in the process of acceding to the instruments of International Humanitarian Law and adjust national legislation in order to ensure the effective application thereof.
3. We undertake also, as men and women elected by the people, to contribute to promote awareness of the relevant humanitarian values, norms and rules.
4. We reaffirm our determination to see to it that our States and all parties to an armed conflict honor their obligations under International Humanitarian Law, International Human Rights Law and International Refugee Law and respect, under all circumstances, the rights of the victims of armed conflict as well as the dignity of the human person. 
African Parliamentary Conference on International Humanitarian Law for the Protection of Civilians during Armed Conflict, Niamey, 18–20 February 2002, Final Declaration, §§ 1–4.
International Court of Justice
In its judgment in the Nicaragua case (Merits) in 1986, the ICJ stated with respect to common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions:
The Court considers that there is an obligation on the United States Government, in the terms of Article 1 of the Geneva Conventions, to “respect” the Conventions and even “to ensure respect” for them “in all circumstances”, since such an obligation does not derive only from the Conventions themselves, but from the general principles of humanitarian law to which the Conventions merely give specific expression. The United States is thus under an obligation not to encourage persons or groups engaged in the conflict in Nicaragua to act in violation of the provisions of Article 3 common to the four 1949 Geneva Conventions. 
ICJ, Nicaragua case (Merits), Judgment, 27 June 1986, § 220.
International Court of Justice
In its Order related to Provisional Measures in the Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro) in 1993, the ICJ stated:
The Government of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia (Serbia and Montenegro) should in particular ensure that any military, paramilitary or irregular armed units which may be directed or supported by it, as well as any organizations and persons which may be subject to its control, direction or influence, do not commit any acts of genocide, of direct and public incitement to commit genocide, or in complicity in genocide, whether directed against the Muslim population of Bosnia and Herzegovina or against any other national, ethnical, racial or religious group. 
ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Provisional Measures, Order, 8 April 1993, § 52(A)(2).
In its judgment on the merits in the same case in 2007, the ICJ stated:
147. The jurisdiction of the Court in this case is based solely on Article IX of the [1948 Genocide] Convention. All the other grounds of jurisdiction invoked by the Applicant were rejected in the 1996 Judgment on jurisdiction … It follows that the Court may rule only on the disputes between the Parties to which [Article IX of the 1948 Genocide Convention] refers … It has no power to rule on alleged breaches of other obligations under international law, not amounting to genocide, particularly those protecting human rights in armed conflict. That is so even if the alleged breaches are of obligations under peremptory norms, or of obligations which protect essential humanitarian values, and which may be owed erga omnes.
148. As it has in other cases, the Court recalls the fundamental distinction between the existence and binding force of obligations arising under international law and the existence of a court or tribunal with jurisdiction to resolve disputes about compliance with those obligations. The fact that there is not such a court or tribunal does not mean that the obligations do not exist. They retain their validity and legal force. States are required to fulfil their obligations under international law, including international humanitarian law, and they remain responsible for acts contrary to international law which are attributable to them (e.g. case concerning Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo (New Application: 2002) (Democratic Republic of the Congo v. Rwanda), Jurisdiction of the Court and Admissibility of the Application, Judgment, I.C.J. Reports 2006, pp. 52-53, para. 127). 
ICJ, Application of the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide case (Bosnia and Herzegovina v. Serbia and Montenegro), Merits, Judgment, 26 February 2007, §§ 147–148.
International Court of Justice
In its order in the Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (DRC v. Uganda) (Provisional Measures) in 2000, the ICJ unanimously stated: “Both Parties must, forthwith, take all measures necessary to ensure full respect within the zone of conflict for … the applicable provisions of humanitarian law.” 
ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the DRC case (Provisional Measures), Order, 1 July 2000, § 47(3).
In its judgment in the same case in 2005, the ICJ stated:
The Court … concludes that Uganda was the occupying Power in Ituri at the relevant time. As such it was under an obligation, according to Article 43 of the Hague Regulations of 1907, to take all the measures in its power to restore, and ensure, as far as possible, public order and safety in the occupied area, while respecting, unless absolutely prevented, the laws in force in the DRC [Democratic Republic of the Congo]. This obligation comprised the duty to secure respect for the applicable rules of international human rights law and international humanitarian law, to protect the inhabitants of the occupied territory against acts of violence, and not to tolerate such violence by any third party. 
ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (DRC v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, § 178.
The Court subsequently found that Uganda, by the conduct of its armed forces, “violated its obligations under international human rights law and international humanitarian law” for having, inter alia, “failed to take measures to put an end to such conflict; as well as by its failure, as an occupying Power, to take measures to respect and ensure respect for human rights and international humanitarian law in Ituri district.” 
ICJ, Armed Activities on the Territory of the Congo case (DRC v. Uganda), Judgment, 19 December 2005, §§ and 211345(3).
International Court of Justice
In its Advisory Opinion in Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004, the ICJ stated:
The Court would … emphasize that Article 1 of the Fourth Geneva Convention, a provision common to the four Geneva Conventions, provides that “The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” It follows from that provision that every State party to that Convention, whether or not it is a party to a specific conflict, is under an obligation to ensure that the requirements of the instruments in question are complied with. 
ICJ, Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory, Advisory Opinion, 9 July 2004, § 158.
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1993, the African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights invited “all African States Parties to the African Charter on Human and Peoples’ Rights to adopt appropriate measures at the national level to ensure the promotion of the provisions of international humanitarian law”. 
African Commission for Human and Peoples’ Rights, Addis Ababa, 1–10 December 1993, Res. 2 (XIV), § 1.
European Court of Human Rights
In Loizidou v. Turkey in 1995, the European Court of Human Rights addressed the issue of whether a State party to the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights was obliged to ensure respect for the Convention even in territories that it was occupying. The Court held:
Bearing in mind the object and purpose of the Convention, the responsibility of a Contracting Party may also arise when as a consequence of military action – whether lawful or unlawful – it exercises effective control over an area outside its national territory. The obligation to secure, in such an area, the rights and freedoms set out in the Convention, derives from the fact of such control whether it be exercised directly, through its armed forces, or through subordinate local administration. 
European Court of Human Rights, Loizidou v. Turkey, Preliminary Objections, Judgment, 23 March 1995, § 62; see also Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Case 11.589 (Cuba), 29 September 1999, §§ 24–25.
Special Court for Sierra Leone
In the Fofana and Kondewa case before the SCSL in 2007, the accused, senior members of the Civil Defence Forces (CDF), were convicted, inter alia, of the crimes of murder, cruel treatment and pillage, pursuant to Article 3 of the 2002 Statute of the Special Court for Sierra Leone. In its judgment in 2008, the Appeals Chamber stated:
530. International humanitarian law specifically removes a party’s political motive and the “justness” of a party’s cause from consideration. The basic distinction and historical separation between jus ad bellum and jus in bello underlies the desire of States to see that the protections afforded by jus in bello (i.e., international humanitarian law) are “fully applied in all circumstances to all persons who are protected by those instruments, without any adverse distinction based on the nature or origin of the armed conflict or on the causes espoused by or attributed to the Parties to the conflicts.” The political motivations of a combatant do not alter the demands on that combatant to ensure their conduct complies with the law.
531. Any trial chamber considering punishment must weigh its obligations to the individual accused in light of its responsibility to ensure that it is upholding the purposes and principles of international criminal law. Consideration of political motive by a court applying international humanitarian law not only contravenes, but would undermine a bedrock principle of that law. 
SCSL, Fofana and Kondewa case, Judgment on Appeal, 28 May 2008, §§ 530–531.
[footnotes in original omitted]
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that:
The States and belligerent Parties undertake to respect the law of war and to ensure respect for it in all circumstances. The law of war must be respected by governments, by military and civilian authorities as well as by military and civilian persons. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, §§ 25–26.
Delegates also teach that: “As with order and discipline, the law of war must be respected and enforced in all circumstances.” 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 269.
ICRC
In an appeal issued in 1991 in the context of the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the ICRC urged “the military and civilian authorities of the parties involved to take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with the obligations contained in the provisions of international humanitarian law”. 
ICRC, Appeal in behalf of civilians in Yugoslavia, Geneva, 4 October 1991.
National Society (Hungary)
In a joint statement issued in 1991, the Yugoslav Red Cross and the Hungarian Red Cross expressed their deep concern about “the protracting internal conflict in Yugoslavia” and stated that they “consider it of utmost importance that the parties to the conflict respect the provisions of humanitarian law applicable in armed conflicts, especially in non-international armed conflicts”.  
Yugoslav Red Cross and Hungarian Red Cross, Joint Statement, Subotica, 25 October 1991.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1992 with respect to the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ICRC appealed “to the parties involved to take all necessary steps to ensure compliance with the basic rules of international humanitarian law”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1705, Bosnia-Herzegovina: ICRC calls for protection of civilians, 10 April 1992.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1992 with respect to the conflict in Afghanistan, the ICRC appealed “to all the parties to respect international humanitarian law and to ensure respect for its rules by everyone involved in the fighting”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1712, Afghanistan: ICRC appeals for compliance with humanitarian rules, 5 May 1992.
This appeal was repeated later the same year. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1726, Afghanistan: New ICRC appeal for compliance with humanitarian rules, 14 August 1992.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 1993 with respect to the conflict in Somalia, the ICRC appealed “to all forces involved to respect international humanitarian law and to ensure respect for its rules by all of their members”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 93/17, Somalia: ICRC appeals for compliance with international humanitarian law, 17 June 1993.
Council of Delegates (1993)
At its Birmingham Session in 1993, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in which it welcomed “the reaffirmation by States of their responsibility under Article 1 common to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law”. 
International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, Council of Delegates, Birmingham Session, 29–30 October 1993, Res. 2, preamble.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “The parties to the conflict must take all necessary steps to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, preamble, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 502.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1994 in the context of the conflict in Bosnia and Herzegovina, the ICRC appealed to all parties involved in hostilities in and around Bihać “to respect international humanitarian law and to ensure that it is respected in all circumstances”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1792, Bihać: Urgent ICRC Appeal, 26 November 1994.
ICRC
In a press release issued in 1995, the ICRC appealed to all the parties involved in Turkey’s military operations in northern Iraq “to respect international humanitarian law” and stated that it had sent the Turkish Government a note “reminding it of its obligation to comply with international humanitarian law”. 
ICRC, Press Release No. 1797, ICRC calls for compliance with international law in Turkey and northern Iraq, 22 March 1995.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 2000 in connection with the hostilities in the Near East, the ICRC appealed “to all those involved in the violence or in a position to influence the situation to respect and to ensure respect for international humanitarian law and its underlying principles in all circumstances”. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 00/42, ICRC appeal to all involved in violence in the Near East, 21 November 2000.
ICRC
In a communication to the press issued in 2001 in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan, the ICRC stated:
In view of the situation in and around the besieged town of Kunduz and in other parts of the country where fighting continues, the ICRC feels it necessary to impress upon all parties concerned that the rules governing armed conflict must be respected at all times and in all circumstances. 
ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 01/58, Afghanistan: ICRC calls on all parties to comply with international humanitarian law, 23 November 2001.
Institute of International Law
In a resolution adopted at its Berlin Session in 1999, the Institute of International Law stated:
All parties to armed conflicts in which non-State entities are parties, irrespective of their legal status, as well as the United Nations, and competent regional and other international organizations have the obligation to respect international humanitarian law as well as fundamental human rights. The application of such principles and rules does not affect the legal status of the parties to the conflict and is not dependent on their recognition as belligerents or insurgents. 
Institute of International Law, Berlin Session, Resolution on the Application of International Humanitarian Law and Fundamental Human Rights in Armed Conflicts in which Non-State Entities are Parties, 25 August 1999, § II.
DRC Pledge of Commitment
In 2008, the armed groups party to the DRC Pledge of Commitment, “deeply deploring the insecurity that has prevailed for a long time in the province of North Kivu, causing massive displacements of populations and enormous suffering of civilians as well as massive violations of human rights”, undertook to “strictly observe rules of international humanitarian law and human rights law”. 
Acte d’engagement signé par le CNDP-Mouvement Politico-Militaire, la PARECO/FAP, les Mai-Mai Kasindien, les Mai-Mai Kifuafua, les Mai-Mai Vurondo, les Mai-Mai Mongol, l’UJPS, les Mai-Mai Rwenzori et le Simba avec l’engagement solennel des Représentants de la Communauté Internationale, facilitateurs du présent acte d’engagement – les Nations-Unies, la Conférence Internationale sur la Région des Grands Lacs, les Etats-Unis d’Amérique, l’Union Africaine, l’Union Européenne et le Gouvernement (Pledge of Commitment signed by the CNDP-Mouvement Politico-Militaire, PARECO/FAP, Mai-Mai Kasindien, Mai-Mai Kifuafua, Mai-Mai Vurondo, Mai-Mai Mongol, UJPS, Mai-Mai Rwenzori and Simba with the solemn commitment of the representatives of the international community, facilitators of this pledge of commitment – the United Nations, the International Conference on the Great Lakes Region, the United States of America, the European Union and the Government), Goma, 23 January 2008, Preamble and Article III, §§ 1–5.
Hague Convention (II)
Article 1 of the 1899 Hague Convention (II) provides:
The High Contracting Parties shall issue instructions to their armed land forces, which shall be in conformity with the “Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land” annexed to the present Convention. 
Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 1.
Hague Convention (IV)
Article 1 of the 1907 Hague Convention (IV) provides:
The Contracting Powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention.  
Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 1.
Panmunjom Armistice Agreement
Article II(17) of the 1953 Panmunjom Armistice Agreement provides:
Responsibility for compliance with and enforcement of the terms and provisions of this Armistice Agreement is that of signatories hereto and their successors in command. The Commanders of the opposing sides shall establish within their respective commands all measures and procedures necessary to insure complete compliance with all the provisions hereof by all elements of their commands. 
Agreement between the Commander-in-Chief, United Nations Command, on the one hand, and the Supreme Commander of the Korean People’s Army and the Commander of the Chinese People’s Volunteers, on the other hand, concerning a Military Armistice in Korea, Panmunjom, 27 July 1953, Article II(17).
Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property
Article 7(1) of the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property provides:
The High Contracting Parties undertake to introduce in time of peace into their military regulations or instructions such provisions as may ensure observance of the present Convention, and to foster in the members of their armed forces a spirit of respect for the culture and cultural property of all peoples. 
Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, The Hague, 14 May 1954, Article 7(1).
Additional Protocol I
Article 80(2) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “The High Contracting Parties and the Parties to the conflict shall give orders and instructions to ensure observance of the Conventions and this Protocol, and shall supervise their execution.” 
Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 80(2). Article 80 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.43, 27 May 1977, p. 256.
Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
Article 14(3) of the 1996 Amended Protocol II to the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons provides: “Each High Contracting Party shall … require that its armed forces issue relevant military instructions and operating procedures … to comply with the provisions of this Protocol.” 
Protocol on Prohibitions on the Use of Mines, Booby-Traps and Other Devices, as amended, to the Convention on Prohibitions or Restrictions on the Use of Certain Conventional Weapons Which May Be Deemed to Be Excessively Injurious or to Have Indiscriminate Effects, Geneva, 3 May 1996, Article 14(3).
No data.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides:
The Geneva Conventions and [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I expressly oblige States not only to respect [those agreements], but also to ensure respect by issuing orders and instructions for that purpose.” 
Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, PC-08-01, Público, Edición 1989, Estado Mayor Conjunto de las Fuerzas Armadas, aprobado por Resolución No. 489/89 del Ministerio de Defensa, 23 April 1990, § 8.01.
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “Rules of Engagement (ROE) provide authoritative guidance on the use of military force by the ADF [Australian Defence Forces] … ROE will include legal considerations and so will comply with the law of armed conflict.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 211.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:
2.12 ROE [Rules of Engagement] provide authoritative guidance on the use of military force by the ADF [Australian Defence Forces] …. ROE will take into account legal considerations and so will comply with LOAC.
13.4 States are under a general obligation to issue orders and instructions requiring compliance with the LOAC and to take steps to see that those orders and instructions are observed … [T]he first step to enforcement of the LOAC is to ensure as wide a knowledge of its provisions as possible both within and outside the armed forces. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 2.12 and 13.4.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s LOAC Teaching Directive (1996) provides that the General Staff of the Forces and the Medical Service “shall give the necessary instructions [to ensure in all circumstances full respect for the law of armed conflicts and the rules of engagement by all members of the Armed Forces]”. 
Belgium, Directive sur l’enseignement du droit des conflits armés et des règles d’engagement au sein des Forces Armées belges, Ordre Général J/185, Forces Armées, Etat-Major Général, Division Opérations, 8 February 1996, Section 1.
Benin
Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states that missions assigned to subordinates “shall contain the details necessary to ensure respect for the law of war”. 
Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 10.
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states: “The commander must … ensure that … the law of war is effectively respected.” 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 43.
The Regulations also states that “[c]ontrolling the execution of orders [by the commander] has the purpose of … ensuring that subordinates respect and ensure respect for the law of war”. 
Burundi, Règlement n° 98 sur le droit international humanitaire, Ministère de la Défense Nationale et des Anciens Combattants, Projet “Moralisation” (BDI/B-05), August 2007, Part I bis, p. 41; see also Part I bis, p. 97.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “The main responsibility of members of the ‘Etats-Majors’ consists of verifying that their contribution to orders and instructions are in conformity with the Law of War.” 
Cameroon, Droit international humanitaire et droit de la guerre, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les Forces Armées, Présidence de la République, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-major des Armées, Troisième Division, Edition 1992, p. 133, § 461.1.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “rules of engagement and/or [military] instructions are to ensure conduct compatible with the law of armed conflict and international humanitarian law”. 
Cameroon, Droit des conflits armés et droit international humanitaire, Manuel de l’instructeur en vigueur dans les forces de défense, Ministère de la Défense, Présidence de la République, Etat-major des Armées, 2006, p. 224, § 231.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) defines the rules of engagement as “orders issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations within which force may be applied by the CF [Canadian Forces] to achieve military objectives in furtherance of national policy”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, Glossary, p. GL-17.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides:
The purpose of the Code … is to provide simple and understandable instructions to ensure that CF [Canadian Force] members apply as a minimum, the spirit and principles of the Law of Armed Conflict in all CF operations other than Canadian domestic operations. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Introduction, § 5.
Canada
Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) explains:
4. Operational missions often require CF [Canadian Forces] members to make decisions under considerable stress and in times of confusion. Moreover, the course of action one elects to make during operations can have serious consequences. Decisions must often be made very quickly. Compliance with this simple Code of Conduct helps to ensure that split second decisions are consistent with the Law of Armed Conflict and Canadian law.
5. The purpose of the Code, therefore, is to provide simple and understandable instructions to ensure that CF members apply as a minimum, the spirit and principles of the Law of Armed Conflict in all CF operations other than Canadian domestic operations. 
Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Introduction, §§ 4–5.
Canada
Canada’s Use of Force Manual (2008) states:
CHAPTER 1: THE USE OF FORCE AND LAW
SECTION I – GENERAL
101. INTRODUCTION
2. Rules of Engagement (ROE) are the command and control (C2) instrument by which the CDS [Chief of the Defence Staff] controls the application of force or actions which may be construed as provocative in CF [Canadian Forces] operations.
SECTION II - LEGAL FOUNDATIONS
102. REQUIREMENTS TO CONTROL THE USE OF FORCE
2. As the interpretation of the law will affect the definition of the operation’s mission and its execution, commanders at all levels and their subordinates are responsible for the correct and comprehensive application of the law in planning and conducting an operation.
104. INTERNATIONAL LAW
2. … As with any legal issue, an operational commander is not expected to be a legal expert, but is required to understand the principles in sufficient detail to ensure the following:
a. that international law is correctly applied in planning and conducting operations; and
b. that all members of the force understand their legal responsibilities with respect to the use of force, whether during an armed conflict or not.
105. OTHER LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS APPLICABLE TO OPERATIONS
3. Strategic Guidance and Direction. The strategic-level guidance provided to the commander and any direction on the use of force (such as ROE) authorized for the operation must be based upon legal considerations and requirements. There also must be a clear and coherent link between the approved political objectives, military objectives, the legal basis for the operation, the commander’s concept of operations, and the ROE which are authorized for the operation. Therefore, legal staff shall be involved in the planning process at all levels.
CHAPTER 2: CONTROLLING THE USE OF FORCE
SECTION III – RULES OF ENGAGEMENT
205. INTRODUCTION
1. ROE are an indispensable instrument of C2 for ordering and controlling the use of force or actions which might be construed as provocative during military operations. ROE are orders issued by military authority that define the circumstances, conditions, degree, manner, and limitations within which force, or actions which might be construed as provocative, may be applied to achieve military objectives in accordance with national policy and the law. …
2. The use of force, and in particular, the authority to use deadly force by Canadian forces to accomplish a mission receives detailed scrutiny and attention by the senior leadership of the CF. Every member of the CF who may be required to use force in self-defence or to accomplish a mission must have a reasonable level of knowledge and understanding of the ROE and supporting doctrine.
207. FACTORS INFLUENCING ROE
1. In order to control the use of military force, the Canadian government and military staffs will be guided by the following factors:
a. Legal Prescriptions. Any use of force must comply with Canadian domestic law and international law. International laws include:
(1) The Law of Armed Conflict. The body of international law that governs the conduct of hostilities during an armed conflict. 
Canada, Use of Force for CF Operations, Canadian Forces Joint Publication, Chief of the Defence Staff, B-GJ-005-501/FP-001, August 2008, §§ 101.2, 102.2, 104.2, 105.3, 205 and 207.1.a(1).
Central African Republic
The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states in Volume 2 (Instruction for group and patrol leaders):
INTRODUCTION
Each military commander is responsible for respect for the law of war within his sphere of command. Within his unit, he is in particular responsible for the instruction of the law of war in order to induce his troops to adopt a behaviour in conformity with the law and above all vis-à-vis specifically protected persons and objects.
I. GENERAL RESPONSIBILITY IN MILITARY OPERATIONS
As a rule, the commander of the forces carrying out a military operation is responsible for ensuring respect for the law of war. This responsibility extends to the civilian domain to the extent required by the law of war, in particular regarding cooperation with the civilian authorities. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 2: Formation pour l’obtention du certificat technique No. 2 (Chef de Groupe), du certificat Inter-Armé (CIA), du certificat d’aptitude de Chef de Patrouille (CACP), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter IV, Introduction and Section I; see also Chapter IV, Conclusion.
In Volume 3 (Instruction for non-commissioned officers studying for the level 1 and 2 certificates and for future officers of the criminal police), the manual states:
Controlling execution is the final step in the command process. The aim is to ensure that the orders given to subordinates are executed as intended by the commander.
Control helps strengthen order and discipline. It enables the military commander to intervene and, if necessary, to correct the way an action is carried out or to take any appropriate measures.
Control allows the military commander to ensure that his subordinates respect and ensure respect for the law of war in their sphere of responsibility. 
Central African Republic, Le Droit de la Guerre, Fascicule No. 3: Formation pour l’obtention du Brevet d’Armes No. 1, du Brevet d’Armes No. 2 et le stage d’Officier de Police Judiciaire (OPJ), Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Centrafricaines, 1999, Chapter II, Section IV; see also Chapter II, Section I.
Colombia
Colombia’s Directive on IHL (1993) defines its own aim as “defining general principles and giving instructions towards the strict respect of the rules of International Humanitarian Law”. It also states:
The Ministry of National Defence gives instructions aimed at intensifying the development of capacity-building programmes of the members of the public force, on themes referring to the respect for Human Rights and the application of the rules of International Humanitarian Law, with a view to prevent and correct conduct which violates those rules …
The General Command of the Military Forces and the Direction of the National Police [g]ive the Commanders of the public force the necessary instructions for each Force to intensify, develop and complete, in the corresponding formation and capacity-building courses of their personnel, the relevant studies on the respect for Human Rights and ensure the obligatory application of International Humanitarian Law. 
Colombia, Normas de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Directiva Permanente No. 017, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 17 August 1993, Sections I.(A), IV.(A) and IV.(B)(1).
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 2 (Instruction of second-year trainee officers):
I.2. Obligation to respect and to ensure respect
“The High Contracting Parties undertake to respect and to ensure respect for the present Convention in all circumstances.” (Common Article 1 to the four Geneva Conventions)
To do this, States undertake
- to give orders and instructions to ensure observance of the Conventions, and to supervise the execution. 
Côte d’Ivoire, Droit de la guerre, Manuel d’instruction, Livre III, Tome 2: Instruction de l’élève officier d’active de 2ème année, Manuel de l’instructeur, Ministère de la Défense, Forces Armées Nationales, November 2007, pp. 35–36.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) defines rules of engagement as “instructions established by the competent political or military authority to determine the circumstances of and the limitations to the use of force by the armed forces when, confronted with other forces, they undertake or continue armed engagement”. 
France, Manuel de droit des conflits armés, Ministère de la Défense, Direction des Affaires Juridiques, Sous-Direction du droit international humanitaire et du droit européen, Bureau du droit des conflits armés, 2001, p. 107.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states: “Superiors shall only issue orders which are in conformity with international law.” 
Germany, Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflicts – Manual, DSK VV207320067, edited by The Federal Ministry of Defence of the Federal Republic of Germany, VR II 3, August 1992, English translation of ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten KonfliktenHandbuch, August 1992, § 141.
Germany
Germany’s IHL Manual (1996), referring to common Article 1 of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and Article 1(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, states:
It necessarily follows that each soldier of the [German Armed Forces] must know the rules of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts. This is relevant especially for superiors who may give orders only by respecting the rules of public international law. 
Germany, ZDv 15/1, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, DSK VV230120023, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, June 1996, §§ 107 and 108.
Germany
Germany’s Soldiers’ Manual (2006) states:
Every individual service man or service woman is personally responsible for observing the rules of international humanitarian law. Superiors may give orders only in compliance with the rules of international humanitarian law. 
Germany, Druckschrift Einsatz Nr. 03, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Grundsätze, Erarbeitet nach ZDv 15/2, Humanitäres Völkerrecht in bewaffneten Konflikten – Handbuch, DSK SF009320187, Bundesministerium der Verteidigung, R II 3, August 2006, p. 2.
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) emphasizes that the commander of the forces engaged must provide “guidance to subordinates”. It also states that each mission “has to be consistent with the L.O.W. [law of war]”. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, pp. 39 and 49.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “Officers are required to know the rules of warfare and to endeavour to adapt them and apply them to conditions of engagement.” 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 3.
The manual further states:
The rules of warfare are binding upon every soldier in the IDF [Israel Defense Forces] … Headquarters Order 33.0133 (valid from 20/7/1982) requires an IDF soldier to behave according to the directives contained in the Fourth Geneva Convention. For every campaign order that is liable to develop into a situation to which the Geneva Convention might be applicable, and for any campaign order prior to an operation being conducted close to a site of cultural heritage protected under the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, these directives will be specified to the soldiers. Copies of the Conventions can be found in all of the IDF’s registration offices. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 11.
In addition, the manual states:
The Military Jurisdiction Law defines various offences that constitute a breach of the rules of war. Both General Headquarters orders and the code of conduct require IDF soldiers to comply with the rules of warfare that have been recognised by Israel. Many countries publish a “Guide to the Rules of Warfare” – a collection of guidelines for soldiers covering their conduct in the battlefield. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 41.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Nepal
Nepal’s IHL and IHRL Integration Order (2008) states:
The Nepalese Army has issued various human rights directives to its troops to abide by while conducting security operations in accordance to IHL and IHRL. At the same time it had issued a special human rights directive while conducting counter insurgency operations in the past. Added to that, human rights focused instructions have been included in various Operational Directives. 
Nepal, IHL and IHRL Integration Order for the Nepalese Army, Chief of the Army Staff, Army Headquarters Kathmandu, File Ref. 14644/9/A/064/65/22/874, 22 February 2008, § 3.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states:
States parties to law of war treaties must take all necessary measures to ensure respect for their obligations under these treaties. They must give orders and instructions which ensure their respect and must supervise their execution. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IX-1.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “compliance [with the humanitarian law of war] should take place at all times … The commanding officer is responsible for the behaviour of the unit(s) under his orders”. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1074.
In its chapter on the prevention and punishment of war crimes, the manual states:
The states which are parties to the conventions on the law of war should take all necessary steps to meet their obligations under those conventions. They should give orders and instructions to ensure compliance and supervise their application. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1103.
In its chapter on peace operations, under the heading “Code of Conduct for the Armed Forces”, the manual states: “Members of the armed forces must scrupulously obey the rules of national and international law.” 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, p. 198.
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Operational Code of Conduct (1967) directs “all officers and men to observe strictly the following rules during operations. (These instructions must be read in conjunction with the Geneva Convention.)” It also states: “To be successful in our tasks as soldiers these rules must be carefully observed. I will not be proud of any member of the Armed Forces under my command who fails to observe them.” 
Nigeria, Operational Code of Conduct for Nigerian Armed Forces, Federal Military Government of Nigeria, July 1967, §§ 4 and 5.
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
When missions are given to subordinates, they shall be accompanied by the rules of engagement and/or instructions for conduct that is compatible with international humanitarian law (for example, in special situations such as combat between irregular forces or opposition movements). 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 25(a)(11), p. 227.
Philippines
The Joint Circular on Adherence to IHL and Human Rights (1991) of the Philippines was issued “to effectively pursue the intents and purposes of Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393 dated September 9, 1991, directing the Armed Forces and National Police to reaffirm their adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the conduct of security/police operations” and “for strict compliance of every member of the AFP [Armed Forces of the Philippines] and PNP [Philippine National Police] in all levels of command/office”. 
Philippines, Implementation Guidelines for Presidential Memorandum Order No. 393, dated 9 September 1991, Directing the Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippines National Police to Reaffirm their Adherence to the Principles of Humanitarian Law and Human Rights in the Conduct of Security/Police Operations, Joint Circular Number 2-91, Department of National Defense, Department of Interior and Local Government, 1991, § 2.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
In their service activities commanding officers shall be guided by generally accepted principles and rules of international humanitarian law that oblige them:
a) in peace time:
- to organize and be personally involved in the dissemination of international humanitarian law amongst the subordinated personnel; to ensure that it is studied within the process of training and education of servicemen drawing their attention to the fact that the legislation of the Russian Federation provides for criminal responsibility for some breaches of international humanitarian law;
- to constantly maintain law and order and stern military discipline thus ensuring that the subordinates strictly observe the rules of international humanitarian law in the event of armed conflict;
- to invite the commander’s assistant on legal matters acting as the legal advisor in the event of armed conflict to take part in organizing combat training;
- to supervise the training of medical personnel and legal service officers related to studying and carrying out the rules of international humanitarian law;
b) in the event of armed conflict:
- to set an example in the respect of international humanitarian law rules;
- to ensure knowledge and strict respect of international humanitarian law by the subordinated personnel;
- to repress violations of international humanitarian law by the subordinated personnel, if any, call to account the offenders and report to the superior commander. 
Russian Federation, Regulations on the Application of International Humanitarian Law by the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation, Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation, Moscow, 8 August 2001, § 10.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Combat Manual (2005) states:
When carrying out an assigned mission, every commander, within the framework of his responsibilities, must take into account the norms of international humanitarian law, and when making a decision, must ensure that they are respected by his subordinates. 
Russian Federation, Combat Manual on the Preparation and Conducting of Combined-Arms Battles (Boevoi ustav po podgotovke i vedeniu obshevoiskovogo boya), Part 3, Platoon, Subdivision, Tank, endorsed by Order of the Commander-in-Chief of the Ground Forces No. 19, 24 February 2005, § 24.
Russian Federation
The Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (2007) provides:
General Obligations of Commanders (Superiors)
77. … In the course of carrying out combat missions by a military unit, the commander (superior) guided by requirements of field manuals, must take measures aimed at respecting IHL rules and bring to disciplinary responsibility those guilty of breaching them. In the event of discovering constituent elements of criminal offence in the actions (omissions) of his subordinates, the commander of the unit shall institute criminal proceedings, in accordance with the legislation of the Russian Federation.
83. A commander (superior) must improve his personal professional level of training and methods of management of a unit:
- know the normative legal acts of the Russian Federation within the limits of the legal minimum and IHL rules and act in strict compliance therewith, and to demand that his subordinates respect them. 
Russian Federation, Internal Service Regulations of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation (Ustav vnutrennei sluzhbi vooruzhennikh sil Rossiskoi Federacii), approved by Decree No. 1495 of the President of the Russian Federation, 10 November 2007, §§ 77 and 83.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
Criminal Liability / Responsibility under LOAC [law of armed conflict]
Introduction
The command of the armed forces shall be subject to an internal disciplinary system which enforces compliance with the law of war.
To effectively respect the law of war, armed forces need generally applicable rules.
Armed forces cannot be taught different ways of behaviour for international and no[n]-international armed conflicts.
5.2 Command Responsibility
The LOAC places a duty upon states to respect and ensure respect for “the instruments” in all circumstances. This also places a legal responsibility on all commanders of forces engaged in military operations to ensure the enforcement of the LOAC in all circumstances.
Appropriate guidance, eg rules of engagement, must be given to subordinates to cover specific circumstances. Such guidance will[:]
- Ensure consistent action and behaviour; and
- Prepare subordinate commanders, especially those in command of independent missions, to take the necessary measures required by the situation by themselves.
Commanders are bound by similar rules of engagement in a non-international conflict.
Operational Planning
- When issuing orders to subordinates, commanders must ensure that:
- Subordinates are only issued with orders that are realistic and that can be executed legally in accordance with the LOAC;
- Orders contain all the necessary information needed to ensure respect for the LOAC[.] 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 5, pp. 235, 239, 241 and 242.
[emphasis in original]
The manual also states:
Protection of Marked Cultural and Religious Objects (Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict of 14 May 1954)
- Military Measures (Article 7)
- Parties to the Convention must, in times of peace, introduce measures into their military regulations and instructions to ensure observance [of] this Convention and to foster in their members a spirit of respect for the culture and cultural property of all peoples. 
South Africa, Advanced Law of Armed Conflict Teaching Manual, School of Military Justice, 1 April 2008, as amended to 25 October 2013, Learning Unit 2, pp. 134 and 136.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states:
The 1907 Hague Convention IV already provided that “the high contracting parties shall issue instructions to their Armed Forces which shall be in conformity with the rules that have been adopted”, rules that were contained in the [Hague] Conventions of 1899 and 1907. This obligation takes shape in the existence of military manuals which include the norms applicable to armed conflicts. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Publicación OR7-004, 2 Tomos, aprobado por el Estado Mayor del Ejército, Division de Operaciones, 18 March 1996, Vol. I, Annex A.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
The Fourth Hague Convention of 1907 provides that the “Contracting powers shall issue instructions to their armed land forces which shall be in conformity with the Regulations respecting the laws and customs of war on land, annexed to the present Convention”. These regulations were established in the Hague Conventions of 1899 and 1907. The obligation was fulfilled by producing military manuals setting forth the rules applicable to armed conflict. 
Spain, Orientaciones. El Derecho de los Conflictos Armados, Tomo 1, Publicación OR7–004, (Edición Segunda), Mando de Adiestramiento y Doctrina, Dirección de Doctrina, Orgánica y Materiales, 2 November 2007, Annex A.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) notes: “The [1907] IV Hague Convention … provides that contracting powers shall give their land forces instructions that comply with the Convention.” 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.1, p. 91.
The manual adds: “For the Swedish defence forces, the commander-in-chief has laid down eight servicemen’s rules pointing out what every combatant must bear in mind in combat situations.” 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 4.2, p. 95.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Manual of Internal Service of the Armed Forces (2001) states:
The military serviceman is obliged to know and observe undeviatingly the Law of Armed Conflict and international rules on the conduct of hostilities, including the rules on the treatment of the wounded, sick and the civilian population in the area of hostilities as well as of prisoners of war. 
Tajikistan, Manual of Internal Service of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Tajikistan, endorsed by the Decree of the Madjilsi Namoyandagon of Madjlisi Oli [Parliament] of the Republic of Tajikistan No. 273 of 4 April 2001 and promulgated by the Order of the Minister of Defence of the Republic of Tajikistan No. 3 of 2 May 2001, § 19.
Togo
Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states that missions assigned to subordinates “shall contain the details necessary to ensure respect for the law of war”. 
Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 10.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
States are under a general obligation to issue orders and instructions requiring compliance with the law of armed conflict and to take steps to see that those orders and instructions are observed. There is a specific provision in relation to the handling of the wounded, sick and shipwrecked, extending to a requirement to provide for unforeseen situations “in conformity with the general principles” of the Geneva Conventions 1949. These are that the wounded, sick and shipwrecked should be cared for and treated without any adverse distinction. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.2.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) emphasizes that: “The US … ensures observance and enforcement through a variety of national means including … military regulations [and] rules of engagement.” 
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 15-2(e).
United States of America
The US Manual on Detainee Operations (2008) states: “JFCs [joint force commanders] will ensure that all detainees are treated … IAW [in accordance with] … the law of war”. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-11.
The manual further states:
When U.S. forces conduct detainee operations, they must possess the text of the applicable [1949] Geneva Conventions … Because the Armed Forces of the United States comply with the law of war as a matter of DOD [Department of Defense] policy during all operations, this requirement is applicable as a matter of policy to all detention operations. JFCs have the overall responsibility to develop, implement, monitor, and, when necessary, refine standards, policies, and SOPs [standard operating procedures] for detainee operations that are consistent with obligations imposed by law and applicable policy. Pursuant to this obligation, JFCs are responsible to ensure the effective routine review of detention operations. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. III-14.
The manual quotes a statement by the US President to the UN made on the International Day in Support of Victims of Torture, 26 June 2004:
The United States … remains steadfastly committed to upholding the [1949] Geneva Conventions, which have been the bedrock of protection in armed conflict for more than 50 years. These Conventions provide important protections designed to reduce human suffering in armed conflict. We expect other nations to treat our service members and civilians in accordance with the Geneva Conventions. Our Armed Forces are committed to complying with them. 
United States, Manual on Detainee Operations, Joint Chiefs of Staff, 30 May 2008, p. I-1.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides:
The appropriate authorities and governmental bodies of the Azerbaijan Republic ensure that all the citizens learn the provisions of this law on civil defence and ensure the preparation of military servicemen of all categories within the framework of training programmes.
If the Azerbaijan Republic is one of the parties to the conflict, the necessary instruction is given to the civilian population in such a conflict area and to the personnel staff of the Armed Forces of the Azerbaijan Republic involved in the solution of this conflict. 
Azerbaijan, Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War, 1995, Article 30.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Order No. 637 on the Application of IHL Norms within the Armed Forces (2005), issued by the Minister of Defence, states:
With the aim to implement provisions of the international treaties related to IHL within the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan, I [order that] Deputies of the Minister of Defence, commanders of the Armed Forces and different troops, chiefs of departments, independent sectors and services, commanders of divisions, formations and military units of the Ministry of Defence, chiefs of directions, institutions, organizations and military educational institutions shall ensure the following:
- learning by military servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan provisions related to IHL norms, contained in the Constitution and laws of Azerbaijan, military regulations of the Armed Forces, orders and directives of the Minister of Defence;
- respect for IHL norms by the military servicemen of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Azerbaijan during implementation of the demands of the management directives related to provision of combat regulations and combat actions;
- requirements of IHL norms are taken into consideration while elaboration of orders, directives and other service documents related to holding of exercises, trainings and other events. 
Azerbaijan, Order No. 637 on the Application of IHL Norms within the Armed Forces, 2005, § 1.
Colombia
Colombia’s Directive No. 10 (2007), whose objective is to prevent the killing of protected persons, states:
With the objective of strengthening the application of international humanitarian law, preventing homicides of protected persons and strengthening the legitimacy of the Armed Forces, the General Command of the Armed Forces must issue precise orders to all personnel of the armed forces with a view to:
1. Incorporating and respecting the norms of international humanitarian law in the planning, execution and use of force during military operations. 
Colombia, Directive No. 10, 2007, § VI(1).
Hungary
Hungary’s Order of the Minister of Defence on the Adoption of Service Regulations (2005) states that soldiers shall observe “laws pertaining to the service and other internal provisions, including regulations regarding warfare and humanitarian rules”. 
Hungary, Order of the Minister of Defence on the Adoption of Service Regulations, 2005, § 6(a).
The Order further states:
10. Soldiers shall respect international regulations on the conduct of warfare and the protection of victims of war, provisions on protection of citizens, assets, environment and nature, as well as the integrity and inviolability of medical organizations and personnel and religious personnel using distinctive signs regulated in international treaties. The appendix to the Service Regulations … contains the most important regulations of the treaties.
19. Soldiers during foreign service on operational territory:
a) shall be acquainted with and enforce the relevant bilateral and multilateral international agreements, the rules of international humanitarian law (see appendix of this Order), laws and customs of the Host State, the regulations regarding armed missions of international organizations, provisions of operational rules binding on Hungarian corps, as well, issued by the operator headquarters, and the content of the prospectus and the job description;
b) as a superior he shall ensure that his subordinates are acquainted with these regulations to the degree necessary to their tasks and status. 
Hungary, Order of the Minister of Defence on the Adoption of Service Regulations, 2005, §§ 10 and 19(a)–(b).
Russian Federation
In its Order on the Publication of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols (1990), the Russian Ministry of Defence required “the implementation of the instructions concerning the application of the rules of international humanitarian law by the armed forces of the USSR” annexed to the said order, i.e. the Russian Federation’s Military Manual. 
Russian Federation, Order on the Publication of the Geneva Conventions and Protocols, 1990, § 1.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Order of the Ministry of Interior on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1996) states:
The heads of departments and [services] of the Office of the [Ministry of Interior] of the Republic of Tajikistan [and] the commanders of military units shall, in time of warfare, be strictly guided by the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in:
1. The Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949:
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in [Armed Forces] in the Field;
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;
- [Relative to] the Treatment of Prisoners of War;
- [Relative to] the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
2. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I);
3. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). 
Tajikistan, Order of the Ministry of Interior on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1996, Article I.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Order of the Minister of Defence on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1996) states:
The Heads of Departments, independent departments and services of the Ministry of Defence of the Republic of Tajikistan, [and] the commanders of … military units shall, in time of warfare, be strictly guided by the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in:
- the Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949:
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in Armed Forces in the Field;
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;
- Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War;
- Relative to the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
- 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I);
- 1977 Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). 
Tajikistan, Order of the Minister of Defence on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1996, Article I.
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Order of the Committee for State Border Protection on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols (1998) states:
The Head of Department, independent departments and services of the [Committee for State Border Protection] under the Government of Tajikistan, [and] the commanders of … military units in time of warfare shall be strictly guided by the norms and principles of international humanitarian law, which are contained in:
1. The Geneva Conventions on the protection of war victims of 12 August 1949:
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded and Sick in [Armed Forces] in the Field;
- For the Amelioration of the Condition of the Wounded, Sick and Shipwrecked Members of Armed Forces at Sea;
- [Relative to] the Treatment of Prisoners of War;
- [Relative to] the Protection of Civilian Persons in Time of War.
2. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and Relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I);
3. [1977] Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II). 
Tajikistan, Order of the Committee for State Border Protection on Measures to Comply with the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, 1998, Article I.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s Act on the Internal Service Statute of the Armed Forces (1999), as amended in 2005, provides: “Members of the military service must know and firmly comply with the rules of international humanitarian law undertaken by Ukraine.” 
Ukraine, Act on the Internal Service Statute of the Armed Forces (1999), as amended in 2005, Annex, § 15.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (2008) states:
Article 133. Governing body
The Ministry of the Popular Participation for the Defence is the governing body of the Defence Sector in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law. It establishes the organizational and regulatory structure required to promote, monitor and protect such rights via the adoption of policies and doctrines. 
Venezuela, Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, 2008, Article 133.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces (2008), as amended to 2011, states:
Article 136. Governing body
The Ministry of the Popular Participation for the Defence is the governing body of the Defence Sector in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law. It establishes the organizational and regulatory structure required to promote, monitor and protect such rights via the adoption of policies and doctrines. 
Venezuela, Law on the Bolivarian National Armed Forces, 2008, as amended to 2011, Article 136.
Colombia
In 2007, in the Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, the Plenary Chamber of Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated:
At the international level, the State obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law is found in Article 1 common to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and has acquired customary status.
[T]he general obligation to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law is the foundation for a number of more specific duties such as … the duty to give the necessary orders and instructions to members of the armed forces to ensure their respect for and compliance with international humanitarian law as well as to provide the necessary training. 
Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-291/07, Judgment of 25 April 2007, p. 61.
Israel
In its judgment in Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank in 2002, Israel’s High Court of Justice stated:
The IDF [Israel Defense Forces] shall once again instruct the combat forces, down to the level of the lone soldier in the field, of this commitment by our forces based on law and morality – and, according to the state, even on utilitarian considerations – through concrete instructions which will prevent, to the extent possible, and even in severe situations, incidents which are inconsistent with the rules of humanitarian law. 
Israel, High Court of Justice, Physicians for Human Rights v. Commander of the IDF Forces in the West Bank, Judgment, 8 April 2002.
South Africa
In 1987, in the Petane case, the Cape Provincial Division of South Africa’s Supreme Court dismissed the accused’s claim that the 1977 Additional Protocol I reflected customary international law. The Court stated:
The accused has been indicted before this Court on three counts of terrorism, that is to say, contraventions of s 54(1) of the Internal Security Act 74 of 1982. He has also been indicted on three counts of attempted murder.
The accused’s position is stated to be that this Court has no jurisdiction to try him.
… The point in its early formulation was this. By the terms of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I to the [1949] Geneva Conventions the accused was entitled to be treated as a prisoner-of-war. A prisoner-of-war is entitled to have notice of an impending prosecution for an alleged offence given to the so-called “protecting power” appointed to watch over prisoners-of-war. Since, if such a notice were necessary, the trial could not proceed without it, Mr Donen suggested that the necessity or otherwise for giving such a notice should be determined before evidence was led. …
On 12 August 1949 there were concluded at Geneva in Switzerland four treaties known as the Geneva Conventions. …
South Africa was among the nations which concluded the treaties. … Except for the common art 3, which binds parties to observe a limited number of fundamental humanitarian principles in armed conflicts not of an international character, they apply to wars between States.
After the Second World War many conflicts arose which could not be characterised as international. It was therefore considered desirable by some States to extend and augment the provisions of the Geneva Conventions, so as to afford protection to victims of and combatants in conflicts which fell outside the ambit of these Conventions. The result of these endeavours was Protocol I and Protocol II to the Geneva Conventions, both of which came into force on 7 December 1978.
Protocol II relates to the protection of victims of non-international armed conflicts. Since the State of affairs which exists in South Africa has by Protocol I been characterised as an international armed conflict, Protocol II does not concern me at all.
The extension of the scope of art 2 of the Geneva Conventions was, at the time of its adoption, controversial. …
The article has remained controversial. More debate has raged about its field of operation than about any other articles in Protocol I. …
South Africa is one of the countries which has not acceded to Protocol I. Nevertheless, I am asked to decide, as I indicated earlier, as a preliminary point, whether Protocol I has become part of customary international law. If so, it is argued that it would have been incorporated into South African law. If it has been so incorporated it would have to be proved by one or other of the parties that the turmoil which existed at the time when the accused is alleged to have committed his offences was such that it could properly be described as an “armed conflict” conducted by “peoples” against a “ra[c]ist regime” in the exercise of their “right of self-determination”. Once all this has been shown it would have to be demonstrated to the Court that the accused conducted himself in such a manner as to become entitled to the benefits conferred by Protocol I on combatants, for example that, broadly speaking, he had, while he was launching an attack, distinguished himself from civilians and had not attacked civilian targets. …
… I am prepared to accept that where a rule of customary international law is recognised as such by international law it will be so recognised by our law.
To my way of thinking, the trouble with the first Protocol giving rise to State practice is that its terms have not been capable of being observed by all that many States. At the end of 1977 when the treaty first lay open for ratification there were few States which were involved in colonial domination or the occupation of other States and there were only two, South Africa and Israel, which were considered to fall within the third category of ra[c]ist regimes. Accordingly, the situation sought to be regulated by the first Protocol was one faced by few countries; too few countries in my view, to permit any general usage in dealing with armed conflicts of the kind envisaged by the Protocol to develop.
Mr Donen contended that the provisions of multilateral treaties can become customary international law under certain circumstances. I accept that this is so. There seems in principle to be no reason why treaty rules cannot acquire wider application than among the parties to the treaty.
Brownlie Principles of International Law 3rd ed at 13 agrees that non-parties to a treaty may by their conduct accept the provisions of a multilateral convention as representing general international law. …
I incline to the view that non-ratification of a treaty is strong evidence of non-acceptance.
It is interesting to note that the first Protocol makes extensive provision for the protection of civilians in armed conflict. …
In this sense, Protocol I may be described as an enlightened humanitarian document. If the strife in South Africa should deteriorate into an armed conflict we may all one day find it a cause for regret that the ideologically provocative tone of s 1(4) has made it impossible for the Government to accept its terms.
To my mind it can hardly be said that Protocol I has been greeted with acclaim by the States of the world. Their lack of enthusiasm must be due to the bizarre mixture of political and humanitarian objects sought to be realised by the Protocol. …
According to the International Review of the Red Cross (January/February 1987) No 256, as at December 1986, 66 States were parties to Protocol I and 60 to Protocol II, which, it will be remembered, deals with internal non-international armed conflicts. With the exception of France, which acceded only to Protocol II, not one of the world’s major powers has acceded to or ratified either of the Protocols. This position should be compared to the 165 States which are parties to the Geneva Conventions.
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status o[f] customary international [law].
I have not been persuaded by the arguments which I have heard on behalf of the accused that the assessment of Professor Dugard, writing in the Annual Survey of South African Law (1983) at 66, that “it is argued with growing conviction that under contemporary international law members of SWAPO [South-West Africa People’s Organisation] and the ANC [African National Congress] are members of liberation movements entitled to prisoner-of-war status, in terms of a new customary rule spawned by the 1977 Protocols”, is correct. On what I have heard in argument I disagree with his assessment that there is growing support for the view that the Protocols reflect a new rule of customary international law. No writer has been cited who supports this proposition. Here and there someone says that it may one day come about. I am not sure that the provisions relating to the field of application of Protocol I are capable of ever becoming a rule of customary international law, but I need not decide that point today.
For the reasons which I have given I have concluded that the provisions of Protocol I have not been accepted in customary international law. They accordingly form no part of South African law.
This conclusion has made it unnecessary for me to give a decision on the question of whether rules of customary international law which conflict with the statutory or common law of this country will be enforced by its courts.
In the result, the preliminary point is dismissed. The trial must proceed. 
South Africa, Supreme Court, Petane case, Judgment, 3 November 1987, pp. 2–8.
South Africa
In 2010, in the Boeremag case, South Africa’s North Gauteng High Court stated:
In Petane, … Conradie J found that the provisions of [the 1977 Additional] Protocol I are not part of customary international law, and therefore are also not part of South African law.
Referring to the fact that in December 1986 only 66 of the 165 States party to the Geneva Conventions had ratified Protocol I, the Court [in Petane stated:
This approach of the world community to Protocol I is, on principle, far too half-hearted to justify an inference that its principles have been so widely accepted as to qualify them as rules of customary international law. The reasons for this are, I imagine, not far to seek. For those States which are contending with “peoples[’]” struggles for self-determination, adoption of the Protocol may prove awkward. For liberation movements who rely on strategies of urban terror for achieving their aims the terms of the Protocol, with its emphasis on the protection of civilians, may prove disastrously restrictive. I therefore do not find it altogether surprising that Mr Donen was unable to refer me to any statement in the published literature that Protocol I has attained the status of customary international law.
Important changes with respect to certain aspects applicable at the time of Petane have taken place. The ANC [African National Congress] has become South Africa’s ruling party and in 1995 ratified Protocol I. The total number of States that have ratified it, is now … 162.
This last aspect forms the basis on which the First Respondent [the State] and the applicants agree that Protocol I forms part of customary international law as well as of South African law. As requested, this position is accepted for the purposes of the decision, without deciding on the matter.
Despite these changes, it remains debatable whether the provisions of Protocol I have become a part of South African law in this way.
The consensus of both parties to the conflict is required. See Petane … and Article 96 of Protocol I. …
Parliament’s failure to incorporate Protocol I into legislation in accordance with Article 231(4) of the Constitution in fact points to the contrary, and is indicative that the requirements of usus and/or opinio juris have not been met. See Petane. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, pp. 21–22.
[footnotes in original omitted]
The Court also held:
If the [1977 Additional Protocol I] applies in South Africa as customary international law, the two requirements that form the basis of customary law must be met. It is arguable that the requirement of usus has been met by the vast number of States that have acceded or ratified it. By ratifying Protocol I the Republic of South Africa has indicated its intention to apply the Protocol, thereby fulfilling the requirement of opinio juris. 
South Africa, North Gauteng High Court, Boeremag case, Judgment, 26 August 2010, p. 66.
Algeria
During the Algerian war of independence, the leaders of the Armée de Libération Nationale (ALN) emphasized:
The laws of war have always been respected by our side. Formal instructions have been given to the combatants during their political education already at the beginning of the Algerian Revolution and have been made the object of directives … These directives have been repeated, clarified and codified since the Congress of 20 August 1956. 
El Moudjahid, Vol. 1, p. 440.
Australia
At an Australian Army media briefing on 16 April 2003, called to promulgate the results of an investigation into allegations made against certain Australian soldiers who were part of the UN-mandated INTERFET (International Force for East Timor) operations in East Timor, 1999–2000, the Chief of Army stated the following in response to a question on the treatment of detainees, particularly in relation to allegations concerning the deprivation of food, water and sleep:
We apprehended some militia, we apprehended some people who turned out to be civilians. We needed information from them.
At all times that information was acquired using the Geneva Convention. At all times that information was acquired by people who were thoroughly well-trained, who were well-supervised and used very high professional standards.
But this was not meant to be a four star resort. They had information that could go to the safety and the protection of the civilian population, the safety and protection of our own people. And we have rights and obligations, but also the authority under the Geneva Convention, to interrogate people. And that’s what happened.
Some of that meant that they probably didn’t get the sort of food that they might have liked. Our soldiers were on ration packs. Some have meant that they were treated in a robust manner, but all of the time they were treated properly and correctly under the Geneva Convention.
At a later point during the briefing, the Director of Personnel Operations, Army, added to the Chief of Army’s response:
Now, some of the allegations that we’re talking about here relate to activity in an interrogation centre. And further information in relation to your previous question, there were allegations that the detainees were deprived of hygiene and sleep and food. There was no evidence at all that any of the detainees were deprived of any hygiene facilities or food. But certainly we found that they were deprived of some sleep.
And, as you’ve heard from the Chief of the Army, that this in itself in no way contradicted any of our international obligations, particularly in relation to the law of armed conflict or in relation to the Geneva Convention.
But what we did find, and a lesson that we’ve learnt from this, is some of our guidance that we provide to our practitioners is very general. And what we have found that we need to do is make that more definitive. Make it more black and white. This is what we can do under our international obligations and this is what we cannot do.
So in the general comments you heard about some of our procedural amendments that we intend to make. These are policy changes that we intend to make to make it far more definitive for our practitioners. 
Australia, Media briefing by the Chief of Army on the results of an investigation into certain allegations made against Australian Soldiers in East Timor during 1999, 16 April 2003.
Belgium
In 2001, in its initial report to the Committee against Torture, Belgium stated:
Paragraph 7 of the Code of Conduct of the Department of Defence (May 1999) also refers to human rights and international humanitarian law:
“7. I undertake … to respect … international humanitarian law in all circumstances.” 
Belgium, Initial report to the Committee against Torture, 8 July 2002, UN Doc. CAT/C/52/Add.2, submitted 14 August 2001, § 21.
Democratic Republic of the Congo
In 2007, in its second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, the Democratic Republic of the Congo stated:
Internally, in May, 2005, the Headquarters of the Armed Forces expressly ordered all officers not to recruit children under the age of 18 and instructed them that all offenders would be severely punished. The Auditor General of the Congolese armed forces then expressly instructed all senior auditors and garrison auditors to prosecute any individual who broke the law and the aforementioned military orders. 
Democratic Republic of the Congo, Second periodic report to the Committee on the Rights of the Child, 24 July 2008, UN Doc. CRC/C/COD/2, submitted 23 October 2007, § 212.
El Salvador
In 2009, in its sixth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, El Salvador stated:
To fulfil commitments with regard to … respect for international humanitarian law, the Inter-institutional Committee on International Humanitarian Law in El Salvador (CIDIH-ES) was created to advise the Government on measures for the application, interpretation and dissemination of international humanitarian law in order to meet its commitments. The Committee was legally established by Executive Decree No. 118 of 4 November 1997, published in the Diario Oficial No. 215, vol. No. 337, of 18 November 1997. 
El Salvador, Sixth periodic report to the Human Rights Committee, 2 June 2009, UN Doc. CCPR/C/SLV/6, submitted 13 January 2009, § 78.
France
The instructions given to the French armed forces for the conduct of Opération Mistral, simulating a military operation under the right of self-defence or a mandate of the UN Security Council, in a part dealing with the “eight fundamental rules of international humanitarian law”, state: “The parties to the conflict shall give the necessary orders and instructions in order to insure the respect of these rules and will supervise the execution thereof.” 
France, Etat-major de la Force d’Action Rapide, Ordres pour l’Opération Mistral, 1995, Section 6, § 67.
Germany
In 2007, in a written reply to a minor interpellation in the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament) entitled “Basic Law and international law in deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces: Treatment of persons taken into custody”, Germany’s Federal Government stated:
1. What rules of engagement apply to the arrest or detention of persons by members of German armed forces abroad, for example in the context of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM or the ISAF [International Security Assistance Force] mandate?
The international law and constitutional law bases of the deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces in certain circumstances authorize the deployed German service men and women to take persons into custody. The concrete requirements for this follow from the international law and constitutional law bases, concretized in the rules of engagement and the pocket card “Rules on the use of military force”.
The rules of engagement generally are determined by:
- the international law bases of the respective deployment (for example UN mandate),
- the constitutional law parameters of the Basic Law,
- the concrete parameters of the Federal Government’s deployment decision, to which the German Parliament has given its approval,
- the operation plan of the respective system of mutual collective security, in whose context the deployment is taking place,
- the internationally agreed Rules of Engagement (RoE).
It is not necessary to specially emphasize that the protection of human rights has always been and is a formative element especially also of the Federal Armed Forces’ deployments abroad.
As regards the treatment of persons taken into custody by German service men or women during deployments abroad, the Federal Ministry of Defence, by order of 26 April 2007, for all deployments abroad of the German Armed Forces enacted actualizations and concretizations for the protection of the human rights of those persons:
1. All persons taken into custody are entitled to treatment and accommodation consistent with human dignity, in particular to respect for their persons and their honour, as well as to protection against acts of violence and intimidation.
2. Custody is to be implemented with respect to the proportionality principle. Force against persons in custody is permissible only within the limits of the applicable pocket card in the respective case. Women may be searched only by female soldiers, men by male soldiers. Physical examinations are to be carried out by a male doctor or a female doctor. Objects found can be confiscated. An admittance protocol and a file per person with a photograph of the [face] are to be created promptly. Searches and confiscations are to be recorded in writing.
3. Promptly and – if necessary – with the assistance of an interpreter, persons taken into custody are to be informed of the reason for detaining or arresting them.
4. Persons taken into custody who are suspected of having committed a criminal offence are to be presumed innocent until the competent court in a trial consistent with the rule of law on the basis of recognized means of evidence has issued a conviction in a final judgement. If the person taken into custody is accused of criminal behaviour, that person is free to give evidence on the matter or to remain silent, and to enlist the services of a defence counsel at any time. That instruction on these rights has been given must be recorded and the record added to the file.
5. Furthermore, persons taken into custody have the right to refuse to give evidence insofar as they would incriminate themselves or close relatives. Questionings must only be conducted by trained staff (military police, officers or legal advisers), in a language the person taken into custody understands, and in compliance with these provisions. A transcript of every hearing must be produced and added to the file.
6. Adequate food, clothing and medical attention must be provided. Religious customs and traditions must be respected. Immediately after persons have been taken into custody, their state of health must be documented by a female or male doctor of the Federal Armed Forces as well as before they are released or transferred.
7. Persons taken into custody are promptly either to be transferred to the competent authorities or to be released, insofar as they are no longer a danger. Release and transfer are to be documented. The International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) is to be informed of the taking into custody, release or transfer by the responsible contingent leader of the respective German deployment contingent.
8. The transfer of the persons taken into custody to security forces of third States is prohibited if there are factors indicating that respect for human rights standards is not guaranteed. Before every transfer, in every case, the competent legal adviser of the deployment contingent DEU is to be involved, who, as the case may be, receives instructions on how to proceed from the Federal Ministry of Defence. The involvement is to be documented.
9. If German nationals are taken into custody in the areas of deployment, they shall not be transferred to foreign State authorities. The Federal Ministry of Defence is promptly to be involved via the competent German legal adviser of the deployment contingent DEU.
10. Human rights violations which come to the knowledge of the deployment contingent are to be reported by the competent contingent leader of the respective German deployment contingent in the framework of the national reporting system.
In order to further take into account the characteristics of the individual deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces (UNIFIL, [KFOR], EUFOR, OEF, ISAF), this order was supplemented by five individual instructions by the Federal Ministry of Defence/coordination staff for deployment tasks [Koordinierungsstab für Einsatzaufgaben – KSEA] of 27 April 2007. In these individual instructions not only a prompt information duty of the Contingent Commander of the DEU Deployment Contingent (KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt) vis-à-vis the ICRC in connection with the holding, transfer or release of persons by the respective German deployment contingent was codified, the KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt was also expressly made responsible for ensuring that persons taken into custody are at all times treated in compliance with the order of 26 April 2007.
For OEF and ISAF in particular applies in addition:
OEF:
1. The right to self-defence according to Article 51 of the UN Charter in conjunction with Article 5 of the North Atlantic Treaty allows DEU forces in the framework of Operation ENDURING FREEDOM (OEF) to detain Taliban/Al Kaida.
2. All persons detained in the context of such deployments are to be treated in accordance with the order of 26 April 2007. The KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt is responsible for ensuring this.
3. Insofar as persons are detained in the context of OEF, the KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt is under the obligation promptly to inform the ICRC. The information obligation also applies to the release, transfer to third parties, as well as in the case of hospitalisation or death of a detained person.
4. The ICRC has the right to inspect all facilities which serve as accommodation for detained persons.
5. Currently, an agreement is being prepared between Germany (DEU) and Afghanistan (AFG), in order to ensure that persons to be transferred to Afghan State authorities are treated in accordance with the customary law and treaty law human rights obligations applicable to Afghanistan, and that the death penalty is not enforced against them. Until such an agreement is concluded, every transfer of persons is subject to the decision by the Federal Ministry of Defence, if for the crime of which they are suspected the death penalty is to be expected in Afghanistan. In order to assess whether the crime in question can result in the death penalty, first of all the respectively responsible legal adviser is to be involved.
ISAF:
1. On the basis of UN Security Council Resolutions (UN SC Res) 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), last extended by UN SC Res 1707 of 12 September 2006, deployment contingent ISAF DEU is authorized to take all measures necessary to fulfill the mandate, in particular to take the measures necessary to maintain security, to provide security-related assistance and therefore also to temporarily detain persons in order to implement the mandate.
2. Persons temporarily detained are, if possible, to be released within 96 hours or to be transferred to the competent Afghan authorities. For the duration of the custody, the persons are to be treated in accordance with the order of 26 April 2007. The KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt is responsible for this.
3. Currently, an agreement is being prepared between Germany (DEU) and Afghanistan (AFG), in order to ensure that persons transferred from ISAF to Afghanistan are treated in accordance with the international customary law and treaty law human rights obligations applicable to Afghanistan, and that the death penalty is not enforced against them. Until such an agreement is concluded, every transfer of persons is subject to the decision by the Federal Ministry of Defence, if for the crime of which they are suspected the death penalty is to be expected in Afghanistan. In order to assess whether the crime in question can result in the death penalty, first of all the respectively responsible legal adviser is to be involved.
4. The KtgtFhr DEU EinsKtgt ISAF is under the obligation promptly to inform the ICRC of the detention. The information obligation also applies with regard to transfers to Afghan authorities, release, as well as for the case of hospitalization or death of a detained person.
5. The obligation of the contingent commander directly to inform the ICRC does not apply if it is verified that the ICRC has already been informed by HQ ISAF.
6. The ICRC has the right to inspect all facilities which serve as accommodation for detained persons.
5. What legal guarantees apply to persons taken into custody in the context of deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces, and in which laws, treaties or agreements are these guarantees codified (please name exactly)?
The legal guarantees for persons taken into custody in the context of deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces are individually listed in the order of 26 April 2007 mentioned. We refer to the reply to question 1. With it, inter alia the existing international law obligations of the Federal Republic of Germany, such as Geneva Convention III, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) or the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights (ECHR) as well as constitutional law parameters are implemented. With a view to the deployment of the Federal Armed Forces in Afghanistan, the Federal Government aims for a bilateral agreement with the Afghan Government on the transfer of detained persons, with the objective to ensure that transferred persons are treated in accordance with the international customary law and treaty law human rights obligations also applicable to Afghanistan, and that the death penalty is not enforced against them. A draft text agreed within the Federal Government has been made available to the Afghan Government.
8. Before the order of 26 April 2007, have there been comparable orders or instructions?
If yes, what did they say?
If no, on what basis have Germans participated in arrests during deployments abroad since 1994?
We refer to the reply to question 1.
In the framework of concrete operations, apart from generally binding orders/instructions, individual instructions are regularly given, and while fulfilling their missions soldiers are bound also by the content of the pocket card respectively applicable. 
Germany, Bundestag, Reply by the Federal Government to the Minor Interpellation by the Members Winfried Nachtwei, Alexander Bonde, Volker Beck (Cologne), further Members and the Parliamentary Group BÜNDNIS 90/DIE GRÜNEN – BT-Drs. 16/6174, Basic Law and international law in deployments abroad of the Federal Armed Forces: Treatment of persons taken into custody, BT-Drs. 16/6282, 29 August 2007, pp. 5–10.
Israel
An Israeli Chief of Staff Order of 1982 refers to the 1949 Geneva Conventions and states: “IDF [Israel Defense Force] soldiers are obliged to conduct themselves in accordance with the directives contained in the above[-mentioned Geneva] Conventions.” 
Israel, IDF Order of the Chief of Staff No. 33.0133, Discipline – Conduct in accordance with the international conventions to which the State of Israel is a party, 20 July 1982, § 3.
The Order also refers to the 1954 Hague Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property and states: “IDF soldiers are obliged to observe the directives of the said [1954 Hague] Convention, as well as the Regulations and attendant Protocols.”  
Israel, IDF Order of the Chief of Staff No. 33.0133, Discipline – Conduct in accordance with the international conventions to which the State of Israel is a party, 20 July 1982, § 8.
Israel
In 2009, in a report on Israeli operations in Gaza between 27 December 2008 and 18 January 2009 (the “Gaza Operation”, also known as “Operation Cast Lead”), Israel’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs stated:
The IDF’s [Israel Defense Forces’] emphasis on compliance with the Law of Armed Conflict was also directly incorporated into the rules of engagement for the Gaza Operation. The operational order for the Operation in Gaza specifically stated that “[a]ll IDF activities are subject to the principles and rules of international law.” These rules and principles were further detailed in the order, which emphasised four guiding principles that applied in an integrated and cumulative manner: military necessity, distinction, proportionality and humanity. 
Israel, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, The Operation in Gaza 27 December 2008–18 January 2009: Factual and Legal Aspects, 29 July 2009, § 222; see also §§ 209–210.
Nepal
In 2007, in its comments to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, Nepal stated:
Sustained efforts have been made to inculcate human rights values in the security personnel. They have been continuously sensitized to uphold the human rights and humanitarian law in the discharge of their duties. Clear directives have been issued to them to abide by the human rights obligations. 
Nepal, Comments by the Government of Nepal to the conclusions and recommendations of the Committee against Torture, 29 January 2008, UN Doc. CAT/C/NPL/CO/2/Add.1, submitted 1 June 2007, § 22.
Poland
In 2005, in his decision on compliance with principles for the protection of cultural property in the activities of the armed forces, Poland’s Minister of National Defence stated:
2. The following tasks and responsibilities shall be assigned to senior staff of the Ministry of National Defence, directors (heads) of organizational cells of the MOD [Ministry of Defence] and commanders of categories of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland in matters relating to the protection of cultural property:
1) The Under-Secretary of State for Social Affairs:
a) represents the national defence agency in alliance contacts with the armies of the States Parties of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and in contacts with the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), the International Council on Monuments and Sites (ICOMOS), the International Council of Museums (ICOM) and other governmental and non-governmental organizations dealing with the problems of the protection of cultural property,
b) coordinates cooperation between the national defence agency and units of the central and local administration and non-governmental organizations, including collective organisations, for the protection of cultural property in the event of threats in war- and peace-time,
c) creates favourable conditions for the functioning of a collective movement for the protection of cultural property in the military environment;
2) The PA Chief of General Staff ensures:
a) compliance by all levels of command with the Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict in the process of decision-making on combat operations, operations during peacekeeping missions and alliance operations, action to prevent or combat the effects of terrorism, catastrophes and natural disasters or their consequences, and during military training and exercises,
b) incorporation of the provisions of the Convention into military regulations and instructions,
c) the cooperation of subordinate services in the development of the requisite materials relating to the protection of cultural property in the event of a threat in war- or peace-time,
d) that troops have topographic maps with the most important cultural properties in the country and in any potential theatre of military operations marked with the special international topographical sign,
e) conditions for operations relating to the protection of cultural property within MOD Crisis Headquarters and cooperation with National Crisis Headquarters,
3) The Commanders of the categories of the Armed Forces:
a) request – as specified in separate legislation – the inclusion in the organizational structures of troops under their command, on the operational level in “P” and “W” time, and at the tactical level in “W” time – of specialists (cells) in matters relating to the protection of cultural property and other issues related to the application of international humanitarian law of armed conflicts,
c) supervise the implementation of procedures for the protection of cultural property during operations by troops under their command;
5) The Director of the Department of Defence Education and Promotion:
a) organizes and supervises the overall operations relating to the dissemination of information on and building awareness of protection of cultural property issues in the military environment,
b) compiles catalogues of historical monuments for use in operational decisions in the course of combat operations for national and alliance (Polish territory) troops and also during peace-keeping missions and alliance operations, action to prevent or combat terrorism, catastrophes and natural disasters, and also during military training and exercises,
c) prepares a database of cultural property for computer command posts,
d) develops, in cooperation with the PA General Staff, draft instructions and directives concerning:
- ways to identify cultural sites located in a zone of military activities and the conduct of operational activities, in accordance with the provisions of international conventions,
- how to protect cultural property during military operations of a peace-keeping nature,
- threats in time of peace (catastrophes and natural disasters)
g) maintains a register, and monitors the status, security and protection used by the national defence agency, of sites recorded in the register of movable historical monuments;
6) The Director of the Infrastructure Department:
a) organizes, coordinates and supervises in peacetime, tasks associated with the obligations of organizational units of the agency resulting from the exercise of sustainable management in relation to immovable historical monuments, on the principles set out in universally binding provisions on the organization and manner of protection of historical monuments in the event of armed conflict and crisis situations,
c) maintains a register, and monitors the status, security and protection of immovable historical monuments that are sustainably managed by organizational units of the national defence agency.
3. The provisions of paragraph 2.2 b, 2.3.a, and 2.4 of the decision shall be implemented in official activities by 31 December 2007. 
Poland, Decision No. 250/MON by the Minister of National Defence on compliance with the principles for the protection of cultural property in the activities of the Armed Forces of the Republic of Poland, 4 August 2005, published in MON Official Journal of 2005, No. 15, item 135, §§ 2–3.
United States of America
In 1972, the General Counsel of the US Department of Defense considered that:
Rules of engagement are directives issued by competent military authority which delineate the circumstances and limitations under which United States Forces will initiate and/or continue combat engagement with the enemy.
These rules are the subject of constant review and command emphasis. They are changed from time to time to conform to changing situations and the demands of military necessity. One critical and unchanging factor is their conformity to existing international law as reflected in the Hague Conventions of 1907 and the Geneva Conventions of 1949, as well as with the principles of customary international law of which UNGA Resolution 2444 (XXIII) is deemed to be a correct restatement. 
United States, Letter from J. Fred Buzhardt, General Counsel of the Department of Defense, to Senator Edward Kennedy, Chairman of the Subcommittee on Refugees of the Committee on the Judiciary, 22 September 1972, AJIL, Vol. 67, 1973, p. 124.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In Order No. 985-1/91 issued in 1991, the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) stated: “YPA units have the duty to secure in the area of their operations full and unconditional implementation of rules of international law of armed conflicts and suppress violations of those rules.” 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Chief of General Staff of the YPA, Legal Department, Order No. 985-1/91, 3 October 1991, § 1.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1991, the Chief of General Staff of the Yugoslav People’s Army (YPA) issued Order No. 579 aiming “to completely eliminate violations of international humanitarian law in armed conflicts in Croatia” according to which “YPA units shall ensure full and consistent respect of norms of international humanitarian law in all areas under its jurisdiction”. 
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Chief of General Staff of the YPA, Political Department, Order No. 579, 14 October 1991, preamble and § 1.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights
In a resolution adopted in 1999 on systematic rape, sexual slavery and slavery-like practices, the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights called upon States “to make possible respect for their obligations in situations of conflict by, inter alia: … adopting suitable instructions for and training of their armed forces so that they know that all forms of sexual violence and sexual slavery are criminal and will be prosecuted”. 
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, Res. 1999/16, 26 August 1999, § 11(a).
UN Verification Mission in Guatemala
In 1995, in his first report concerning the conflict in Guatemala, the Director of MINUGUA stated:
The Mission recommends to URNG [Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca] that it should issue precise instructions to its combatants to refrain from placing at risk persons wounded in the armed conflict and from endangering ambulances and duly identified health workers who assist such wounded persons. 
MINUGUA, Director, First report, UN Doc. A/49/856, 1 March 1995, § 194.
UN Verification Mission in Guatemala
In 1995, in his second report concerning the conflict in Guatemala, the Director of MINUGUA observed that:
Verification has uncovered cases in which the Government failed to guarantee the right to integrity and security of person in terms of freedom from torture or cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment, or the threat of such treatment … The Mission reiterates its recommendation that the Government transmit specific instructions to military and police officers in order to prevent these acts, warning them that such acts are crimes subject to disciplinary, administrative and criminal penalties. 
MINUGUA, Director, Second report, UN Doc. A/49/929, 29 June 1995, § 179.
The Director of MINUGUA further stated:
The Mission recommends that URNG [Unidad Revolucionaria Nacional Guatemalteca] issue precise instructions to its combatants to refrain from causing unnecessary harm to individuals and property, to take due care not to create additional risks to life in attacking military targets and, in particular, to end the practice of laying mines or explosives in areas where civilians work, live or circulate. 
MINUGUA, Director, Second report, UN Doc. A/49/929, 29 June 1995, § 197.
No data.
International Conference of the Red Cross (1965)
The 20th International Conference of the Red Cross in 1965 adopted a resolution on application of the Geneva Conventions by the United Nations Emergency Forces in which it recommended that “the Governments of countries making contingents available to the United Nations give their troops – in view of the paramount importance of the question – … orders to comply with [the 1949 Geneva Conventions]”. 
20th International Conference of the Red Cross, Vienna, 2–9 October 1965, Res. XXV, § 2.
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims
In the Final Declaration of the International Conference for the Protection of War Victims in 1993, the participants urged all States to make every effort to “adopt and implement, at the national level, all appropriate regulations, laws and measures to ensure respect for international humanitarian law applicable in the event of armed conflict and to punish violations thereof”. 
International Conference for the Protection of War Victims, Geneva, 30 August–1 September 1993, Final Declaration, § II(5).
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights
In 1980, in a report on the situation of human rights in Argentina, the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights recommended that the Argentine Government
instruct all the officials and agents responsible for the maintenance of public order, the security of the state, and the custody of detainees, with respect to the rights of detainees, particularly as regards the prohibition of all cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment, and … inform them of the sanctions to which they become liable in the event that they violate these rights. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Report on the Situation of Human Rights in Argentina, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.49 Doc. 19 corr.1, 11 April 1980, p. 265.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that instructions and orders shall be given to ensure respect for the law of war including those for the supervision of its execution. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 154.
ICRC
In a Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law sent in 1990 to all States party to the Geneva Conventions in the context of the Gulf War, the ICRC stated: “It is extremely important for the members of the armed forces stationed in the Gulf to be aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law. Proper instructions must be issued to this effect.” 
ICRC, Memorandum on the Applicability of International Humanitarian Law, Geneva, 14 December 1990, § IV, IRRC, No. 280, 1991, p. 25
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated:
The parties to the conflict must ensure that the members of their armed forces as well as all military and paramilitary forces acting under their responsibility are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law. To that effect, it is essential that specific instructions to ensure respect for such obligations be issued. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § V, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 505.
ICRC
In 1994, in a Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise in the Great Lakes region, the ICRC stated:
The parties concerned must ensure that all the military and paramilitary forces and other militias for whose actions they are responsible are aware of their obligations under international humanitarian law. It is essential that instructions calculated to safeguard respect for those obligations are reiterated. 
ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, Geneva, 23 June 1994, § V, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1309.
Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN)
In 1989, in the context of the conflict in El Salvador, following a period of resurgence of violence marked by bomb explosions in a central market and attacks on political figures, military officers and municipal employees, the Chief of Staff of the FMLN publicly recognized that “numerous civilians had fallen victim to its actions and accordingly recommended to its officers and combatants measures to avoid these occurrences in the future”. 
Inter-American Commission on Human Rights, Annual Report 1988–1989, Doc. OEA/Ser.L/V/II.76 Doc. 10, 18 September 1989, Chapter IV (El Salvador), p. 166.