Practice Relating to Rule 46. Orders or Threats That No Quarter Will Be Given

Hague Regulations (1899)

Article 23 of the 1899 Hague Regulations provides: “[I]t is especially prohibited … (d) To declare that no quarter will be given.”

Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (II) with Respect to the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 29 July 1899, Article 23(d).

Hague Regulations (1907)

Article 23 of the 1907 Hague Regulations provides: “[I]t is especially forbidden … (d) To declare that no quarter will be given.”

Regulations concerning the Laws and Customs of War on Land, annexed to Convention (IV) respecting the Laws and Customs of War on Land, The Hague, 18 October 1907, Article 23(d)

Additional Protocol I

Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I provides: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.”

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 40.

Article 38 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 40) submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH included the prohibition “to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith and to conduct hostilities on such basis” in the article concerning the safeguarding of the enemy hors de combat.

CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 13.

In view of its importance, the prohibition was the subject of a separate article on the basis of a proposal by Afghanistan, supported by Algeria, Belarus, Belgium, United Kingdom, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, Venezuela and the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia.

CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XIV, CDDH/III/SR.29, 7 March 1975, p. 277, § 38 (Afghanistan), p. 279, § 51 (Algeria), p. 280, § 54 (Belarus), p. 282, § 64 (Belgium), p. 284, § 73 (United Kingdom), p. 283, § 66 (USSR), p. 280, § 55 (Venezuela) and p. 284, § 71 (Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia).

This separate article (now Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I) was adopted by consensus.

CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.

Additional Protocol II

Article 4(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of Non-International Armed Conflicts (Protocol II), Geneva, 8 June 1977, Article 4(1). Article 4 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.50, 3 June 1977, p. 90.

Additional Protocol II (draft)

Article 22 of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided: “It is forbidden to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith and to conduct hostilities on such basis.”

CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 39.

Draft Article 22 was adopted by consensus in Committee III of the CDDH.

CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/SR.49, 4 June 1976, p. 108, § 6.

Eventually, however, the prohibition to order that there shall be no survivors was placed, and adopted, in another article and the rest of draft Article 22 was deleted by consensus in the plenary.

CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VII, CDDH/SR.52, 6 June 1977, p. 128.

ICC Statute

Pursuant to Article 8(2)(b)(xii) and (e)(x) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[d]eclaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted by the UN Diplomatic Conference of Plenipotentiaries on the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, Rome, 17 July 1998, UN Doc. A/CONF.183/9, Article 8(2)(b)(xii) and (e)(x).

II. Other Instruments

Lieber Code

Article 60 of the 1863 Lieber Code provides: “It is against the usage of modern war to resolve, in hatred and revenge, to give no quarter. No body of troops has the right to declare that it will not give … quarter.”

Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, prepared by Francis Lieber, promulgated as General Order No. 100 by President Abraham Lincoln, Washington D.C., 24 April 1863, Article 60.

Brussels Declaration

Article 13(d) of the 1874 Brussels Declaration states that “[t]he declaration that no quarter will be given” is especially forbidden.

Project of an International Declaration concerning the Laws and Customs of War, Brussels, 27 August 1874. Article 13(d).

Oxford Manual

Article 9 of the 1880 Oxford Manual provides: “It is forbidden … (b) to declare in advance that quarter will not be given, even by those who do not ask it for themselves”.

The Laws of War on Land, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 September 1880, Article 9(b).

Oxford Manual of Naval War

Article 17 of the 1913 Oxford Manual of Naval War provides: “It is … forbidden … (3) To declare that no quarter will be given.”

The Laws of Naval War Governing the Relations between Belligerents, adopted by the Institute of International Law, Oxford, 9 August 1913, Article 17(3).

Report of the Commission on Responsibility

Based on several documents supplying evidence of outrages committed during the First World War, the 1919 Report of the Commission on Responsibility lists violations of the laws and customs of war which should be subject to criminal prosecution, including “directions to give no quarter”.

Report submitted to the Preliminary Conference of Versailles by the Commission on Responsibility of the Authors of the War and on Enforcement of Penalties, Versailles, 29 March 1919.

San Remo Manual

Paragraph 43 of the 1994 San Remo Manual provides: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.”

Louise Doswald-Beck (ed.), San Remo Manual on International Law Applicable to Armed Conflicts at Sea, 12 June 1994, Prepared by international lawyers and naval experts convened by the International Institute of Humanitarian Law, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1995, § 43.

UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin

Section 6.5 of the 1999 UN Secretary-General’s Bulletin provides: “It is forbidden to order that there shall be no survivors.”

Observance by United Nations Forces of International Humanitarian Law, Secretary-General’s Bulletin, UN Secretariat, UN Doc. ST/SGB/1999/13, 6 August 1999, Section 6.5.

UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15

The UNTAET Regulation No. 2000/15 establishes panels with exclusive jurisdiction over serious criminal offences, including war crimes. According to Section 6(1)(b)(xii) and (e)(x), “[d]eclaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Regulation on the Establishment of Panels with Exclusive Jurisdiction over Serious Criminal Offences, UN Doc. UNTAET/REG/2000/15, Dili, 6 June 2000, Section 6(1)(b)(xii) and (e)(x).

III. Military Manuals

Argentina

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides that all declarations that no quarter shall be given are prohibited.

Argentina, Leyes de Guerra, RC-46-1, Público, II Edición 1969, Ejército Argentino, Edición original aprobado por el Comandante en Jefe del Ejército, 9 May 1967, § 1.005.

Argentina

Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) states: “It is prohibited … to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten the adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on that basis.”

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, § 1.06(4).

Australia

Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states: “It is expressly forbidden to announce or implement a plan under which no prisoners are taken.”

Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 416.

The Guide further states:

It is prohibited to order that no prisoners will be taken, threaten an enemy that such an order will be given or conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken. Ambiguous orders, such as, “take that objective at any cost” should be avoided.

Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 905.

Australia

Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides:

Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 706 (land warfare); see also § 835 (air warfare).

Australia

Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states:

7.7 It is prohibited to order that no prisoners will be taken, threaten an enemy that such an order will be given or conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken. Ambiguous orders, such as, “take that objective at any cost”, should be avoided.

…

13.29 Provisions of the Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognised as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:

…

• to declare that no quarter will be given.

Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, §§ 7.7 and 13.29; see also § 8.39.

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: “Declaring that no quarter will be given is forbidden.”

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. 33.

Belgium

Belgium’s Teaching Manual for Officers (1994) provides that it is forbidden “for military commanders to conduct hostilities on the basis that there shall be ‘no quarter’, i.e. no survivors at the end of combat. The threat to use this method of combat is also prohibited.”

Belgium, Droit de la Guerre, Manuel d’Instruction pour Officiers, Etat-Major Général, Division Opérations, 1994, Part I, Title II, p. 34.

Benin

Benin’s Military Manual (1995) states that it is prohibited “to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on such a basis”.

Benin, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Forces Armées du Bénin, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1995, Fascicule III, p. 12.

Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(2).

Burundi

Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “it is prohibited to order that there will be no survivors, to threaten the adversary therewith or to conduct operations on that basis.”

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. 16; see also Part I bis, pp. 32, 41, 81 and 94.

The Regulations also states: “Prohibited methods of combat: … [include] denial of quarter”.

Cameroon

Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 32.

Cameroon

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides:

It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten the adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on such a basis. Such a prohibition has existed since the establishment … of Christian morality, through the doctrine of International Humanitarian Law, to the recent international diplomatic conferences.

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. 63, § 233; see also p. 30, § 132 and p. 149, § 531.

Cameroon

Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states: “It is prohibited to order that there will be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities in this sense.”

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. 183, § 493.A; see also p. 103, § 371, p. 147, § 432, p. 256, § 612, and p. 323.

Cameroon

Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:

Article 32: Prohibitions

It is prohibited to soldiers in combat:

…

- to refuse an unconditional surrender or to declare that no quarter will be given.

Cameroon, Règlement de discipline générale dans les forces de défense, Décret N° 2007/199, Président de la République, 7 July 2007, Article 32.

Canada

Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) states:

It is prohibited to deny quarter. In other words, it is unlawful to order, imply or encourage that no prisoners will be taken; to threaten an adversary party that such an order will be given; or to conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken.

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 15 (land warfare); see also p. 7-3, § 20 (air warfare).

The manual also considers that “declaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime.

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-3, § 20(d).

The manual further states: “Article 4(1) of [the 1977 Additional Protocol II] extends to non-international armed conflicts the principle of customary international law that it is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 17-3, § 20.

Canada

Canada’s Code of Conduct (2001) provides: “It is unlawful … to order that no PWs or detainees will be taken. It is also illegal as well as operationally unsound to make threats to opposing forces that no PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees will be taken.”

Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 4 June 2001, Rule 5, § 2.

Canada

Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on targeting: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors or to conduct hostilities on that basis. Hence, a person who clearly shows an intent to surrender by whatever means shall not be attacked.”

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 433.3.

In its chapter on land warfare, the manual further states:

It is prohibited to deny quarter. In other words, it is unlawful to order, imply or encourage that no prisoners will be taken; to threaten an adverse party that such an order will be given; or to conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken.

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 608.1.

Similarly, in its chapter on air warfare, the manual states:

It is prohibited to deny quarter. In other words it is unlawful to order, imply or encourage that no prisoners are to be taken; to threaten an adverse party that such an order will be given; or to conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken.

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 707.1.

In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual states that “declaring that no quarter will be given” constitutes a war crime.

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1609.2.d.

In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states: “Article 4(1) of [the 1977 Additional Protocol] II extends to non-international armed conflicts the principle of customary international law that it is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1712.

Canada

Rule 5 of Canada’s Code of Conduct (2005) instructs: “Do not attack those who surrender.”

Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 5.

The Code of Conduct also states:

The “denial of quarter” is prohibited. In other words, it is unlawful to refuse to accept someone’s surrender or to order that no PWs [prisoners of war] or detainees will be taken. It is also illegal as well as operationally unsound to make threats to opposing forces that no PWs or detainees will be taken.

Canada, Code of Conduct for CF Personnel, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 2005, Rule 5, § 2.

Central African Republic

The Central African Republic’s Instructor’s Manual (1999) states 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 following prohibitions must be respected: … ordering that there should be no survivors, threatening the enemy therewith or conducting operations on this basis”.

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 III, Section 1.

Central African Republic

The Central African Republic’s Disciplinary Regulations (2009) states: “During combat, it is also prohibited for servicemen to … refuse unconditional surrender”.

Central African Republic, Décret 09.411 portant règlement de discipline générale dans les Armées, Ministre de la Défense Nationale, des Anciens Combattants, des Victimes de Guerre, du Désarmement et de la Restructuration de l’Armée, 10 December 2009, Article 12(11).

Chad

Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “giving orders that there is no quarter” is prohibited and that to do so is a war crime.

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. 78.

Colombia

Colombia’s Basic Military Manual (1995) states that it is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.

Colombia, Derecho Internacional Humanitario – Manual Básico para las Personerías y las Fuerzas Armadas de Colombia, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 1995, p. 49.

Congo

The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32(2).

Côte d’Ivoire

Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):

Chapter 3. Protection

…

I.2.4. Enemy hors de combat

…

It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis. Consequently, a person who clearly expresses an intention to surrender, in whatever way, must not be made the object of attack.

…

Chapter 4. Methods and means of warfare

…

I.2.4. “Denial/no quarter”

It is prohibited not to give quarter. In other words, it is not lawful to order or to make understood that one will take no prisoners, to threaten an adversary with such an order, or to conduct hostilities on the basis of the principle that no prisoners will be taken.

Côte d’Ivoire, 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, pp. 31, 33, 45 and 49.

Djibouti

Djibouti’s Disciplinary Regulations (1982) states: “It is prohibited for combatants to … refuse unconditional surrender or declare that no quarter will be given”.

Djibouti, Décret no. 82-028/PR/DEF du 5 mai 1982 portant règlement de la discipline générale dans les Forces armées, Article 30(3).

France

France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended in 1982, provides that, under international conventions, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

France, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Armées, Decree No. 75-675 of 28 July 1975, replacing Decree No. 66-749, completed by Decree of 11 October 1978, implemented by Instruction No. 52000/DEF/C/5 of 10 December 1979, and modified by Decree of 12 July 1982, Ministère de la Défense, Etat-Major de l’Armée de Terre, Bureau Emploi, Article 9 bis (2).

France

France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors or prisoners and to threaten the enemy therewith.”

France, Fiche de Synthèse sur les Règles Applicables dans les Conflits Armés, Note No. 432/DEF/EMA/OL.2/NP, Général de Corps d’Armée Voinot (pour l’Amiral Lanxade, Chef d’Etat-major des Armées), 1992, § 4.5.

France

France’s LOAC Teaching Note (2000) states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

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. 2.

France

France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.”

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. 103.

Germany

Germany’s Military Manual (1992) states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors. It is also prohibited to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct military operations on this basis.”

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 Konflikten – Handbuch, August 1992, § 450.

Greece

The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “It is forbidden for members of the armed forces: … To deny the unconditional surrender of the enemy.”

Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 15(c).

Greece

The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides:

[T]he prohibition of the methodology that there shall be no mercy for those captured during the hostilities or threats that none shall be captured alive serve the need to restrict casualties to the lowest possible level dictated by military necessity, even under the harsh conditions of armed conflict, avoiding exaggerations and outrages with a view to achieve a humane dimension against the inherent barbaric nature of war.

Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 5, § 7.

Israel

Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states:

A war of annihilation without compromise leaves the other side no alternative but to fight to the bitter end. A soldier confronted with a cruel enemy will prefer to fight to the death rather than surrender to someone who will put him to death in any case. A country fighting a brutal and violent enemy will choose to invest all of its resources in the war effort, rather than putting a stop to it. In fact, the military interest tends towards getting the enemy to surrender and breaking it instead of war “to the bitter end”, even regardless of the morality thereof, since, from the military point of view, it is clearly more desirable for the enemy’s soldiers to surrender rather than continue fighting an enemy soldier against whom additional effort has to be invested in order if he is to be overcome.

Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 9.

The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).

Italy

Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Italy, Manuale di diritto umanitario, Introduzione e Volume I, Usi e convenzioni di Guerra, SMD-G-014, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, Vol. I, § 8.

Kenya

Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) states: “It is forbidden … to order that there will be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on this basis.”

Kenya, Law of Armed Conflict, Military Basic Course (ORS), 4 Précis, The School of Military Police, 1997, Précis No. 4, p. 2.

Mali

Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.

Mexico

Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009) states: “It is prohibited to: … B. declare that no quarter will be given.”

Mexico, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para el Ejército y la Fuerza Área Mexicanos, Ministry of National Defence, June 2009, § 389(B).

Mexico

Mexico’s IHL Guidelines (2009), in a section entitled “Basic rules of conduct in armed conflict”, states: “Give the enemy the opportunity to surrender.”

Mexico, Cartilla de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Ministry of National Defence, 2009, § 14(m).

Morocco

Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Morocco, Règlement de Discipline Général dans les Forces Armées Royales, Dahir No. 1-74-383 du 15 rejeb 1394, 5 August 1974, Article 25(2).

Netherlands

The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.”

Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-4.

With respect to non-international armed conflicts, the manual also states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. XI-4.

Netherlands

The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:

The individual is entitled to respect for his life, physical, mental and moral integrity and whatever is inseparable from his personality.

Examples:

…

- The life of an enemy who surrenders must be spared.

Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0224(d).

The manual further states:

0408. Quarter means that an opponent must be given the opportunity to surrender and thereby survive. It is thus forbidden to order that no one shall survive, to threaten an opponent with this, or to wage war on this basis.

…

0709. Granting quarter (see also points 0408 ff.)

An adversary should be given the opportunity to surrender, even if there is doubt whether the person concerned is a combatant. Moreover, in the particular situation where combatants are taken as prisoners of war under battle conditions, when evacuation is not practicable, they should be released, and the necessary precautions taken to ensure their safety. One example might be a small reconnaissance unit which has ventured far into enemy territory.

Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, §§ 0408 and 0709.

In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:

It is prohibited at all times to refuse quarter to the sick, wounded and shipwrecked no longer participating in the combat, or to persons who have laid down their arms and wish to surrender. It is also prohibited to give or carry out an order in this sense.

Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 1050.

[emphasis in original]

New Zealand

New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) states: “It is prohibited to order that no prisoners will be taken, to threaten an adverse party that such an order will be given, or to conduct hostilities on the basis that no prisoners will be taken.”

New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 503(1) (land warfare); see also § 612(1) (air warfare).

The manual also provides that “declaring that no quarter will be given” is a war crime.

New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1704(2)(d).

New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 1811.

Nigeria

Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) provides that it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL), Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, p. 40, § 5(l)(vii).

Nigeria

Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War considers that “informing soldiers of the enemy that they will not be protected unless they surrender immediately” is an “illegitimate tactic”.

Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 14(a)(4).

Nigeria

Nigeria’s Soldiers’ Code of Conduct states that it is “prohibited … to declare that no mercy will be shown”.

Nigeria, Code of Conduct for Combatants, “The Soldier’s Rules”, Nigerian Army, undated, § 12(g).

Peru

Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, threaten an adversary therewith or conduct hostilities on this basis.”

Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.d.(5).

Peru

Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, threaten an adversary therewith or conduct hostilities on this basis.”

Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 28(d)(5), p. 238; see also § 28(b), p. 43.

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation’s Military Manual (1990) states that “ordering that there shall be no survivors, threatening the adversary therewith or conducting the hostilities according to this decision” is a prohibited method of warfare.

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, § 5(p).

Russian Federation

The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The prohibited methods of warfare include … ordering that there shall be no survivors, threatening therewith or conducting hostilities on this basis.”

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, § 7.

With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

Senegal

Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(2).

Sierra Leone

Sierra Leone’s Instructor Manual (2007) provides: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

Sierra Leone, The Law of Armed Conflict. Instructor Manual for the Republic of Sierra Leone Armed Forces (RSLAF), Armed Forces Education Centre, September 2007, p. 36.

South Africa

South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) states: “It is a war crime to order troops to ‘take no prisoners’.”

South Africa, Presentation on the South African Approach to International Humanitarian Law, Appendix A, Chapter 4: International Humanitarian Law (The Law of Armed Conflict), National Defence Force, 1996, § 30, note 2.

South Africa

South Africa’s Revised Civic Education Manual (2004) states: “It is a war crime to order troops to ‘take no prisoners’.”

South Africa, Revised Civic Education Manual, South African National Defence Force, 2004, Chapter 4, § 52.

Spain

Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) states that it is prohibited to order that there will be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on this basis.

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, § 2.3.b.(3); see also §§ 3.3.b.(5) and 7.3.a.(6).

Spain

Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states: “It is prohibited to declare that no quarter will be given, order that there be no survivors, threaten an adversary therewith or conduct hostilities on this basis.”

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, § 2.3.b.(3); see also §§ 3.3.b.(5), 5.4.7, and 7.3.a.(6).

Sweden

Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) considers that the prohibition on ordering that no quarter shall be granted as contained in Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I is part of customary international law.

Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 2.2.3, p. 19.

Switzerland

Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “It is prohibited to declare that no quarter will be given.”

Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 20.

Togo

Togo’s Military Manual (1996) states that it is prohibited “to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on such a basis”.

Togo, Le Droit de la Guerre, III fascicules, Etat-major Général des Forces Armées Togolaises, Ministère de la Défense nationale, 1996, Fascicule III, p. 12.

Ukraine

Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states:

1.3.2. The following methods of warfare shall be prohibited: … ordering that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith.

…

1.8.5. Serious violations of international humanitarian law directed against people include: … declaring that no quarter will be given.

Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, §§ 1.3.2 and 1.8.5.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK Military Manual (1958) states: “It is forbidden to declare that no quarter will be given.”

United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 117.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides: “It is forbidden … to declare that no quarter will be given.”

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, Section 4, p. 12, § 2(c).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.”

United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.5; see also §§ 12.23 (air operations) and 13.29 (maritime warfare).

With regard to internal armed conflict, the manual states: “It is prohibited to conduct military operations on the basis of a denial of quarter.”

United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 15.11.

In its chapter on enforcement of the law of armed conflict, the manual notes:

The Hague Regulations 1907 are now recognized as part of customary law. Those regulations provide that the following acts are “especially forbidden”:

…

d. to declare that no quarter will be given.

United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 16.27.

United States of America

The US Field Manual (1956) provides: “It is especially forbidden … to declare that no quarter will be given.”

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, § 28.

United States of America

The US Manual for Military Commissions (2007), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, includes in the list of crimes triable by military commissions:

DENYING QUARTER.

a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who, with effective command or control over subordinate groups, declares, orders, or otherwise indicates to those groups that there shall be no survivors or surrender accepted, with the intent to threaten an adversary or to conduct hostilities such that there would be no survivors or surrender accepted, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

b. Elements.

(1) The accused declared, ordered, or otherwise indicated that there shall be no survivors or surrender accepted;

(2) The accused thereby intended to threaten an adversary or to conduct hostilities such that there would be no survivors or surrender accepted;

(3) It was foreseeable that circumstances would be such that a practicable and reasonable ability to accept surrender would exist;

(4) The accused was in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate forces to which the declaration or order was directed; and

(5) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with armed conflict.

c. Maximum punishment. Confinement for life.

United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of the Military Commissions Act of 2006, 10 U.S.C. §§ 948a, et seq., 18 January 2007, Part IV, § 6(6), p. IV-6.

United States of America

The US Manual for Military Commissions (2010), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, includes in the list of crimes triable by military commissions:

DENYING QUARTER.

a. Text. “Any person subject to this chapter who, with effective command or control over subordinate groups, declares, orders, or otherwise indicates to those groups that there shall be no survivors or surrender accepted, with the intent to threaten an adversary or to conduct hostilities such that there would be no survivors or surrender accepted, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.”

b. Elements.

(1) The accused declared, ordered, or otherwise indicated that there shall be no survivors or surrender accepted;

(2) The accused thereby intended to threaten an adversary or to conduct hostilities such that there would be no survivors or surrender accepted;

(3) It was foreseeable that circumstances would be such that a practicable and reasonable ability to accept surrender would exist;

(4) The accused was in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate forces to which the declaration or order was directed; and

(5) The conduct took place in the context of and was associated with hostilities.

c. Maximum punishment. Confinement for life.

United States, Manual for Military Commissions, published in implementation of Chapter 47A of Title 10, United States Code, as amended by the Military Commissions Act of 2009, 10 U.S.C, §§ 948a, et seq., 27 April 2010, § 5(6), p. IV-6.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of

The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors or detainees, to threaten an adversary therewith or to conduct hostilities on this basis.”

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Propisi o Primeri Pravila Medjunarodnog Ratnog Prava u Oruzanim Snagama SFRJ, PrU-2, Savezni Sekretarijat za Narodnu Odbranu (Pravna Uprava), 1988, § 103.

IV. National Legislation

Armenia

Under Armenia’s Penal Code (2003), giving, during an armed conflict, the “order … not to spare anyone’s life” constitutes a crime against the peace and security of mankind.

Armenia, Penal Code, 2003, Article 391(3).

Australia

Australia’s War Crimes Act (1945) considers “any war crime within the meaning of the instrument of appointment of the Board of Inquiry [set up to investigate war crimes committed by enemy subjects]” as a war crime, including directions to give no quarter.

Australia, War Crimes Act, 1945, Section 3.

Australia

Australia’s Criminal Code Act (1995), as amended to 2007, states with regard to serious war crimes that are committed in the course of an international armed conflict:

268.50 War crime – denying quarter

A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:

(a) the perpetrator declares or orders that there are to be no survivors; and

(b) the declaration or order is given with the intention of threatening an adversary or conducting hostilities on the basis that there are to be no survivors; and

(c) the perpetrator is in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate forces to which the declaration or order is directed; and

(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an international armed conflict.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.50, p. 334.

The Criminal Code Act also states with regard to war crimes that are violations of the laws and customs of war applicable in a non-international armed conflict:

268.91 War crime – denying quarter

A person (the perpetrator) commits an offence if:

(a) the perpetrator declares or orders that there are to be no survivors; and

(b) the declaration or order is given with the intention of threatening an adversary or conducting hostilities on the basis that there are to be no survivors; and

(c) the perpetrator is in a position of effective command or control over the subordinate forces to which the declaration or order is directed; and

(d) the perpetrator’s conduct takes place in the context of, and is associated with, an armed conflict that is not an international armed conflict.

Penalty: Imprisonment for life.

Australia, Criminal Code Act, 1995, as amended to 2007, Chapter 8, § 268.91, p. 366.

Australia

Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including declaring or ordering that there are to be no survivors with the intention of threatening an adversary or conducting hostilities on this basis, both in international and non-international armed conflicts.

Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, §§ 268.50 and 268.91.

Belgium

Belgium’s Penal Code (1867), as amended in 2003, provides:

War crimes envisaged in the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions … and in the [1977 Additional Protocols I and II] … , as well as in Article 8(2)(f) of the [1998 ICC Statute], and listed below, … constitute crimes under international law and shall be punished in accordance with the provisions of the present title … :

…

28. declaring that no quarter will be given.

Belgium, Penal Code, 1867, as amended on 5 August 2003, Chapter III, Title I bis, Article 136 quater, § 1(28).

Belgium

Belgium’s Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law (1993), as amended in 2003, provides:

…

15 ter. declaring that no quarter will be given.

Belgium, Law relating to the Repression of Grave Breaches of International Humanitarian Law, 1993, as amended on 23 April 2003, Article 1 ter, § 1(15 ter).

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Under the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (1998), whoever “orders that there be no surviving enemy soldiers in a fight, or whoever fights against the enemy on such basis” commits a war crime.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Federation, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 158(3).

The Republika Srpska’s Criminal Code (2000) contains the same provision.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Republika Srpska, Criminal Code, 2000, Article 438(3).

Bosnia and Herzegovina

Bosnia and Herzegovina’s Criminal Code (2003) states:

Whoever, in violation of the rules of international law in time of war or armed conflict, orders that there be no surviving enemy soldiers in a fight, or whoever fights against the enemy on such basis,

shall be punished by imprisonment for a term of not less than ten years or long-term imprisonment.

Bosnia and Herzegovina, Criminal Code, 2003, Article 177(3).

Burundi

Burundi’s Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) states:

[The following are] considered as war crimes:

…

B. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflicts, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

l) declaring that no quarter will be given;

…

D. Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

j) declaring that no quarter will be given.

Burundi, Law on Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Article 4(B)(l) and (D)(j).

Burundi

Burundi’s Penal Code (2009) states:

“War crimes” means crimes which are committed as part of a plan or policy or as part of a large-scale commission of such crimes, in particular:

…

2. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

12°. Declaring that no quarter is given;

…

5. … [S]erious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

10°. Declaring that no quarter is given.

Burundi, Penal Code, 2009, Article 198(2)(12°) and (5)(10°).

Canada

Canada’s Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act (2000) provides that the war crimes defined in Article 8(2) of the 1998 ICC Statute are “crimes according to customary international law” and, as such, indictable offences under the Act.

Canada, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes Act, 2000, Section 4(1) and (4).

China

China’s Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals (1946) provides that “ordering wholesale slaughter” constitutes a war crime.

China, Law Governing the Trial of War Criminals, 1946, Article 3(14).

Congo

The Congo’s Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act (1998) defines war crimes with reference to the categories of crimes defined in Article 8 of the 1998 ICC Statute.

Congo, Genocide, War Crimes and Crimes against Humanity Act, 1998, Article 4.

Croatia

Under Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), whoever “orders that in a battle there shall be no surviving members of the enemy or whoever engages in a battle against the enemy with the same objective” commits a war crime.

Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, Article 161(3).

Croatia

Croatia’s Criminal Code (1997), as amended to 2006, states that a war crime is committed by whomever “in violation of the rules of international law, in time of war or armed conflict, orders that in a battle there shall be no surviving members of the enemy or who engages in a battle against the enemy with the same objective”.

Croatia, Criminal Code, 1997, as amended in June 2006, Article 161(3).

Denmark

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:

Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment].

Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 1973, as amended in 1978, § 25(1).

Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:

Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].

Denmark, Military Criminal Code, 2005, § 36(2).

Ethiopia

Under Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957), it is a punishable offence to order to kill or wound enemies who have surrendered or laid down their arms or, for any other reason, are incapable of defending or have ceased to defend themselves.

Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 287(a) and (d).

Finland

Finland’s Criminal Code (1889), as amended in 2008, provides that any person who “announces that no mercy shall be given … or uses other means of warfare prohibited in international law” shall be “sentenced for a war crime to imprisonment for at least one year or for life”.

Finland, Criminal Code, 1889, as amended in 2008, Chapter 11, Section 5(1)(13).

(emphasis in original)

France

France’s Code of Defence (2004), as amended in 2008, states: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors or to threaten the adversary therewith.”

France, Code of Defence, 2004, as amended in 2008, Article D4122-9.

France

France’s Penal Code (1994), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes common to both international and non-international armed conflicts: “Ordering that there shall be no survivors or threatening the adversary therewith is punishable by life imprisonment.”

France, Penal Code, 1994, as amended in 2010, Article 461-8.

Georgia

Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), any war crime provided for by the 1998 ICC Statute which is not explicitly mentioned in the Code, such as “declaring that no quarter will be given” in an international or non-international armed conflict, is a crime.

Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 413(d).

Germany

Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or a non-international armed conflict, “orders or threatens, as a commander, that no quarter will be given”.

Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 11(1)(6).

Iraq

Iraq’s Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal (2005) identifies the following as a serious violation of the laws and customs of war applicable in both international and non-international armed conflicts: “Declaring that no person will be left alive.”

Iraq, Law of the Supreme Iraqi Criminal Tribunal, 2005, Article 13(2)(M) and (4)(J).

Ireland

Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 40, as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 4(1), are punishable offences.

Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).

Italy

Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides that it is prohibited “to declare that no quarter will be given”.

Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 35.

Lithuania

Under Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, the “order to kill … persons who have surrendered by giving up their arms or having no means to put up resistance, the wounded, sick persons or the crew of a sinking ship” during an international armed conflict or occupation is a war crime.

Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 333.

Mali

Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “declaring that there shall be no quarter” is a war crime in international armed conflicts.

Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(12).

Netherlands

The Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands includes “directions to give no quarter” in its list of war crimes.

Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.

Netherlands

Under the International Crimes Act (2003) of the Netherlands, “declaring that no quarter will be given” constitutes a crime, whether in time of international or non-international armed conflict.

Netherlands, International Crimes Act, 2003, Articles 5(5)(s) and 6(3)(g).

New Zealand

Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xii) and (e)(x) of the 1998 ICC Statute.

New Zealand, International Crimes and ICC Act, 2000, Section 11(2).

Norway

Norway’s Military Penal Code (1902), as amended in 1981, provides:

Anyone who contravenes or is accessory to the contravention of provisions relating to the protection of persons or property laid down in … the two additional protocols to [the 1949 Geneva] Conventions … is liable to imprisonment.

Norway, Military Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 1981, § 108(b).

Norway

Norway’s Penal Code (1902), as amended in 2008, states: “Any person is liable to punishment for a war crime who in connection with an armed conflict … declares or threatens that no quarter will be given.”

Norway, Penal Code, 1902, as amended in 2008, § 106(h).

Peru

Peru’s Code of Military and Police Justice (2006) states:

A member of the military or police shall be imprisoned for a period of no less than eight and no more than 15 years if he or she in the context of an international or non-international armed conflict:

…

6. As a superior orders or threatens to order that no quarter will be given.

Peru, Code of Military and Police Justice, 2006, Article 95(6)

Peru

Peru’s Military and Police Criminal Code (2010), in a chapter entitled “Crimes involving the use of prohibited methods in the conduct of hostilities”, states:

A member of the military or the police shall be punished with deprivation of liberty of not less than six years and not more than twenty-five years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she:

…

6. As a superior orders or threatens to order that no quarter shall be given.

Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 91(6).

Republic of Korea

The Republic of Korea’s ICC Act (2007) provides for the punishment of anyone who commits the war crime of “[t]hreatening or ordering, as a commander, that no quarter will be given” in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

Republic of Korea, ICC Act, 2007, Article 13(1)(6).

Senegal

Senegal’s Penal Code (1965), as amended in 2007, states that the following constitute war crimes:

b) [O]ther serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in international armed conflict, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

11. declaring that no quarter will be given;

…

d) …

Other serious violations of the laws and customs applicable in armed conflicts not of an international character, within the established framework of international law, namely, any of the following acts:

…

10. declaring that no quarter will be given.

Senegal, Penal Code, 1965, as amended in 2007, Article 431-3(b)(11) and (d)(10).

Slovenia

Under Slovenia’s Penal Code (1994), “whoever orders … that there be no survivors among the aggressor’s soldiers, or … whoever wages war against the aggressor on this basis” commits a war crime.

Slovenia, Penal Code, 1994, Article 377(2).

South Africa

South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “declaring that no quarter will be given” in both international and non-international armed conflicts.

South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, §§ (b)(xii) and (e)(x).

Spain

Spain’s Royal Ordinance for the Armed Forces (1978) provides that it is prohibited to declare that a war will be waged without quarter.

Spain, Royal Ordinance for the Armed Forces, 1978, Article 138.

Spain

Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2003, states: “Anyone who in the event of an armed conflict … orders that no quarter will be given, shall be punished with ten to 15 years’ imprisonment, without prejudice to a penalty for the results of such acts”.

Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 25 November 2003, Article 610.

Switzerland

Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states in a chapter entitled “War crimes”:

Art. 110

Articles 112–114 apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

…

Art. 112c

1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict:

…

f. orders, by virtue of their power of command, that no quarter be given or threatens the enemy therewith.

Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and Article 112c (1)(f).

Switzerland

Switzerland’s Penal Code (1937), taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, states under the title “War crimes”:

Art. 264b

Articles 264d–264j apply in the context of international armed conflicts, including in situations of occupation, and, if the nature of the offence does not exclude it, in the context of non-international armed conflicts.

…

Art. 264g

1 The penalty shall be a custodial sentence of not less than three years for any person who, in the context of an armed conflict:

…

f. orders, by virtue of their power of command, that no quarter be given or threatens the enemy therewith.

Switzerland, Penal Code, 1937, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 264b and 264g (1)(f).

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

Under the UK ICC Act (2001), it is a punishable offence to commit a war crime as defined in Article 8(2)(b)(xxi) and (e)(x) of the 1998 ICC Statute.

United Kingdom, ICC Act, 2001, Sections 50(1) and 51(1) (England and Wales) and Section 58(1) (Northern Ireland).

United States of America

Under the US War Crimes Act (1996), violations of Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Regulations are war crimes.

United States, War Crimes Act, 1996, Section 2441(c)(2).

United States of America

The US Military Commissions Act (2006), passed by Congress following the Supreme Court’s decision in Hamdan v. Rumsfeld in 2006, amends Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:

“§ 950v. Crimes triable by military commissions

“ …

“(b) OFFENSES.—The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:

“ …

“(6) DENYING QUARTER.—Any person subject to this chapter who, with effective command or control over subordinate groups, declares, orders, or otherwise indicates to those groups that there shall be no survivors or surrender accepted, with the intent to threaten an adversary or to conduct hostilities such that there would be no survivors or surrender accepted, shall be punished as a military commission under this chapter may direct.

United States, Military Commissions Act, 2006, Public Law 109-366, Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code, 17 October 2006, p. 120 Stat. 2626, § 950v(b)(6).

United States of America

The US Military Commissions Act (2009) amends Chapter 47A of Title 10 of the United States Code as follows:

“§ 950t. Crimes triable by military commission

“The following offenses shall be triable by military commission under this chapter at any time without limitation:

“ …

United States, Military Commissions Act, 2009, § 950t(6).

Uruguay

Uruguay’s Law on Cooperation with the ICC (2006) states:

26.2. Persons and objects affected by the war crimes set out in the present provision are persons and objects which international law protects in international or internal armed conflict.

26.3. The following are war crimes:

…

20. Declaring that no quarter will be given.

Uruguay, Law on Cooperation with the ICC, 2006, Article 26.2 and 26.3.20.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of

Under the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Penal Code (1976), as amended in 2001, “a person who orders … that no enemy troops should survive combat or who fights the enemy for that purpose” commits a war crime.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, Article 146(3).

The commentary on the Penal Code specifies that “in the case of an armed conflict, it is irrelevant for this act whether it is international in nature or whether it is a civil war”.

Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Penal Code, 1976, as amended in 2001, commentary on Article 146.

V. National Case-law

Belgium

The Sergeant W. case before Belgium’s Court-Martial of Brussels in 1966 concerned the murder of an unarmed Congolese woman by a senior member of the Belgian staff who had been sent to provide assistance to the army in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. In his defence, the accused argued that he had been ordered by his commanding officer (Major O.) to “shoot all suspect elements on sight” in the zone forbidden to civilians and that he had shot the woman on the basis that he had interpreted this order as meaning that he should “take no prisoners and to ‘kill’ everything we come across in here”. The Court found:

As interpreted by the accused in practice – viz. the right or even the obligation to kill an unarmed person in his power – the order was patently illegal. Executing or causing to be executed without prior due trial a suspect person or even a rebel fallen into the hands of the members of his battalion was obviously outside the competence of Major O., and such an execution was a manifest example of voluntary manslaughter. The illegal nature of the order thus interpreted was not in doubt and the accused had to refuse to carry it out … The act perpetrated by the accused constitutes not only murder within the meaning of Articles 43 and 44 of the Congolese Criminal Code and Articles 392 and 393 of the Belgian Criminal Code, but is also a flagrant violation of the laws and customs of war and the laws of humanity.

Belgium, Court-Martial of Brussels, Sergeant W. case, Judgment, 18 May 1966.

Canada

In the Abbaye Ardenne case in 1945, the Canadian Military Court at Aurich convicted a German commander of having incited and counselled his troops to deny quarter to Allied troops.

Canada, Military Court at Aurich, Abbaye Ardenne case, Judgment, 28 December 1945.

Canada

In 2013, in the Sapkota case, Canada’s Federal Court dismissed a request for review of a decision denying refugee protection to the applicant on grounds of complicity in crimes against humanity in Nepal between 1991 and 2009. While reviewing the submissions of the respondent, Canada’s Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, the Court stated: “The Respondent notes that the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court … is endorsed in Canada as a source of customary law.”

Canada, Federal Court, Sapkota case, Reasons for Judgment and Judgment, 15 July 2013, § 28.

Colombia

In a case concerning conscientious objection in 1992, Colombia’s Constitutional Court considered that a superior’s order that would cause “death outside combat” would clearly lead to a violation of human rights and of the Constitution and as such could be disobeyed.

Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. T-409, Judgment, 8 June 1992.

Colombia

In 1995, in its examination of the constitutionality of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, Colombia’s Constitutional Court considered that Article 4 of the Protocol, including the prohibition on ordering that there shall be no survivors, perfectly met constitutional standards. The Constitution contained provisions on the protection of human life and dignity.

Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-225/95, Judgment, 18 May 1995.

Colombia

In 1995, in its examination of the constitutionality of a military regulation which provided that subordinates were obliged to obey a superior’s order that they considered unlawful if the order was confirmed in writing, Colombia’s Constitutional Court stated that an order that would cause death outside combat would clearly be a violation of human rights and of the Constitution.

Colombia, Constitutional Court, Constitutional Case No. C-578, Judgment, 4 December 1995.

Germany

In the Stenger and Cruisus case before Germany’s Leipzig Court after the First World War, one of the accused was charged with having issued an order that:

No prisoners are to be taken from to-day onwards; all prisoners, wounded or not, are to be killed

…

All the prisoners are to be massacred; the wounded, armed or not, are to be massacred; even men captured in large organised units are to be massacred. No enemy must remain alive behind us.

The other accused was charged with having passed on the order. The first accused was acquitted because it could not be proved that he had actually given the order in question. As to the second accused, the Court held:

[He] acted in the mistaken idea that General Stenger, at the time of the discussion near the chapel, issued the order to shoot the wounded. He was not conscious of the illegality of such an order, and therefore considered that he might pass on the supposed order to his company, and indeed must do so.

So pronounced a misconception of the real facts seems only comprehensible in view of the mental condition of the accused … But this merely explains the error of the accused; it does not excuse it … Had he applied the attention which was to be expected from him, what was immediately clear to many of his men would not have escaped him, namely, that the indiscriminate killing of all wounded was a monstrous war measure, in no way to be justified.

Germany, Leipzig Court, Stenger and Cruisus case, Judgment, 1921.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In the Eck case (The Peleus Trial) before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1945, the commander of a German submarine was charged with ordering the killing of survivors of a sunken Greek merchant vessel. He was found guilty and the Judge Advocate ruled that it must have been obvious to the most rudimentary intelligence that it was not a lawful command.

United Kingdom, Military Court at Hamburg, Eck case (The Peleus Trial), 20 October 1945.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In the Von Falkenhorst case before the UK Military Court at Brunswick in 1946, the accused, Commander-in-Chief of the German armed forces in Norway, was found guilty of having incited, in two orders of October 1942 and June 1943, members of the forces under his command not to accept quarter or to give quarter to Allied soldiers, sailors and airmen taking part in commando operations. Furthermore he had ordered that, in the event of the capture of any Allied soldiers, sailors or airmen taking part in such operations, they should be killed after capture.

United Kingdom, Military Court at Brunswick, Von Falkenhorst case, Judgment, 2 August 1946.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In the Wickman case before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1946, the accused was found guilty of “committing a war crime … in that he … in violation of the laws and usages of war gave orders to [his] platoon that no prisoners were to be taken and that any prisoners taken were to be shot”.

United Kingdom, Military Court at Hamburg, Wickman case, Judgment, 26 November 1946.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In the Von Ruchteschell case before the UK Military Court at Hamburg in 1947, the accused was charged, inter alia, of having ordered that survivors on life-rafts be fired at. He was found not guilty of this charge.

United Kingdom, Military Court at Hamburg, Von Ruchteschell case, Judgment, 21 May 1947.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In the Le Paradis case before the UK Court at Hamburg-Altona in 1949, a German officer was convicted of the killing by his troops, on his orders, of members of a UK regiment which had surrendered.

United Kingdom, Court No. 5 of the Curiohaus, Hamburg-Altona, Le Paradis case, 25 October 1948; see also cases cited in Lassa Oppenheim, International Law. A Treatise, Vol. II, Disputes, War and Neutrality, Longmans, Green and Co., London/New York/Toronto, Seventh edition, Hersch Lauterpacht (ed.), 1952, §§ 69 and 109; Eric David, Principes de droit des conflits armés, Bruylant, Brussels, Second edition, 1999, § 2.167; Christopher Greenwood, The Customary Law Status of the 1977 Geneva Protocols, in Astrid J. M. Delissen and Gerard J. Tanja (eds.), Humanitarian Law of Armed Conflict: Challenges Ahead. Essays in Honour of Frits Kalshoven, Martinus Nijhoff, Dordrecht, 1991, p. 106.

United States of America

In the Thiele case before the US Military Commission at Augsburg in 1945, the accused, a German army lieutenant, was convicted of having ordered the killing of an American prisoner of war.

United States, Military Commission at Augsburg, Thiele case, Judgment, 13 June 1945.

United States of America

In the Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial) before the US Military Tribunal at Nuremberg in 1948, the accused, former high-ranking officers in the German army and navy, were charged, inter alia, with war crimes against enemy belligerents and prisoners of war for having unlawfully directed that certain enemy troops be refused quarter and that certain captured members of the military forces of nations at war with Germany be summarily executed. In its judgment, the Tribunal stated: “in the course of the war, many Allied soldiers who had surrendered to the Germans were shot immediately, often as a matter of deliberate, calculated policy”. It added that “the murder of Commandos or captured airmen … were the result of direct orders circulated through the highest official channels”. It also referred to Hitler’s order of 18 October 1942 whereby no quarter should be granted to members of Allied commando units, stating that “this order was criminal on its face. It simply directed the slaughter of these ‘sabotage’ troops.”

United States, Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Von Leeb case (The German High Command Trial), Judgment, 28 October 1948.

VI. Other National Practice

Australia

In its oral pleadings before the ICJ in the Nuclear Weapons case in 1995, Australia stated that the “right to self-defence is not unlimited … Self-defence is not a justification … for ordering that there shall be no enemy survivors in combat.”

Australia, Oral pleadings before the ICJ, Nuclear Weapons case, 30 October 1995, Verbatim Record CR 95/22, p. 52.

China

At some point during the Chinese civil war, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) headquarters made an announcement stating that the PLA would not kill any officers or soldiers of the Nationalist Army who laid down arms. According to the Report on the Practice of China, the policy was implemented in practice.

China, Announcement of the People’s Liberation Army, 10 October 1947, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 4, The People’s Press, Beijing, p. 1238; Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 2.1.

Djibouti

In 2010, in the History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, Djibouti’s Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, under the heading “Basic rules of IHL” and in a section on “Weapons and tactics”, stated: “It is prohibited to order or threaten that there will be no survivors.ˮ

Djibouti, Ministry of National Education and Higher Education, History and Geography Textbook for 8th Grade, 2010, p. 194.

Israel

According to the Report on the Practice of Israel, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) do not conduct a policy of “no quarter”.

Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.1.

Kuwait

In 1990, in a letter addressed to the UN Secretary-General in the context of the Gulf War, Kuwait condemned the instructions given and measures taken by the Iraqi authorities, inter alia, “the execution of every Kuwaiti military man should he fail to surrender to Iraqi forces”. These were qualified as “savage practices”.

Kuwait, Letter dated 24 September 1990 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/21815, 24 September 1990.

Somalia

In 2011, in its report to the Human Rights Council, Somalia stated:

75. Somalia has not ratified AP II [1977 Additional Protocol II] and it is therefore not directly applicable to Somalia as a matter of treaty law. The Government is aware that many provisions of AP II represent customary IHL rules and therefore apply to the situation in Somalia. Such provisions include Article 4 providing guarantees to persons taking no active part in hostilities … due to the fact that these norms are reflected in Common Article 3 of the [1949] Geneva Conventions.

76. The Government forces are also bound to respect customary IHL rules relating to the prohibited methods and means of warfare including … denial of quarter.

Somalia, Report to the Human Rights Council, 11 April 2011, UN Doc. A/HRC/WG.6/11/SOM/1, §§ 75–76.

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland

In 1995, during a debate in the House of Lords in 1995, the UK Minister of State, Home Office, criticized the Geneva Conventions (Amendment) Bill introduced by a private member for categorizing as grave breaches certain acts not treated as such in the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including threatening an adversary that there shall be no survivors.

United Kingdom, House of Lords, Statement by the Minister of State, Home Office, Hansard, 25 May 1995, Vol. 564, cols. 1083–1084.

United States of America

In 1987, the Deputy Legal Adviser of the US Department of State affirmed: “We support the principle that no order be given that there shall be no survivors nor an adversary be threatened with such an order or hostilities be conducted on that basis.”

United States, Remarks of Michael J. Matheson, Deputy Legal Adviser, US Department of State, The Sixth Annual American Red Cross-Washington College of Law Conference on International Humanitarian Law: A Workshop on Customary International Law and the 1977 Protocols Additional to the 1949 Geneva Conventions, American University Journal of International Law and Policy, Vol. 2, 1987, p. 425.

United States of America

In 1991, in response to an ICRC memorandum on the applicability of IHL in the Gulf region, the United States commented that its practice was consistent with the prohibition on ordering that there shall be no survivors.

United States, Letter from the Department of the Army to the legal adviser of the US Army forces deployed in the Gulf region, 11 January 1991, § 8(J), Report on US Practice, 1997, Chapter 2.8.

United States of America

In 1992, in its final report to Congress on the conduct of the Gulf War, the US Department of Defense stated that Article 23(d) of the 1907 Hague Regulations “prohibits the denial of quarter, that is the refusal to accept an enemy’s surrender”.

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. 641.

VII. United Nations

UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador

In 1993, the UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador examined, inter alia, a case concerning the killing of two soldiers wounded after a US helicopter was shot down by an Farabundo Martí para la Liberación Nacional (FMLN) patrol. The survivors of the crash had been left on the scene, but shortly afterwards, a member of the patrol was sent back and killed the two wounded men. According to the Commission’s report,

The Commission considers that there is sufficient proof that United States soldiers … who survived the shooting down of the helicopter … but were wounded and defenceless, were executed in violation of international humanitarian law …

The Commission has likewise found no evidence that the executions were ordered by higher levels of command, or that they were carried out in accordance with an ERP [Ejército Revolucionario del Pueblo] or FMLN policy of killing prisoners. FMLN acknowledged the criminal nature of the incident and detained and tried the accused.

UN Commission on the Truth for El Salvador, Report, UN Doc. S/25500, 1 April 1993, pp. 167–169.

VIII. Other International Organizations

No data.

IX. International Conferences

No data.

X. International and Mixed Judicial and Quasi-judicial Bodies

No data.

XI. International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement

ICRC

To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces the rule that: “It is prohibited to order that there will be no survivors, to threaten the enemy therewith or to conduct operations on this basis.”

Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 399.

ICRC

In a report submitted to the 21st International Conference of the Red Cross in 1969, the ICRC considered that the rule prohibiting the declaration that no quarter will be given was implicit in the 1949 Geneva Conventions. It stated, however, that the Conventions focused on the protection of combatants once they had fallen into enemy hands, whereas the prohibition of denial of quarter applied from the time the intention to surrender had been declared.

ICRC, Report on the Reaffirmation and Development of Laws and Customs Applicable in Armed Conflicts, May 1969, submitted to the 21st International Conference of the Red Cross, Istanbul, 6–13 September 1969, p. 78.

ICRC

The ICRC Commentary on Article 40 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I states:

Any order of “liquidation” is prohibited, whether it concerns commandos, political or any other kind of commissars, irregular troops or so-called irregular troops, saboteurs, parachutists, mercenaries or persons to be considered as mercenaries, or other cases.

Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 1595.

ICRC

In 1994, in a Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, the ICRC stated: “No order shall ever be given that there should be no survivors.”

ICRC, Memorandum on Respect for International Humanitarian Law in Angola, 8 June 1994, § II, IRRC, No. 320, 1997, p. 504.

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: “It is prohibited to order that there shall be no survivors.”

ICRC, Memorandum on Compliance with International Humanitarian Law by the Forces Participating in Opération Turquoise, 23 June 1994, § II, reprinted in Marco Sassòli and Antoine A. Bouvier, How Does Law Protect in War?, ICRC, Geneva, 1999, p. 1309.

ICRC

In 1997, in a working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC proposed that “to declare that there shall be no survivors” be listed as a war crime in both international and non-international armed conflicts, subject to the jurisdiction of the Court.

ICRC, Working paper on war crimes submitted to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, New York, 14 February 1997, §§ 2(vii) and 3(xv).

ICRC

In a communication to the press issued in 2001 in the context of the conflict in Afghanistan, the ICRC stated: “The rules governing armed conflict must be respected at all times and in all circumstances. The ICRC stresses that these rules … prohibit orders that there should be no survivors.”

ICRC, Communication to the Press No. 01/58, Afghanistan: ICRC calls on all parties to comply with international humanitarian law, 23 November 2001.

XII. Other

Americas Watch

In 1985, in a report on violations of the laws of war in Nicaragua, Americas Watch stated:

The following … are prohibited by applicable international law rules:

1. Orders to combatants that there shall be no survivors, such threats to combatants or direction to conduct hostilities on this basis.

Americas Watch, Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides in Nicaragua: 1981–1985, New York, March 1985, p. 33.

Africa Watch

In 1989, in a report on violations of the laws of war in Angola, Africa Watch stated:

Applicable international law rules prohibit the following kinds of practices …

A. Orders to combatants that there shall be no survivors, such threats to combatants or direction to conduct hostilities on this basis.

Africa Watch, Angola: Violations of the Laws of War by Both Sides, New York, April 1989, p. 141.

2. Practice\Rule 46

Practice Relating to Rule 46. Orders or Threats That No Quarter Will Be Given