Practice Relating to Rule 65. Perfidy

Note: For practice concerning the improper use of the United Nations emblem or uniform which does not amount to perfidy, see Rule 60.
Additional Protocol I
Article 37(1)(d) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I lists “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” as an act of perfidy. 
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 37(1)(d). Article 37 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.39, 25 May 1977, p. 103.
Additional Protocol I
Under Article 85(3)(f) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “the perfidious use, in violation of Article 37, of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or this Protocol” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. Article 85(5) adds: “Without prejudice to the application of the [Geneva] Conventions and of this Protocol, grave breaches of these instruments shall be regarded as war crimes.” 
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 85(3)(f) and (5). Article 85 was adopted by consensus. CDDH, Official Records, Vol. VI, CDDH/SR.44, 30 May 1977, p. 291.
ICC Statute
Under Article 8(2)(b)(vii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[m]aking improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform … of the United Nations, … resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in 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)(vii).
San Remo Manual
Paragraph 110(d) of the 1994 San Remo Manual provides: “Warships and auxiliary vessels … are prohibited … at all times from actively simulating the status of … vessels protected by the United Nations flag.” Paragraph 111(a) states: “Perfidious acts include the launching of an attack while feigning … protected United Nations status.” 
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, §§ 110(d) and 111(a).
ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind (1996)
Pursuant to Article 20(b)(v) of the 1996 ILC Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, “[t]he perfidious use of … recognized protective signs” is a war crime. 
Draft Code of Crimes against the Peace and Security of Mankind, adopted by the International Law Commission, reprinted in Report of the International Law Commission on the work of its forty-eighth session, 6 May–26 July 1996, UN Doc. A/51/10, 1996, Article 20(b)(v).
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)(vii), “[m]aking improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform … of the United Nations, … resulting in death or serious personal injury” is a war crime in 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)(vii).
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that it is an example of perfidy “to make use of the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations … so as to simulate a protected status”. 
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, § 1.05(2)(4).
The manual adds that “the perfidious use of … recognized protective signs” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime. 
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, § 8.03.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) states: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations.” 
Australia, Law of Armed Conflict, Commanders’ Guide, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 Supplement 1 – Interim Edition, 7 March 1994, § 826(d) (naval warfare) and § 902(d) (land warfare).
Australia
Australia’s Defence Force Manual (1994) provides: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations.” 
Australia, Manual on Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Force Publication, Operations Series, ADFP 37 – Interim Edition, 1994, § 703(d) (land warfare); see also §§ 635(d) and 636(a) (naval warfare).
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “Acts which constitute perfidy include feigning of … protected status by the use of protective symbols, signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations (UN)”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.3.
In its chapter on “Maritime Operations”, the manual states that warships and auxiliary vessels are prohibited at all times from actively simulating the status of “vessels protected by the United Nations (UN) flag”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 6.35.
The manual further states: “Perfidious acts also include the launching of an attack while feigning: … UN status”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 6.36.
In its chapter on “Compliance”, the manual states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I extends the definition of grave breaches to include “the perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of the Red Cross, Red Crescent, Red Crystal and other Red Cross societies, or of other protective signs recognised by the Conventions or the Protocol”. 
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 13.26.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) lists “feigning to have protected status by utilizing the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” as an example of perfidy. 
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. 84.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides that “feigning having a protected status by using signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of perfidy. 
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. 63 and 64, § 234.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that “feigning having protected status by using the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” constitutes an “act of perfidy”. 
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, § 494.A.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations.” 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 6-2, § 9(d) (land warfare); see also p. 7-2, § 17(d) (air warfare) and p. 8-11, § 81(e) (naval warfare).
The manual also considers it an act of perfidy in air warfare if a hostile act is committed while “using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … United Nations aircraft”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 7-2, § 18(a).
The manual further states that “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [Additional Protocol] I” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 16-2, § 8(a) and p. 16-3, § 16(f).
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapters on land warfare, air warfare and naval warfare: “The following are examples of perfidy if a hostile act is committed while: … feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, §§ 603.2.d (land warfare), 706.2.d (air warfare) and 857.2.e (naval warfare).
In the chapter on air warfare, the manual further states that it is an example of perfidy in air warfare “if a hostile act is committed while … using false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … United Nations aircraft”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 706.3.a.
In its chapter on “War crimes, individual criminal liability and command responsibility”, the manual identifies as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and a war crime the “perfidious use of … protective signs recognized by the Geneva Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol] I”. 
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1608.2.f.
Chad
Chad’s Instructor’s Manual (2006) states that the “perfidious use of protective signs” is a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and, as such, 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. 108.
Colombia
Colombia’s Directive on IHL (1993) considers “the perfidious use of … protective signs recognized under the law of war” as a punishable offence. 
Colombia, Normas de Derecho Internacional Humanitario, Directiva Permanente No. 017, Ministerio de Defensa Nacional, 17 August 1993, Section III(D).
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book IV (Instruction of heads of division and company commanders):
I.2.1. Perfidy
It is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by resort to perfidy. …
Here are some examples of perfidy; if an act of hostility is made by feigning:
d. protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral or other States not Parties to the conflict. 
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, p. 48.
Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) provides that the “perfidious use of distinctive protective signs” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime. 
Croatia, Compendium “Law of Armed Conflicts”, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1991, p. 56.
Croatia
Croatia’s Commanders’ Manual (1992) states: “It is prohibited to feign a protected status by inviting the confidence of the enemy: misuse of distinctive signs.” 
Croatia, Basic Rules of the Law of Armed Conflicts – Commanders’ Manual, Republic of Croatia, Ministry of Defence, 1992, § 46.
France
France’s LOAC Summary Note (1992) prohibits perfidy, and states: “It is forbidden to feign a protected status by inviting the confidence of the enemy (abuse of distinctive signs and signals …).” 
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, § 4.4.
The Summary Note also states that the “perfidious use of protected signs and signals” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime. 
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, § 3.4.
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “Using a protective sign to deceive the enemy and reach an operational goal constitutes an act of perfidy.” 
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. 62.
The manual specifies that the use of UN emblems and uniforms with a view to commit hostile acts is criminalized. 
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. 115.
Generally, the manual considers that “the perfidious use of any protective sign recognized by international law constitutes a war crime”. 
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. 118; see also p. 115.
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “Grave breaches of international humanitarian law are in particular: … perfidious … use of recognized protective signs.” 
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, § 1209.
Greece
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “It is forbidden for members of the armed forces: … To use perfidiously … emblems of international organizations.” 
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 15(h).
Greece
The Hellenic Navy’s International Law Manual (1995) provides that “the misuse of emblems or uniforms of an international organization” constitutes perfidy. 
Greece, International Law Manual, Hellenic Navy General Staff, Directorate A2, Division IV, 1995, Chapter 5, § 4.
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) gives as an example of perfidy “to falsely claim protected status, thereby inviting the confidence of the enemy”, inter alia, by using the UN flag. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 63.
The manual also states that the “perfidious use of distinctive protective signs” is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime. 
Hungary, A Hadijog, Jegyzet a Katonai, Föiskolák Hallgatói Részére, Magyar Honvédség Szolnoki Repülötiszti Föiskola, 1992, p. 90.
Israel
Referring to Israel’s Law of War Booklet (1986), the Report on the Practice of Israel states that the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) prohibit “the resort to perfidy to kill, injure or capture an adversary. Therefore, the IDF does not … make unlawful use of protected emblems or uniforms.” 
Report on the Practice of Israel, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Conduct in the Battlefield in Accordance with the Law of War, Israel Defense Forces, 1986, p. 8.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) states, as an example of perfidious conduct: “It is prohibited to pose as U.N. … personnel or use [UN] uniform, flag and emblems.” 
Israel, Laws of War in the Battlefield, Manual, Military Advocate General Headquarters, Military School, 1998, p. 56.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “It is also forbidden to pretend to be members of the United Nations Organization … as it is forbidden to use [UN] uniforms, flag or symbols”. 
Israel, Rules of Warfare on the Battlefield, Military Advocate-General’s Corps Command, IDF School of Military Law, Second Edition, 2006, p. 35.
The Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) is a second edition of the Manual on the Laws of War (1998).
Italy
Under Italy’s IHL Manual (1991), grave breaches of international conventions and protocols, including “the perfidious use … of international protective signs”, constitute war crimes. 
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, § 85.
Italy
Italy’s LOAC Elementary Rules Manual (1991) states: “It is prohibited to feign a protected status by inviting the confidence of the enemy: misuse of distinctive signs.” 
Italy, Regole elementari di diritto di guerra, SMD-G-012, Stato Maggiore della Difesa, I Reparto, Ufficio Addestramento e Regolamenti, Rome, 1991, § 46.
Italy
Italy’s Combatant’s Manual (1998) states:
The use of protective emblems as “cover” for belligerent actions or to harm the enemy in any way constitutes an ACT OF PERFIDY, which is a serious violation of International Law and severely punished by the Wartime Military Penal Code.
Protective emblems are used for:
-UN personnel, equipment and facilities. 
Italy, Manuale del Combattente, SME 1000/A/2, Stato Maggiore Esercito/Reparto Impiego delle Forze, Ufficio Dottrina, Addestramento e Regolamenti, 1998, § 241.
[emphasis in original]
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands states that the 1977 Additional Protocol I “gives a number of examples of treacherous behaviour: feigning to possess a protected position by using signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations”. 
Netherlands, Toepassing Humanitair Oorlogsrecht, Voorschift No. 27-412/1, Koninklijke Landmacht, Ministerie van Defensie, 1993, p. IV-2.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states:
AP I [1977 Additional Protocol I] lists a number of examples of acts of perfidy:
- the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations. 
Netherlands, Humanitair Oorlogsrecht: Handleiding, Voorschift No. 27-412, Koninklijke Landmacht, Militair Juridische Dienst, 2005, § 0414.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides: “The following acts are examples of perfidy: … the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 502(5) (land warfare) and § 713(2) (naval warfare); see also § 1905.
The manual also states: “The use of false markings on military aircraft such as the markings of … United Nations aircraft … is the prime example of perfidious conduct in air warfare and is prohibited.” 
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 611(2).
The manual further states that “perfidious use of … protective signs recognised by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]” constitutes a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I and 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, §§ 1701(1) and 1703(3)(f).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Military Manual (1994) gives the following example of “perjury” (perfidy): “feigning protection status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the UN”. 
Nigeria, International Humanitarian Law (IHL) , Directorate of Legal Services, Nigerian Army, 1994, pp. 42 and 43, § 12(e).
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of perfidy. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 27.e.(9).(e).
The manual further states that the “perfidious use of … recognized protective emblems” is a war crime. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 31.a.(8).
In the context of armed conflict at sea, the manual states: “Perfidious acts include the launching of an attack while feigning: … protected United Nations status.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial Nº 1394-2004-DE/CCFFAA/CDIH-FFAA, Lima, 1 December 2004, § 135.c.(1).
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states that “the feigning of status of a protected person by using signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of perfidy. 
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(e)(2)(e), p. 239.
The manual further states that the “perfidious use of … recognized protective emblems” is a war crime. 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 74(f)(5), p. 273.
In the context of armed conflict at sea, the manual states: “Perfidious acts include the launching of an attack while feigning: … protected United Nations status.” 
Peru, Manual de Derecho Internacional Humanitario y Derechos Humanos para las Fuerzas Armadas, Resolución Ministerial No. 049-2010/DE/VPD, Lima, 21 May 2010, § 126(c)(2), p. 319.
Romania
Under Romania’s Soldiers’ Manual (1991), “feigning the status of a protected person by abusing the signs and emblems of … the UN” is an act of perfidy. 
Romania, Manualul Soldatului, Ghid de comportare în luptă, Asociaţia Română de Drept Umanitar (ARDU), 1991, p. 35.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
When planning and conducting combat operations it is necessary to draw a clear distinction between perfidy and ruses of war. Perfidy means committing a hostile act under the cover of a right to protection by feigning:
- a protected status by the use of emblems, signs and signals, or uniforms of the United Nations. 
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, § 8.
Rwanda
Rwanda’s Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes (2003) provides:
Article: 8
A war crime is one of the following acts, committed during armed conflicts against persons or property protected under the Geneva Conventions of 12 August 1949 and their Additional Protocols I and II of 8 June 1977:
10° making perfidious use of the distinctive emblem of humanitarian organizations or other protective signs of persons or objects recognized under international law, in order to kill, wound or capture an adversary;
Article: 9
Shall be punished by one of the following penalties any person having committed one of the war crimes provided for in Article 8 of this law:
2° imprisonment for ten (10) to twenty (20) years where he has committed a crime provided for in point 6°, 7°, 8°, 10° or 12° of Article 8 of this law. 
Rwanda, Law Repressing the Crime of Genocide, Crimes against Humanity and War Crimes, 2003, Articles 8–9.
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “Grave breaches of the law of war are regarded as war crimes.” 
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, § 41.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) considers “feigning to possess a protected status by using the signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” as an example of perfidy. 
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, § 3.3.b.(1); see also § 5.3.c.
The manual states: “It is prohibited to feign a protected status by inviting the confidence of the enemy: misuse of distinctive signs.” 
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, § 10.8.e.(1).
The manual also states that it is a grave breach of the law of war and a war crime “to make a perfidious use … of … recognized protective signs”. 
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, § 9.2.a.(2).
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) prohibits the act of perfidy and states that “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of such an act. 
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.(1).(d) and 5.3.c.
The manual also states that it is a war crime to make “[deliberate] misuse of … recognised protective emblems ([an] act of perfidy), causing death or seriously endangering physical health or integrity”. 
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, § 9.2.a.(2).(b).
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) emphasizes that, pursuant to Article 37 of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, “the feigning of protected … status … of a member of the armed forces … of the United Nations” constitutes perfidious conduct. 
Sweden, International Humanitarian Law in Armed Conflict, with reference to the Swedish Total Defence System, Swedish Ministry of Defence, January 1991, Section 3.2.1.1.b, p. 29.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) considers the “perfidious use of … distinctive signs recognized by the [1949 Geneva] Conventions or [the 1977 Additional Protocol I], in violation of Article 37 [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”, as a grave breach of the 1977 Additional Protocol I. 
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Article 193(1)(f).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
15.2 Prohibited methods of warfare
224 Wearing enemy uniforms or feigning protected status by using the insignia, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations or of neutral States or States that are not party to the conflict is prohibited. 
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, § 224.
Ukraine
Ukraine’s IHL Manual (2004) states that an example of perfidy is “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations”. 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.2.44.
The manual further states: “Perfidious use of distinctive emblems (insignia or signals) of persons and objects protected by the laws of war shall constitute serious [violations of international humanitarian law].” 
Ukraine, Manual on the Application of IHL Rules, Ministry of Defence, 11 September 2004, § 1.8.7.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
According to the UK LOAC Manual (2004), “the feigning of protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an example of prohibited perfidy, “if done with intent to betray the enemy’s confidence”. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 5.9.2.
In its chapter on maritime warfare, the manual states that launching an attack while feigning protected United Nations status is an example of perfidy. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 13.83.
In its chapter on the application of the law of armed conflict during peace-support operations, the manual states:
The parties to an armed conflict are prohibited to make use of the emblem of the United Nations except as authorized by the United Nations. In addition, it is prohibited to kill, injure or capture an adversary by feigning protected status by the use of signs, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations and to do so constitutes the war crime of perfidy. 
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 14.13.
United States of America
The US Manual for Military Commissions (2010), Part IV, Crimes and Elements, states: “One may commit an act of treachery or perfidy by, for example … feigning a protective status by the use of signs, emblems, or uniforms of the United Nations”. 
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(17)(c)(4), p. IV-15.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia’s Military Manual (1988) states that feigning protected status by using UN symbols, emblems, signs or uniforms is an act of perfidy. 
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, § 104(3).
Australia
Australia’s Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 2002, provides: “A person who, in Australia or elsewhere, commits a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Australia, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 2002, Section 7(1).
The grave breaches provisions in this Act were removed in 2002 and incorporated into the Criminal Code Act (1995).
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including “improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the United Nations … [when] the perpetrator’s conduct results in death or serious personal injury”, in international armed conflicts. 
Australia, ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act, 2002, Schedule 1, § 268.43.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “the misuse of … the flag, the sign or clothes of the United Nations, … which as a result caused death or serious injury to body of a victim” constitutes a war crime in international and non-international armed conflicts. 
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 119(2).
Canada
Canada’s Geneva Conventions Act (1985), as amended in 2007, provides: “Every person who, whether within or outside Canada, commits a grave breach [of the 1977 Additional Protocol I] … is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
Canada, Geneva Conventions Act, 1985, as amended in 2007, Section 3(1).
Canada
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).
Chad
Chad’s Emblem Law (2014) states:
Any person who, intentionally, in time of war, commits or gives the order to commit acts resulting in the death of or causing serious harm to the body or health of an adversary by making perfidious use of the emblem of the red cross or red crescent or a distinctive signal, commits a war crime and is punished by forced labour.
Perfidious use means improperly using the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or other protective signs recognized by international humanitarian law, or improperly using the badge of a parlementaire, the flag or military insignia and uniform of the enemy, or of the United Nations, and by doing so, causing the loss of human lives or serious injuries. 
Chad, Emblem Law, 2014, Article 11.
Colombia
Colombia’s Penal Code (2000), in an article entitled “Perfidy”, imposes a criminal sanction on “anyone who, during an armed conflict, with intent to harm or attack the adversary, … uses improperly … the flag of the United Nations or of other intergovernmental organizations”. 
Colombia, Penal Code, 2000, Article 143.
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.
Cook Islands
The Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act (2002) of the Cook Islands punishes “any person who in the Cook Islands or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Cook Islands, Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols Act, 2002, Section 5(1).
Cyprus
Cyprus’s Additional Protocol I Act (1979) punishes:
any person who, whatever his nationality, commits in the Republic or outside the Republic any grave breach of the provisions of the Protocol, or takes part or assists or incites another person in the commission of such a breach. 
Cyprus, Additional Protocol I Act, 1979, Section 4(1).
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 abuse any “protective device recognized in public international law, … with intent to prepare or to commit hostile acts”. 
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 294(b).
Ethiopia’s Criminal Code (2004) states:
Article 282.- Abuse of Emblems and Insignia of International Humanitarian Organizations.
Whoever intentionally:
(b) abuses … any … protective device recognized in public international law … with intent to prepare or to commit hostile acts,
is punishable with simple imprisonment, or, in cases of exceptional gravity, with rigorous imprisonment not exceeding five years. 
Ethiopia, Criminal Code, 2004, Article 282.
The Criminal Code of 2004 repealed Ethiopia’s Penal Code of 1957.
France
France’s Penal Code (1992), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes related to international armed conflict: “Making improper use … of the flag or of the military insignia and uniform … of the United Nations … and thereby causing serious bodily harm to a combatant from the adverse party is a punishable offence.” 
France, Penal Code, 1992, as amended in 2010, Article 461-29.
Georgia
Under Georgia’s Criminal Code (1999), “the perfidious use of … protective signs and signals recognized by international humanitarian law” in an international or non-international armed conflict is a crime. 
Georgia, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 411(1)(f).
Germany
Germany’s Law Introducing the International Crimes Code (2002) punishes anyone who, in connection with an international or non-international armed conflict, “makes improper use … of the flag … or of the uniform … of the United Nations, thereby causing a person’s death or serious injury”. 
Germany, Law Introducing the International Crimes Code, 2002, Article 1, § 10(2).
Ireland
Ireland’s Geneva Conventions Act (1962), as amended in 1998, provides that grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I are punishable offences. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 3(1).
It adds that any “minor breach” of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, including violations of Article 37(1), is also a punishable offence. 
Ireland, Geneva Conventions Act, 1962, as amended in 1998, Section 4(1) and (4).
Jordan
Jordan’s Military Penal Code (2002) states that the following shall be deemed a war crime when committed in the event of armed conflict: “Making perfidious use of … any … protective emblems”. 
Jordan, Military Penal Code, 2002, Article 41(a)(14).
Lithuania
Lithuania’s Criminal Code (1961), as amended in 1998, considers that the improper use of emblems of international organizations is a war crime. 
Lithuania, Criminal Code, 1961, as amended in 1998, Article 344.
Mali
Under Mali’s Penal Code (2001), “using … the flag or military insignia or uniform … of the United Nations Organization, … and thereby, causing loss of human lives or serious injuries” is a war crime in international armed conflicts. 
Mali, Penal Code, 2001, Article 31(i)(7).
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Geneva Conventions Act (1958), as amended in 1987, provides: “Any person who in New Zealand or elsewhere commits, or aids or abets or procures the commission by another person of, a grave breach … of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] is guilty of an indictable offence.” 
New Zealand, Geneva Conventions Act, 1958, as amended in 1987, Section 3(1).
New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(b)(vii) 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).
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 ten and not more than twenty years if, in a state of emergency and when the Armed Forces assume control of the internal order, he or she improperly uses … the flag … of the United Nations with the result set out in Article 33, paragraphs 16 and 17 [of the present code, namely causing serious injury or death]. 
Peru, Military and Police Criminal Code, 2010, Article 96.
Sierra Leone
Sierra Leone’s Geneva Conventions Act (2012) states:
2. Grave breaches of the [1949 Geneva] Conventions and the [1977] First [Additional] Protocol
(1) A person of whatever nationality commits an offence if that person, whether within or outside Sierra Leone[,] commits, aids, abets or procures any other person to commit a grave breach specified in –
(e) … paragraph … 3 … of Article 85 of the First Protocol [on, inter alia, the grave breach of the perfidious use, in violation of Article 37 of the Protocol, of the distinctive emblem of the red cross, red crescent or red lion and sun or of other protective signs recognized by the Conventions or the Protocol]. 
Sierra Leone, Geneva Conventions Act, 2012, Section 2(1)(e).
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in international armed conflicts: “making improper use of a flag, insignia or uniform of the United Nations … resulting in death or serious personal injury”. 
South Africa, ICC Act, 2002, Schedule 1, Part 3, § (b)(vii).
Spain
Spain’s Royal Ordinance for the Armed Forces (1978) states: “The combatant … shall not display treacherously the flag … of international organizations.” 
Spain, Royal Ordinance for the Armed Forces, 1978, Article 138.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who, during an armed conflict … uses … in a perfidious manner the flag, uniform, insignia or distinctive emblem … of the United Nations”. 
Spain, Penal Code, 1995 Article 612(5).
Sweden
Under Sweden’s Penal Code (1962), as amended in 1998, the misuse of the insignia of the UN or “the killing or injuring of an opponent by means of some other form of treacherous behaviour” constitutes a crime against international law. 
Sweden, Penal Code, 1962, as amended in 1998, Chapter 22, § 6(2).
(emphasis added)
Tajikistan
Tajikistan’s Criminal Code (1998) punishes “the perfidious use of … protective signs and signals recognized by international humanitarian law” in an international or internal armed conflict. 
Tajikistan, Criminal Code, 1998, Article 403(1).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Geneva Conventions Act (1957), as amended in 1995, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside the United Kingdom, commits, or aids, abets or procures the commission by any other person of, a grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
United Kingdom, Geneva Conventions Act, 1957, as amended in 1995, Section 1(1).
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)(vii) 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).
Yemen
Under Yemen’s Military Criminal Code (1998), the “perfidious use of … international protective emblems provided for in international conventions” is a war crime. 
Yemen, Military Criminal Code, 1998, Article 21(5).
Zimbabwe
Zimbabwe’s Geneva Conventions Act (1981), as amended in 1997, punishes “any person, whatever his nationality, who, whether in or outside Zimbabwe, commits any such grave breach of … [the 1977 Additional Protocol I]”. 
Zimbabwe, Geneva Conventions Act, 1981, as amended in 1997, Section 3(1).
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.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s ABC of International Humanitarian Law (2009) states:
Perfidy
International humanitarian law prohibits killing, injuring or capturing an adversary by resorting to perfidy. Acts of perfidy include any form of deception designed to win the confidence of an adversary and lead him to believe that he is entitled or obliged to accord protection under the rules of international humanitarian law, with the intention of betraying that confidence. An example of perfidy is to falsely lay claim to protected status through the misuse of signs or emblems[.] 
Switzerland, Federal Department of Foreign Affairs, ABC of International Humanitarian Law, 2009, p. 34.
Switzerland
In 2010, in its Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, Switzerland’s Federal Council stated:
3.3 Increasing use of guerrilla tactics…
International humanitarian law in force treats these cases in a relatively complete manner, binding non-State and State actors alike. Feigning to have protected civilian status or another protected status (e.g. … member of the UN) in order to kill, injure or capture an adversary constitutes an act of perfidy contrary to international law. 
Switzerland, Federal Council, Report on IHL and Current Armed Conflicts, 17 September 2010, Section 3.3, p. 12.
[footnotes in original omitted]
UN Security Council
In a resolution adopted in 2007 on reports of the Secretary-General on the Sudan, the UN Security Council demanded that “there should be no aerial bombings and the use of United Nations markings on aircraft used in such attacks”. 
UN Security Council, Res. 1779, 28 September 2007, preamble, voting record: 15-0-0.
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992)
In 1994, in its final report on grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and other violations of IHL committed in the former Yugoslavia, the UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992) stated:
If it can be established that named individuals in the [Bosnian Serb army] used or authorized the use of vehicles which carried UN markings, this could be viewed as perfidious conduct and, if persons were killed or wounded as a result of this action, a grave breach of [the 1977 Additional Protocol I] could be established. 
UN Commission of Experts Established pursuant to Security Council Resolution 780 (1992), Final report, Annex VI.B, UN Doc. S/1994/674/Add.2 (Vol. III), 28 December 1994, § 85.
No data.
Diplomatic Conference on the Reaffirmation and Development of International Humanitarian Law Applicable in Armed Conflicts
At the CDDH, Committee III reported:
The misuse of United Nations signs, emblems or uniforms would be perfidious in cases where the United Nations and its personnel enjoyed a neutral protected status, but not, of course, in situations where the United Nations forces were involved as combatants in a conflict. 
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/III/236/Rev.1, 21 April-11 June 1976, p. 382, § 18.
No data.
ICRC
The ICRC Commentary on the Additional Protocols states:
The perfidious use … of emblems, signs, signals or uniforms referred to in Article 37 … of the Protocol [among which the UN emblem], for the purpose of killing, wounding or capturing an adversary, constitutes a grave breach under [Article 85(3)(f) of the 1977 Additional Protocol I]. 
Yves Sandoz et al. (eds.), Commentary on the Additional Protocols, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 3499.
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “to pretend having protected status by the use of flags, emblems or uniforms of the United Nations” is an act of perfidy. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 409(e).
Delegates also teach that “the perfidious use of the … distinctive signs marking specifically protected persons and objects … [and of] other protected signs recognized by the law of war” constitutes a grave breach of the law of war. 
Frédéric de Mulinen, Handbook on the Law of War for Armed Forces, ICRC, Geneva, 1987, § 779(a) and (b).
ICRC
In a working paper on war crimes submitted in 1997 to the Preparatory Committee for the Establishment of an International Criminal Court, the ICRC included “the perfidious use of the … protective signs and signals recognized by international humanitarian law”, when committed in an international armed conflict, in its list of war crimes to be 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, § 1(b)(vi).
No data.