Section B. Evacuation of the civilian population
Note: For practice concerning the removal of civilians from the vicinity of military objectives, see Rule 24. For practice concerning the establishment of hospital and safety zones, see Rule 35. For practice concerning the evacuation of children, see Rule 135, Section C.
Geneva Convention IV
Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Parties to the conflict shall endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons … and maternity cases.”
Geneva Convention IV
Article 49, second paragraph, of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV provides: “The Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.”
Additional Protocol II
Article 17(1) of the 1977 Additional Protocol II provides: “The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.”
ICC Statute
Pursuant to Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute, “[o]rdering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand” constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts.
Kampala Convention
The 2009 Kampala Convention prohibits displacement of civilians in situations of armed conflict “unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand, in accordance with international humanitarian law”.
Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement
The 1998 Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement provides:
Principle 6
…
2. The prohibition of arbitrary displacement includes displacement:
…
(b) in situations of armed conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand;
…
Principle 7
1. Prior to any decision requiring the displacement of persons, the authorities concerned shall ensure that all feasible alternatives are explored in order to avoid displacement altogether. Where no alternatives exist, all measures shall be taken to minimize displacement and its adverse effects.
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)(e)(viii), “[o]rdering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”, constitutes a war crime in non-international armed conflicts.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1969) provides: “The belligerents shall endeavour to conclude agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, elderly [and] maternity cases.”
The manual further states:
Nevertheless, the occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. Evacuations may involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory only in case of material impossibility.
Argentina
Argentina’s Law of War Manual (1989) provides that, with respect to non-international armed conflicts, “displacement of the population shall not be ordered unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand”.
Australia
Australia’s Commanders’ Guide (1994) provides: “Belligerents shall endeavour to conclude local arrangements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm and aged persons … and maternity cases.”
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states that, in the context of siege warfare:
The opposing parties are required to try and conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm and aged persons, children and maternity cases, and for the passage of ministers of all religions, medical personnel and medical equipment on their way to such areas.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Brazil
Brazil’s Operations Manual for the Evacuation of Non-Combatants (2007) states:
1.2.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations are conducted by the Ministry of Defence, upon request by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the evacuation of non-combatants whose lives are in danger, from their host country to a safe place of destination …
…
3.1.2 … [A] Non-Combatant Evacuation Operation shall aim to achieve the following objectives:
a) to provide security and welfare by carrying out an evacuation to a safe place of destination;
b) to reduce to a minimum the number of citizens whose lives are at risk or who may be taken as hostages; and
c) to reduce to a minimum the number of citizens [who are present] in current or probable areas of combat.
…
3.4.1 Non-Combatant Evacuation Operations … may be triggered by sudden changes in the government of the host country, changes in its political or military orientation with regard to Brazil, or hostile threats to Brazilian citizens by internal or external forces in that country.
…
7.4.1 In case the Ministry of Foreign Affairs does not state who is to be evacuated with priority, the Joint Command shall follow this guidance:
…
b) the table below sets out who shall be evacuated with priority.
…
Main Categories
I – Brazilian citizens.
II – Non-Brazilians who are close relatives of Brazilian citizens.
III – Non-Brazilians working for the Brazilian government.
IV – Non-Brazilians who are seriously sick or wounded, or whose lives are in imminent danger.
V – Others (as indicated by the Ambassador or the Commander of the Joint Command).
Secondary Categories
A – Pregnant women.
B – Unaccompanied children (under 12 years of age).
C – The elderly (over 65 years of age).
D – Adults with children.
E – Adolescents (from 12 to 17 years of age).
F – Adults.
…
7.5.1 The safe place of destination is the place designated by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs where the evacuated persons shall be taken by the end of the Non-Combatant Evacuation. It shall preferably be situated in Brazil.
The Operations Manual defines non-combatants as an “expression covering civilians and military [personnel], including non-essential military personnel, Brazilians, selected nationals of the host country and nationals of third countries who are to be evacuated in the execution of a Non-Combatant Evacuation.”
The Operations Manual also states: “According to the policy of the Ministry of Defence, the principles of the Law of Armed Conflict regulate the actions taken by the Joint Command in the defence of its personnel, property and equipment.”
Burundi
Burundi’s Regulations on International Humanitarian Law (2007) states that “the Occupying Power has the following obligations: … to refrain from evacuating protected persons … of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible” to avoid such displacement.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Instructor’s Manual (1992) provides: “Civilian populations must be evacuated to the non combat zones.”
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (1999) provides:
If circumstances permit, the parties to a conflict must endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons … and maternity cases.
The manual also states that in occupied territory, “permissible measures of population control include … evacuation”.
With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand.”
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter on land warfare:
If circumstances permit, the parties to a conflict must endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged areas of wounded, sick, infirm, and aged persons, children and maternity cases.
In its chapter on rights and duties of occupying powers, the manual states:
1223. Control of Persons in Occupied Territory
…
2. Permissible measures of population control include:
…
b. evacuation.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflicts, the manual states:
It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand. If they do have to be displaced, arrangements must be made, if possible, for their shelter, hygiene, health, safety and nutrition.
Côte d’Ivoire
Côte d’Ivoire’s Teaching Manual (2007) provides in Book III, Volume 1 (Instruction of first-year trainee officers):
IV.3.3. Total or partial evacuation of the civilian population
With respect to evacuations, additional limitations apply in occupied territory. The occupying power can decide to evacuate totally or partially a given zone if the security of the population or imperative military necessity so demand. This not only applies in situations of siege, but also in any situation which can arise in occupied territory. These evacuations should not demand displacements beyond the boundaries of the occupied territory, except if for material reasons such displacement is impossible to avoid. Persons evacuated in this manner must be transferred back to their homes as soon as the hostilities in the zone concerned cease.
Croatia
Croatia’s LOAC Compendium (1991) allows “evacuation for security reasons”, but “not outside the boundaries of the occupied territory”.
Dominican Republic
The Dominican Republic’s Military Manual (1980) provides: “It is lawful to displace or resettle civilians if it is urgently required for military reasons, such as clearing a combat zone.”
France
France’s LOAC Manual (2001) provides: “Some evacuations can be imposed for reasons of security of the population or imperative military necessity. These evacuations must always be temporary and undertaken respecting the population’s interests.”
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
A temporary evacuation of certain areas shall be permissible if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand. An evacuation of persons to areas outside the bounds of the occupied territory shall be permitted only in case of emergency.
Hungary
Hungary’s Military Manual (1992) allows “evacuation for security reasons”, but “not outside the boundaries of the occupied territory”.
Ireland
Ireland’s Basic LOAC Guide (2005) states:
[T]he civilian population may not be compelled to remain in a dangerous military area except where they would meet a greater danger by moving elsewhere; or a move cannot be allowed because it would interfere seriously with military operations (e.g. there are urgent military reasons for keeping the roads open). … Additionally, civilians may be temporarily evacuated for imperative military reasons or their own safety if the evacuation can be safely done.
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Laws of War (1998) provides: “It is obligatory to make an effort to evacuate citizens from military objectives to get them out of harm’s way.”
Israel
Israel’s Manual on the Rules of Warfare (2006) states: “Civilians must be removed from military targets so that they will not be harmed.”
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 possible to undertake “total or partial evacuation of a given area of the occupied territory if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand”.
Kenya
Kenya’s LOAC Manual (1997) provides: “A local cease-fire may be arranged for the removal from the besieged or encircled areas of the wounded and sick, … old persons and maternity cases. Evacuation can also be ordered for military reasons or for the security of the population.”
Madagascar
Madagascar’s Military Manual (1994) provides: “Local agreements may be concluded for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick and shipwrecked.”
Mexico
Mexico’s Army and Air Force Manual (2009), in a section on the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, states: “This Convention includes provisions for the parties to a conflict to make local agreements for the evacuation of wounded, sick, disabled and elderly people … from besieged or encircled areas”.
Netherlands
The Military Manual (1993) of the Netherlands provides: “The occupying power may undertake the evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.”
With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “Forced displacement … is only authorized if the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.”
Netherlands
The Military Manual (2005) of the Netherlands states that “the occupier may evacuate an area if the security of the population or compelling military reasons so require”.
In its chapter on non-international armed conflict, the manual states:
In principle, forced displacement of civilians (the civilian population) is prohibited. It is permitted only if the safety of the affected civilians or compelling military reasons dictate. Civilians may not be forced to leave their locality for reasons relating to internal armed conflict. Although it is permitted temporarily to evacuate civilians, it is prohibited to move them for reasons relating to race, skin colour, religion or belief, gender, birth or social status or any other such criterion.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides that in occupied territory, “permissible measures of population control include … evacuation”.
With respect to non-international armed conflicts in particular, the manual states: “It is forbidden to displace the civilian population for reasons connected with the conflict, unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand.”
The manual refers to Article 17 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV, which requires that “belligerents endeavour to conclude local agreements for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of wounded, sick, infirm and aged persons … and maternity cases”.
Peru
Peru’s IHL Manual (2004) states:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.
Persons thus evacuated must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The manual also states that war crimes include the “unlawful deportation or transfer of a protected person”.
The manual further states: “The occupying power must not detain the inhabitants of the occupied territory in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war, unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.”
Peru
Peru’s IHL and Human Rights Manual (2010) states:
Individual or mass forcible transfers, as well as deportations of protected persons from occupied territory to the territory of the occupying power or to that of any other country, occupied or not, are prohibited, regardless of their motive.
Nevertheless, the Occupying Power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.
Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.
Persons thus evacuated must be transferred back to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area in question have ceased.
The manual also states that war crimes include the “unlawful deportation or transfer of a protected person”.
The manual further states: “The occupying power must not detain the inhabitants of the occupied territory in an area particularly exposed to the dangers of war, unless the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.”
Philippines
The Military Directive to Commanders (1988) of the Philippines provides: “Emphasis should be placed on shelter or stay-put policy rather than on evacuation … Official orders to move large groups of civilians normally will be given where serious combat action is expected to occur between troops and hostile forces.”
Philippines
The Philippines’ AFP Standing Rules of Engagement (2005) states:
8. General Rules for the Correct Use of Force towards Mission Accomplishment
…
d. Commanders must be aware of, and sensitive to, the points stated in the definition of strategic implications of tactical operations. In particular, military operations shall be conducted in a manner that shall entail:
…
2) Minimum evacuation from homes and/or areas of food production.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states:
Deportation of the civilian population from the occupied territory to the territory of another state shall be prohibited. Temporary evacuation of civilians deep into the occupied territory may be permitted if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand, except for cases when this is not possible.
With regard to internal armed conflict, the Regulations states: “The displacement of the civilian population shall not be ordered for reasons related to the conflict unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.”
South Africa
South Africa’s LOAC Teaching Manual (2008) states:
Establishment and Protection of Protected Zones
…
Co-operation with Civilian Authorities. Belligerent Parties have a duty to cooperate with civilian authorities to aim at ensuring the survival of the civilian population with the least possible civilian casualties and damage, e.g. by taking safeguarding measures in favour of the population such as warning, provision of shelter, evacuation, information on dangerous areas, etc.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (1996) provides: “The occupying Power can undertake a total or partial evacuation of a given occupied area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand.”
The manual adds:
Evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.
Spain
Spain’s LOAC Manual (2007) states:
The occupying power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or imperative military reasons requires such action.
Such evacuations may not involve the displacement of protected persons outside the bounds of the occupied territory except when for material reasons it is impossible to avoid such displacement.
Sweden
Sweden’s IHL Manual (1991) provides:
The only circumstances under which the occupying power has the right to order removal of the civilian population is when evacuation is required to protect civilians from military attack, or when civilian safety otherwise requires this.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) provides: “Belligerents shall conclude special agreements in order to evacuate the wounded, sick, infirm, elderly … and maternity cases … from besieged areas.”
The manual states, however:
A total or partial evacuation of a given occupied area may be undertaken if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so demand … In principle, such transfers must only take place within the occupied territory.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) provides:
The Occupant … is permitted to undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area, but only if the security of the population or imperative military reasons so require. Except when any other course is materially impossible, such evacuation must not involve the transfer of protected persons outside the limits of occupied territory.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Pamphlet (1981) provides:
A local cease-fire may be arranged for the removal from besieged or encircled areas of the wounded and sick, … old persons and maternity cases. Evacuations can also be ordered for military reasons or for the security of the population.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states in its chapter on occupied territory:
11.55. The occupying power is forbidden to transfer forcibly or deport protected persons from an occupied country either to its own territory or to that of any other state … An area may be totally or partially evacuated by the occupying power if:
a. such evacuation is required either for the security of the population or for reasons of imperative military necessity; and
b. protected persons are not moved outside occupied territory, unless there is no alternative; and
c. the evacuees are returned to their homes as soon as hostilities in the area have ceased; and
d. to the greatest extent practicable:
(1) proper accommodation is provided, and
(2) movement takes place under satisfactory conditions of hygiene, health, safety and nutrition, and
(3) members of the same family are not separated; and
e. the protecting power is informed of transfers and evacuations as soon as they have taken place.
11.55.1. Unlawful deportation or transfer is a grave breach of the [1949 Fourth Geneva] Convention.
In its chapter on internal armed conflict, the manual states:
15.14. It is prohibited to order the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.
5.14.1. It may be necessary to evacuate civilians temporarily from areas of danger, from encircled areas or for the better conduct of military operations. It is prohibited to move them for reasons based on race, colour, religion or faith, sex, birth or wealth or any similar criteria or in order to shield military targets from attack.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) reproduces Articles 17 and 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) refers to Articles 17 and 49 of the 1949 Geneva Convention IV.
United States of America
The US Soldier’s Manual (1984) provides: “It is lawful to move or resettle civilians if it is urgently required for military reasons, such as clearing a combat zone.”
Argentina
Argentina’s Constitution (1994), as well as a number of decrees issued between 1974 and 1977, authorize the President, in cases where a state of emergency has been declared, to arrest and transfer persons from one part of the territory to another, unless such persons choose instead to leave the country. In some cases, however, the option to leave the country may be suspended by invoking the need to safeguard essential State interests.
Australia
Australia’s ICC (Consequential Amendments) Act (2002) incorporates in the Criminal Code the war crimes defined in the 1998 ICC Statute, including ordering the “displacement of a civilian population” in non-international armed conflicts, if “the order is not justified by the security of the civilians involved or by imperative military necessity”.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Law concerning the Protection of Civilian Persons and the Rights of Prisoners of War (1995) provides that, in international and non-international armed conflicts, “urgent measures to remove all the civilian persons from the besieged zone” must be taken.
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:
…
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:
…
8°. Ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand.
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.
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.
Cuba
Cuba’s National Defence Act (1994), which governs civil defence activities for the protection of the civilian population, provides for the evacuation of the population to zones of safety.
Denmark
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (1973), as amended in 1978, provides:
Any person who uses war instruments or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or the general rules of international law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. a fine, lenient imprisonment or up to 12 years’ imprisonment].
Denmark’s Military Criminal Code (2005) provides:
Any person who deliberately uses war means [“krigsmiddel”] or procedures the application of which violates an international agreement entered into by Denmark or international customary law, shall be liable to the same penalty [i.e. imprisonment up to life imprisonment].
France
France’s Penal Code (1992), as amended in 2010, states in its section on war crimes related to non-international armed conflict: “Unless the security of the civilians or imperative military reasons so demand, ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict is punishable by life imprisonment.”
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 78(1), as well as any “contravention” of the 1977 Additional Protocol II, including violations of Article 17(1), are punishable offences.
Netherlands
The Population Evacuation Act (1988) of the Netherlands provides that in the event of war or threat of war, a Royal Decree may be issued entitling government ministers to order the evacuation of the population in order to ensure its safety, ensure the continued functioning of society or to enable the armed forces to perform their tasks.
New Zealand
Under New Zealand’s International Crimes and ICC Act (2000), war crimes include the crimes defined in Article 8(2)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
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.
Peru
Peru’s Constitution (1993) authorizes the restriction or suspension of,
inter alia, freedom of movement during “states of emergency” (cases of disturbance of the peace or internal order, of disasters, or serious circumstances affecting the life of the nation), but banishment remains prohibited at all times. During “states of siege” (cases of invasion, external war, civil war or imminent danger), on the other hand, fundamental rights cannot be suspended.
Rwanda
The Report on the Practice of Rwanda states that Rwanda’s State of Emergency Decree (1959) provides that the authorities may order the evacuation of the civilian population for security reasons and fix the modalities of their evacuation.
South Africa
South Africa’s ICC Act (2002) reproduces the war crimes listed in the 1998 ICC Statute, including in non-international armed conflicts: “ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or imperative military reasons so demand”.
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)(e)(viii) of the 1998 ICC Statute.
Uruguay
Uruguay’s Constitution (1996), as amended, provides that the President of the Republic may take prompt security measures in serious and unforeseen cases of foreign attack or internal disturbance, including the transfer of persons from one point of the territory to another, unless they choose to leave the country.
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.”
Bosnia and Herzegovina
In June 1992, the Presidency of the Republika Srpska of Bosnia and Herzegovina appealed that the civilian population be displaced only if imperative military or security reasons so demanded.
Germany
In 2005, in its Seventh Human Rights Policy Report submitted to the Bundestag (Lower House of Parliament), Germany’s Federal Government stated:
With the 1998 guidelines on the handling of crises related to internally displaced persons (“Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement”) by the then Representative of the UN Secretary-General on the Human Rights of Internally Displaced Persons, Francis Deng, the international community has a practice-oriented document, which summarizes existing standards on the protection of internally displaced persons and gives further recommendations. Although these guiding principles are not a binding instrument under international law, their acceptance by States, international organizations and NGOs has continued to grow over the past years, so that now they are virtually regarded as customary international law.
India
In 2009, in a statement during a debate in the Lower House of Parliament (Lok Sabha) on the situation in Sri Lanka, India’s Minister of External Affairs and Minister of Finance stated:
A serious source of concern to us has been the condition of the civilians and internally displaced persons (IDPs), mostly Tamil, caught up in the zone of conflict. Estimates on the number of civilians trapped vary, but 70,000 or so are estimated to be there now. …
…
The Government of India is ready to facilitate the evacuation of civilians trapped in the area of conflict, working with the Government of Sri Lanka and the ICRC who would take responsibility for the security, screening and rehabilitation of these internally displaced persons.
Malaysia
It has been reported that during the communist insurgency in Malaysia, squatters of Chinese origin who farmed the land on the edge of the jungle were resettled to areas called “New Villages”.
According to the Report on the Practice of Malaysia, this was done both for security objectives and for the protection of the squatters and has been recognized by officials as a form of displacement.
Turkey
Under Turkish emergency decrees dating from 1990, the Emergency Governor can order the temporary or permanent evacuation, change of place, regrouping of villages, grazing fields and residential areas for reasons of public security.
UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights (Special Rapporteur)
In 1997, in his final report submitted to the UN Sub-Commission on Human Rights, the Special Rapporteur on the Human Rights Dimensions of Population Transfer, including the Implantation of Settlers and Settlements proposed a draft declaration on population transfer and the implantation of settlers for adoption by the UN Commission on Human Rights. Article 4(3) of the draft declaration provided: “The displacement of the population or parts thereof shall not be ordered, induced or carried out unless their safety or imperative military reasons so demand.”
European Parliament
In a resolution adopted in 1985 in response to mass transfers of the population in Ethiopia, the European Parliament invited the Commission, the Council and member States to ask Ethiopia to put a stop to the transfers for a minimum of six months in order to assess under international supervision the degree of necessity for such actions and to establish minimum humanitarian conditions for their conduct should they prove necessary.
No data.
Human Rights Committee
In its concluding observations on the consolidated second and third periodic reports of the Philippines in 2003, the Human Rights Committee stated:
The Committee is concerned at continuing reports of displacement of persons and evacuation of populations, including indigenous population groups, in areas of counterinsurgency operations.
The State party should take urgent measures to ensure the protection of civilians in areas affected by military operations, in accordance with its human rights obligations.
[emphasis in original]
ICRC
To fulfil its task of disseminating IHL, the ICRC has delegates around the world teaching armed and security forces that “the occupying power may undertake total or partial evacuation of a given area if the security of the population or other imperative reasons so demand”.
Council of Delegates (1991)
At its Budapest Session in 1991, the Council of Delegates adopted a resolution on the protection of the civilian population against famine in situations of armed conflict in which it reminded “the authorities concerned and the armed forces under their command of their obligation to apply international humanitarian law, in particular … the prohibition on displacing civilians unless their security or imperative military reasons so demand”.
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, emphasizing the customary law nature of the grave breaches of the 1949 Geneva Conventions and of most of the grave breaches of the 1977 Additional Protocol I, considered that ordering the displacement of the civilian population for reasons related to the conflict, unless the security of the civilians involved or military reasons so demanded, was a serious violation of international law applicable in non-international armed conflicts and a war crime.
Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards
The Turku Declaration of Minimum Humanitarian Standards, adopted by an expert meeting convened by the Institute for Human Rights of Åbo Akademi University in Turku/Åbo, Finland in 1990, states that “the displacement of the population or parts thereof shall not be ordered unless their safety or imperative security reasons so demand”.