Practice Relating to Rule 64. Conclusion of an Agreement to Suspend Combat with the Intention of Attacking by Surprise the Adversary Relying on It
Additional Protocol II (draft)
Article 21(1) of the draft Additional Protocol II submitted by the ICRC to the CDDH provided that “when carried out in order to commit or resume hostilities, … the feigning of a cease-fire” was considered as perfidy.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. I, Part Three, Draft Additional Protocols, June 1973, p. 39.
However, this proposal was deleted from draft Article 21 adopted in Committee III of the CDDH.
CDDH, Official Records, Vol. XV, CDDH/407/Rev.1, 17 March–10 June 1977, p. 502.
Lieber Code
Article 15 of the 1863 Lieber Code states:
Military necessity admits … of such deception as does not involve the breaking of good faith either positively pledged, regarding agreements entered into during the war, or supposed by the modern law of war to exist. Men who take up arms against one another in public war do not cease on this account to be moral beings, responsible to one another and to God.
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 15.
Australia
Australia’s LOAC Manual (2006) states: “To demand a cease-fire and then to break it by surprise, or to violate a safe conduct or any other agreement, in order to kill, wound or capture enemy troops would be perfidious.”
Australia, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Australian Defence Doctrine Publication 06.4, Australian Defence Headquarters, 11 May 2006, § 7.4.
The LOAC Manual (2006) replaces both the Defence Force Manual (1994) and the Commanders’ Guide (1994).
Belgium
Belgium’s Law of War Manual (1983) states: “The denunciation of an armistice for doubtful motives in order to surprise the adversary without giving him the time to prepare could be considered as an act of perfidy.”
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. 42.
Burkina Faso
Burkina Faso’s Disciplinary Regulations (1994) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Burkina Faso, Règlement de Discipline Générale dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 94-159/IPRES/DEF, Ministère de la Défense, 1994, Article 35(2).
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Cameroon, Règlement de discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret No. 75/700, 6 November 1975, Article 32.
Cameroon
Cameroon’s Disciplinary Regulations (2007) states:
Article 32: Prohibitions
It is prohibited to soldiers in combat:
- to fire at, injure or kill an enemy who surrenders or who is captured or with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded.
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:
Any agreement made by belligerent commanders must be adhered to, and any breach of its conditions would involve international responsibility if ordered by a government, and personal liability, (which might amount to a war crime) if committed by an individual on his or her own authority …
Between combatants, the most common purpose of such agreements is to arrange for an armistice or truce, whether for a specific purpose or more generally.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Level, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 1999, p. 14-2, §§ 12 and 13.
Canada
Canada’s LOAC Manual (2001) states in its chapter entitled “Communications and contact between opposing forces”:
1. Any agreement made by belligerent commanders must be adhered to, and any breach of its conditions would involve international responsibility if ordered by a government, and personal liability, (which might amount to a war crime) if committed by an individual on his or her own authority. The terms of any agreement should be clear and precise and carefully explained to the troops affected by it. Whenever possible it should be reduced to writing.
2. Between combatants, the most common purpose of such agreements is to arrange for an armistice or truce, whether for a specific purpose or more generally.
Canada, The Law of Armed Conflict at the Operational and Tactical Levels, Office of the Judge Advocate General, 13 August 2001, § 1403.
Congo
The Congo’s Disciplinary Regulations (1986) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Congo, Décret No. 86/057 du 14 janvier 1986 portant Règlement du Service dans l’Armée Populaire Nationale, 1986, Article 32(2).
France
France’s Disciplinary Regulations (1975), as amended, provides that, under ratified international conventions, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
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).
Germany
Germany’s Military Manual (1992) gives as an example of an act of perfidy the conclusion of a “humanitarian agreement to suspend combat with the intention of attacking by surprise the enemy relying on it”.
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, § 472.
The manual also states: “During an armistice, it is … definitely forbidden to move the forces in contact with the enemy forward or to employ reconnaissance patrols.”
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, § 237.
Greece
The Hellenic Territorial Army’s Internal Service Code (1984), as amended, provides: “It is forbidden for members of the armed forces: … To maltreat, injure or kill the enemy … with whom a truce has been agreed.”
Greece, Hellenic Territorial Army Regulation of Internal Service Code, Presidential Decree 130/1984 (Military Regulation 20-1), as amended, Article 15(a).
Italy
Italy’s IHL Manual (1991) provides that in case of a violation of an armistice, the local commander can react as circumstances require. Only the supreme commander, with the consent of the government, can denounce an armistice or order the resumption of hostilities.
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, § 77.
Hostile acts committed by individuals on their own initiative are not considered as violations of the armistice agreement, but punishment and indemnity can be demanded.
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, § 79.
Mali
Mali’s Army Regulations (1979) states that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Mali, Règlement du Service dans l’Armée, 1ère Partie: Discipline Générale, Ministère de la Défense Nationale, 1979, Article 36.
Morocco
Morocco’s Disciplinary Regulations (1974) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
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 Handbook (1995) of the Netherlands provides that it is prohibited “to violate an agreement concluded with the adverse party (for example concerning a cease-fire to search for and collect the wounded and dead)”.
Netherlands, Handboek Militair, Ministerie van Defensie, 1995, p. 7-40.
New Zealand
New Zealand’s Military Manual (1992) provides:
Any agreement made by belligerent commanders must be scrupulously adhered to and a breach of its conditions would involve international responsibility and liability for compensation, if ordered by a government, or personal liability which might amount to a war crime, if committed by an individual on his own authority.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 407(1).
The manual also states:
In general, it is contrary to modern practice to attempt to obtain advantage of the enemy by deliberate lying, for instance, by declaring that an armistice has been agreed upon when in fact that is not the case.
New Zealand, Interim Law of Armed Conflict Manual, DM 112, New Zealand Defence Force, Headquarters, Directorate of Legal Services, Wellington, November 1992, § 502(3).
In addition, the manual states:
Violation of the terms of an armistice by an individual acting on his own initiative entitles the injured party to demand the punishment of the offender. If the party injured captures the offender, it may try him for 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(3).
Nigeria
Nigeria’s Manual on the Laws of War states that “informing the enemy that there is an armistice in order to make him leave his position” is an “illegitimate tactic”.
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 14.
IThe manual also states that “violation of surrender terms” is a war crime.
Nigeria, The Laws of War, by Lt. Col. L. Ode PSC, Nigerian Army, Lagos, undated, § 6.
Republic of Korea
Under the Republic of Korea’s Military Regulation 187 (1991), acts committed in violation of the terms of a capitulation agreement constitute a war crime.
Republic of Korea, Military Regulation 187, 1 January 1991, Article 4.2.
Russian Federation
The Russian Federation’s Regulations on the Application of IHL (2001) states: “The use of the armistice agreement to inflict destruction (to rout) the enemy is considered as perfidy.”
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, § 70.
Senegal
Senegal’s Disciplinary Regulations (1990) provides that, under the laws and customs of war, it is prohibited “to fire at, injure or kill an enemy … with whom a suspension of combat has been concluded”.
Senegal, Règlement de Discipline dans les Forces Armées, Décret 90-1159, 12 October 1990, Article 34(2).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Basic Military Manual (1987) states that the violation of an armistice is prohibited and the “carrying out of hostilities after the conclusion of an armistice or the violation of its provisions” are war crimes.
Switzerland, Lois et coutumes de la guerre (Extrait et commentaire), Règlement 51.7/II f, Armée Suisse, 1987, Articles 194(2) and 200(2)(g).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Regulation on Legal Bases for Conduct during an Engagement (2005) states:
17 Sanctions for violations of the international law of armed conflict
…
237 The following in particular are criminal offences: … violation of a ceasefire or peace [.]
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, § 237.
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK Military Manual (1958) states: “Good faith, as expressed in the observance of promises, is essential in war, for without it hostilities could not be terminated with any degree of safety short of the total destruction of one of the contending parties.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 308.
The manual also states: “In general, it is contrary to modern practice to attempt to obtain advantage of the enemy by deliberate lying, for instance, by declaring that an armistice has been agreed upon when in fact that is not the case.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 314.
The manual further specifies: “To demand a suspension of arms and then to break it by surprise, or to violate a safe conduct or any other agreement, in order to obtain an advantage, is an act of perfidy and as such forbidden”.
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 316.
The manual also provides: “It would be perfidy to denounce an armistice for a motive or under a pretext more or less specious and to surprise the enemy without giving him time to put himself on his guard.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 459.
Lastly, the manual states: “In addition to the ‘grave breaches’ of the 1949 [Geneva] Conventions, … the following are examples of punishable violations of the laws of war, or war crimes: … violation of surrender terms.”
United Kingdom, The Law of War on Land being Part III of the Manual of Military Law, The War Office, HMSO, 1958, § 626(n).
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland
The UK LOAC Manual (2004) states:
It would be perfidy to denounce an armistice for a specious motive or pretext and to surprise the adverse party without giving him time to put himself on his guard. On the other hand, the existence of an armistice is no reason for relaxing either vigilance or the readiness of troops for action, or for revealing positions to the enemy that he could not detect during combat.
United Kingdom, The Manual of the Law of Armed Conflict, Ministry of Defence, 1 July 2004, § 10.28.
United States of America
The US Field Manual (1956) provides: “To broadcast to the enemy that an armistice has been agreed upon when such is not the case would be treacherous.”
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, § 50.
The manual also states:
It would be an outrageous act of perfidy for either party, without warning, to resume hostilities during the period of an armistice, with or without a formal denunciation thereof, except in case of urgency and upon convincing proof of intentional and serious violation of its terms by the other party.
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, § 493.
The manual further states: “In addition to the ‘grave breaches’ of the Geneva Conventions of 1949, the following acts are representative of violations of the law of war (‘war crimes’): … violation of surrender terms.”
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, § 504(n).
United States of America
The US Air Force Pamphlet (1976) states that “the feigning of a cease-fire” is an example of perfidy.
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 8-3(a).
The Pamphlet adds: “A false broadcast to the enemy that an armistice has been agreed upon has been widely recognized to be treacherous. [This] language … expresses the customary and conventional law in this area.”
United States, Air Force Pamphlet 110-31, International Law – The Conduct of Armed Conflict and Air Operations, US Department of the Air Force, 1976, § 8-6(a).
United States of America
The US Instructor’s Guide (1985) provides that “in addition to the grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions, the following acts are further examples of war crimes: … violating surrender terms”.
United States, Instructor’s Guide – The Law of War, Headquarters Department of the Army, Washington, April 1985, pp. 13 and 14.
Argentina
Argentina’s Penal Code (1984) punishes any person “who violates treaties concluded with foreign nations, truces and armistice agreements between the Republic and an enemy power”.
Argentina, Penal Code, 1984, Article 220.
Argentina
Argentina’s Code of Military Justice (1951), as amended in 1984, punishes any soldier “who continues hostilities after having received the official notice that peace, a truce or an armistice has been concluded”.
Argentina, Code of Military Justice, 1951, as amended in 1984, Article 741.
Azerbaijan
Azerbaijan’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that “violations of temporary armistice agreements or agreements about the stopping of military actions with the aim of removing, exchanging or transporting the dead and wounded” constitute war crimes in international and non-international armed conflicts.
Azerbaijan, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 116(9).
Belarus
Belarus’s Criminal Code (1999) provides that any “violation of truces, agreements on the suspension of hostilities or local arrangements concluded for the removal, exchange or transport of the wounded and dead left on the battlefield” is a war crime.
Belarus, Criminal Code, 1999, Article 136(9).
Bolivia
Bolivia’s Penal Code (1972), as amended in 1997, provides that “anyone who violates treaties, truce or armistice concluded between the Nation and the enemy or between belligerent forces” commits a “crime against international law”.
Bolivia, Penal Code, 1972, as amended in 1997, Article 137.
Chile
Chile’s Code of Military Justice (1925) punishes “anyone who, without justification, continues hostilities after having received the official information that peace, armistice or truce has been agreed with the enemy, violates any of these agreements or a capitulation”.
Chile, Code of Military Justice, 1925, Article 260.
Costa Rica
Costa Rica’s Penal Code (1970), as amended in 2002, punishes any person “who violates the truce or armistice agreed with between the nation and an enemy country or belligerent forces”.
Costa Rica, Penal Code, 1970, as amended in 2002, Article 283.
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).
Ecuador
Ecuador’s National Civil Police Penal Code (1960) punishes the members of the National Civil Police “who breach or violate a treaty, truce or armistice”.
Ecuador, National Civil Police Penal Code, 1960, Article 117(6).
Ecuador
Ecuador’s Penal Code (1971) punishes “anyone who violates a truce or armistice concluded with the enemy, after it has been formally rendered public”.
Ecuador, Penal Code, 1971, Article 123.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Code of Military Justice (1934) punishes any “soldier who … violates a truce, armistice, capitulation or other agreement concluded with the enemy”.
El Salvador, Code of Military Justice, 1934, Article 67.
El Salvador
El Salvador’s Penal Code (1997), as amended to 2008, which contains a section on the violations of the laws or customs of war, states:
Anyone who violates treaties concluded with foreign States, truces or armistices agreed between El Salvador and an enemy State or between its warring factions, or a duly issued laissez-passer, will be sanctioned with one to three years of prison and a special disqualification from the exercise of his or her function or employment for the same length of time.
El Salvador, Penal Code, 1997, as amended to 2008, Article 359.
Ethiopia
Ethiopia’s Penal Code (1957) punishes “whosoever, having been officially informed of an armistice or peace treaty duly concluded, contrary to orders given continues hostilities, or in any other way knowingly infringes one of the agreed conditions”.
Ethiopia, Penal Code, 1957, Article 289.
Guatemala
Guatemala’s Penal Code (1973) punishes “anyone who violates a truce or armistice concluded between Guatemala and a foreign power or between their belligerent forces”.
Guatemala, Penal Code, 1973, Article 373.
Hungary
Under Hungary’s Criminal Code (1978), as amended in 1998, “the person who infringes the conditions of armistice” is guilty, upon conviction, of a war crime.
Hungary, Criminal Code, 1978, as amended in 1998, Section 162(1).
Italy
Italy’s Law of War Decree (1938), as amended in 1992, provides that in case of a violation of an armistice, the local commander can react as circumstances require. Only the supreme commander can denounce an armistice or order to resume hostilities.
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, as amended in 1992, Article 81.
Hostile acts committed by individuals on their own initiative are not considered as violations of the armistice agreement, but punishment and indemnity can be demanded.
Italy, Law of War Decree, 1938, Article 82.
Italy
Italy’s Wartime Military Penal Code (1941) punishes any commander who, without justification, commits hostile acts against the enemy during a truce or an armistice, except in case of necessity.
Italy, Wartime Military Penal Code, 1941, Article 170.
Mexico
Mexico’s Code of Military Justice (1933), as amended in 1996, punishes “anyone who, without justification … violates a truce, armistice, capitulation or other agreement concluded with the enemy, if, because of his conduct, hostilities are restarted”.
Mexico, Code of Military Justice, 1933, as amended in 1996, Article 208(II).
Netherlands
Under the Definition of War Crimes Decree (1946) of the Netherlands, the “commission, contrary to the conditions of a truce, of hostile acts or the incitement thereto” constitutes a war crime.
Netherlands, Definition of War Crimes Decree, 1946, Article 1.
Nicaragua
Nicaragua’s Military Penal Code (1996) punishes any “soldier who, without justification and after official notification, violates peace, armistice, truce or capitulation agreements”.
Nicaragua, Military Penal Code, 1996, Article 49.
Peru
Peru’s Code of Military Justice (1980) punishes any soldier who “violates an armistice, a truce, … a capitulation or any other legitimate agreement concluded with another nation, or prolongs the hostilities after having received official notice of peace, truce or armistice”.
Peru, Code of Military Justice, 1980, Article 91(2).
Peru
Peru’s Penal Code (1991) punishes any person who violates a truce or armistice.
Peru, Penal Code as amended, 1991, Article 340.
Spain
Spain’s Military Criminal Code (1985) punishes any soldier “who violates a suspension of arms, an armistice, a capitulation or another agreement concluded with the enemy”.
Spain, Military Criminal Code, 1985, Article 72.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995) punishes “anyone who violates a truce or an armistice concluded between the Spanish Nation and the enemy or between their belligerent forces”.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, Article 593.
Spain
Spain’s Penal Code (1995), as amended in 2010, states:
Anyone who [commits any of the following acts] during armed conflict shall be punished with three to seven years’ imprisonment:
…
9. Violating a cease fire, the terms of an armistice, capitulation or any other agreement concluded with the adverse party.
Spain, Penal Code, 1995, as amended on 23 June 2010, Article 612(9).
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended, punishes “anyone who continues hostilities, after having official knowledge of the conclusion of an armistice or of peace, [and] anyone who, in any other way, violates the conditions of an officially known armistice”.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended, Article 113.
Switzerland
Switzerland’s Military Criminal Code (1927), as amended in 2007, states:
Any person who has continued hostilities after having received official notification of the conclusion of an armistice or a peace agreement,
any person who in any way has violated the conditions of an armistice that have been officially brought to his or her attention,
is to be punished with three years’ or more imprisonment or a monetary penalty or, in less serious cases, a year imprisonment or less.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, as amended in 2007, Article 113.
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. 113
The penalty shall be a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty for any person who:
a. continues military operations after receiving official notification of an agreement on a ceasefire or a peace agreement, or violates the conditions of the ceasefire in some other way.
Switzerland, Military Criminal Code, 1927, taking into account amendments entered into force up to 2011, Articles 110 and 113(a).
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. 264i
The penalty shall be a custodial sentence not exceeding three years or a monetary penalty for any person who:
a. continues military operations after receiving official notification of an agreement on a ceasefire or a peace agreement, or violates the conditions of the ceasefire in some other way.
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Code of Military Justice (1998), as amended, punishes “those who violate … truces or armistices”.
Venezuela, Code of Military Justice, 1998, as amended, Article 474(7).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Revised Penal Code (2000) punishes “nationals and foreigners who, during a war between Venezuela and another Nation, violate a truce or armistice”.
Venezuela, Revised Penal Code, 2000, Article 156(1).
Venezuela
Venezuela’s Penal Code (2005) states:
The following shall be punished with military arrest or political prison for one to four years:
1. Venezuelan or foreign nationals who, during a war between Venezuela and another nation, violate truces or armistices … , without prejudice to military laws which shall be specially applicable to these matters.
Venezuela, Penal Code, 2005, Article 155(1).
No data.
China
According to the Report on the Practice of China, the conduct of the Nationalist Government after a truce agreement was concluded with the Chinese Communist Party in January 1946 was perfidious. At the time, Mao Zedong reported that “Chiang Kai-Shek used [the] agreement as a disguise with a view to arranging a large scale military offensive”.
Report on the Practice of China, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to Mao Zedong, To Shatter the Offensives of Jiang Jieshi by Way of Self-defence, 20 July 1946, Selected Works of Mao Zedong, Vol. 4, The People’s Press, Beijing, p. 1189.
Iraq
In 1984, during the Iran–Iraq War, the two belligerents concluded an agreement under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General not to attack cities and villages.
UN Secretary-General, Note verbale dated 26 June 1984 addressed to Member States and Observer States that are States parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, UN Doc. S/16648, 26 June 1984.
However, Iraq alleged in a letter to the UN Secretary-General that the Islamic Republic of Iran was using the agreement to concentrate armed forces in border towns.
Iraq, Letter dated 28 June 1984 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/16649, 28 June 1984.
Iraq
According to the Report on the Practice of Iraq, in a military communiqué issued during the Iran–Iraq War, Iraq stated that it regarded as perfidious an attack on its defensive line after the Iranian armed forces had announced that their military operations had come to an end.
Report on the Practice of Iraq, 1998, Chapter 2.4, referring to Military communiqué, 1 March 1987.
Islamic Republic of Iran
In 1984, during the Iran–Iraq War, the two belligerents concluded an agreement under the auspices of the UN Secretary-General not to attack cities and villages.
UN Secretary-General, Note verbale dated 26 June 1984 addressed to Member States and Observer States that are States parties to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, UN Doc. S/16648, 26 June 1984.
However, Iraq alleged in a letter to the UN Secretary-General that the Islamic Republic of Iran was using the agreement to concentrate armed forces in border towns.
Iraq, Letter dated 28 June 1984 to the UN Secretary-General, UN Doc. S/16649, 28 June 1984.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1991, in a document entitled “Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia”, the Ministry of Defence of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia stated: “Members of the so-called armed forces of Slovenia have used [each agreed upon cease-fire] to attack the Yugoslav People’s Army units, by bringing their own units in a more advantageous position, thus performing similar faithless procedures.”
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic, Ministry of Defence, Examples of violations of the rules of international law committed by the so-called armed forces of Slovenia, 10 July 1991, § 5.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of
In 1995, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia denounced the violation of an agreement whereby Serb troops, after handing over their heavy weapons, were to be allowed free passage by the Croatian army but were attacked instead.
Yugoslavia, Socialist Federal Republic of, Appeal by the Yugoslav Federal Minister of Foreign Affairs, 7 August 1995.
Yugoslavia, Federal Republic of
According to the Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, during the conflict in the former Yugoslavia, the Yugoslav People’s Army cited attacks against its soldiers during an armistice as examples of perfidious conduct.
Report on the Practice of the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, 1997, Chapter 2.4, referring to The Truth about the Armed Conflict in Slovenia, Narodna armija, Belgrade, 1991, p. 60.
UN Secretary-General
In 1984, with regard to the Iran–Iraq War, the UN Secretary-General stated that he was
deeply concerned that allegations have been made that civilian population centres are being used for concentration of military forces. If this were indeed the case, such actions would constitute a violation of the spirit of my appeal and of basic standards of warfare that the international community expects to be observed.
UN Secretary-General, Messages dated 29 June 1984 to the President of Iran and to the President of Iraq, UN Doc. S/16663, 6 July 1984, p. 1.
No data.
No data.
No data.
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 “violation of armistices, suspensions of fire or local arrangements concluded for the removal, exchange and transport of the wounded and the dead left on the battlefield”, when committed in international and non-international armed conflicts, 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, §§ 2(ix) and 3(xvii).
No data.
