Practice Relating to Rule 65. Perfidy
At the CDDH, Viet Nam proposed deleting paragraph 1(c) of Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I (now Article 37).
Viet Nam stated that ill-armed peoples of Asia, Africa and Latin America, fighting either to defend their independence or to exercise their right of self-determination,
lacked the necessary means to provide uniforms for members of their national forces or their rural and urban militia. To regard that state of affairs as perfidy would be to legislate against nations defending their right to self-determination. Logically speaking, the question was not one of perfidy, since that implied the intention to betray an adversary’s good faith.
Viet Nam finally agreed upon Article 35 of the draft Additional Protocol I, after the introduction of the saving clause under Article 44(3), whereby the wearing of civilian clothes does not amount to perfidy when combatants fulfil the conditions to be recognized as legitimate combatants (in situations where the combatant cannot distinguish themselves from the civilian population, they retain their combatant status, provided that they carry their arms openly during each military engagement, and during such time as they are visible to the adversary while they are engaged in military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in which they are to participate).