NGO Produces Waterboarding Video

Amnesty International has taken yet another step to denounce the use of waterboarding by the US government. The organization has produced a video describing a waterboarding session that will be aired as a preview in theaters throughout Britain.

The video can be viewed on the Unsubscribe Web site. Almost 32,000 people have already joined the project, which is intended to denounce human rights abuses in the "war on terror." According to Amnesty, more than 400,000 people have already watched the video online.

US President George W. Bush has said that waterboarding is an acceptable "enhanced interrogation technique." Presidential candidate McCain has denounced the technique as "an exquisite torture."

Many legal experts and some American military personnel have criticized the US administration for its reinterpretation of the Geneva conventions."This constitutes torture. We don't need to gloss it up. We don't need to call it an enhanced interrogation technique. It is torture, it should be illegal, it should never be used," argues Sara McNeice of Amnesty. Read full story

Privacy Underpins Human Dignity

The poorest man may in his cottage bid defiance to all the force of the Crown. It may be frail; its roof may shake; the wind may blow though it; the storms may enter; the rain may enter -- but the King of England cannot enter; all his forces dare not cross the threshold of the ruined tenement.

Speech on the Excise Bill - 1733

William Pitt, 1st Earl of Chatham

Privacy is a fundamental human right recognized in the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and in many regional treaties, such the European Convention on Human Rights.

The US has led a worldwide effort to limit the legal extent of individual privacy. At the same time, the US has greatly increased the capability of its police and intelligence services to eavesdrop on personal communications.

The campaign has had two legal strategies. Firstly, all digital telephone switches, cellular and satellite phones must integrate by law built-in surveillance capabilities. Secondly, the US government has aggressively sought to limit the dissemination of software that provides encryption.

For instance, the 1994 Communications Assistance for Law Enforcement Act (CALEA) mandated that phone companies install remote wiretapping ports into their central office digital switches, creating a new technology infrastructure for "point-and-click" wiretapping. As a result, federal agents no longer have to go out and attach alligator clips to phone lines.In 1995, the FBI disclosed plans to require the phone companies to build into their infrastructure the capacity to simultaneously wiretap 1 percent of all phone calls in all major US cities. Read Full story

On the Meaning of Genocide

The word genocide has fallen victim to a sort of verbal inflation, in much the same way as happened with the word fascist.

Rwanda and Genocide in the 20th Century

Destexhe, former secretary general of Doctors Without Borders

Using evidence from files on a laptop recovered from the FARC camp, Uribe accused Chavez of sponsoring and financing the Colombian rebels."Colombia proposes to denounce the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chavez, in the International Criminal Court for sponsoring and financing genocide," Uribe said. In return, Chavez announced that he would level a war crime charge against Uribe.

What Is Genocide?In 1943, Raphael Lemkin (1900-1959), a legal scholar, coined the term "genocide," firstly from the Greek root genos (family, tribe or race - gene) and secondly from the Latin root -cide (meaning to kill). Lemkin wrote:

Generally speaking, genocide does not necessarily mean the immediate destruction of a nation, except when accomplished by mass killings of all members of a nation. It is intended rather to signify a coordinated plan of different actions aiming at the destruction of essential foundations of the life of national groups, with the aim of annihilating the groups themselves.The objectives of such a plan would be the disintegration of the political and social institutions, of culture, language, national feelings, religion, and the economic existence of national groups, and the destruction of the personal security, liberty, health, dignity, and even the lives of the individuals belonging to such groups.The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide (CPPCG) was adopted by the United Nations General Assembly in December 1948 and came into effect on Jan. 12, 1951. Read full story

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW

AN INTRODUCTION FOR SCIENTISTS, ENGINEERS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS



"In the end, it is likely that whether biology becomes an offensive military technology in the coming decades will depend to a significant degree on whether scientists become actively involved in legal discussions, and on the advice they give to policy makers. It is to be hoped that scientists will join the arms control, diplomatic, and humanitarian law communities to explore mechanisms to protect humanity from the fearsome potential of abuse of the technologies they are developing, while preserving the beneficial applications."

Mark Wheelis and Malcolm Dando
Neurobiology: A case study of the imminent militarization of biology
International REVIEW of the Red Cross, September 2005.

International humanitarian law is a set of rules which seek, for humanitarian reasons, to limit the effects of armed conflict. It protects persons who are not or are no longer participating in the hostilities and restricts the means and methods of warfare. International humanitarian law is also known as the law of war or the law of armed conflict.

International humanitarian law is part of international law, which is the body of rules governing relations between States. International law is contained in agreements between States – treaties or conventions –, in customary rules, which consist of State practise considered by them as legally binding, and in general principles.



A major part of international humanitarian law is contained in the four Geneva Conventions of 1949. Nearly every State in the world has agreed to be bound by them. The Conventions have been developed and supplemented by two further agreements: the Additional Protocols of 1977 relating to the protection of victims of armed conflicts.

Other agreements prohibit the use of certain weapons and military tactics and protect certain categories of people and goods. These agreements include: the 1954 Convention for the Protection of Cultural Property in the Event of Armed Conflict, plus its two protocols; the 1972 Biological Weapons Convention; the 1980 Conventional Weapons Convention and its five protocols; the 1993 Chemical Weapons Convention; the 1997 Ottawa Convention on anti-personnel mines; the 2000 Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

International humanitarian law distinguishes between international and non-international armed conflict. International armed conflicts are those in which at least two States are involved. They are subject to a wide range of rules, including those set out in the four Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocol I. Non-international armed conflicts are those restricted to the territory of a single State, involving either regular armed forces fighting groups of armed dissidents, or armed groups fighting each other. A more limited range of rules apply to internal armed conflicts and are laid down in Article 3 common to the four Geneva Conventions as well as in Additional Protocol II.

International humanitarian law covers two areas: the protection of those who are not, or no longer, taking part in fighting and restrictions on the means of warfare – in particular weapons – and the methods of warfare, such as military tactics.

International humanitarian law protects those who do not take part in the fighting, such as civilians and medical and religious military personnel. It also protects those who have ceased to take part, such as wounded, shipwrecked and sick combatants, and prisoners of war.

International humanitarian law prohibits all means and methods of warfare which: fail to discriminate between those taking part in the fighting and those, such as civilians, who are not, the purpose being to protect the civilian population, individual civilians and civilian property; cause superfluous injury or unnecessary suffering; cause severe or long-term damage to the environment.

Sadly, there are countless examples of violation of international humanitarian law. Increasingly, the victims of war are civilians. Violations of international humanitarian law are not abstract concepts in Colombia, but the grim material of everyday life. Few seriously question that Colombia’s war satisfies the conditions for the application of the laws of war. In interviews with Human Rights Watch, all of the parties to the conflict agreed in principle that the laws of war should be observed in Colombia. Yet the distance between words and deeds is vast. All parties actively manipulate the concept of international humanitarian law for perceived political and tactical gain. There is also deep disagreement about the terms used in the laws of war to identify non-combatants and military targets.

Measures must be taken to ensure respect for international humanitarian law. States have an obligation to teach its rules to their armed forces and the general public. They must prevent violations or punish them if these nevertheless occur. Whether as individuals or through governments and various organizations, we can all make an important contribution to compliance with international humanitarian law.

INTERNATIONAL HUMANITARIAN LAW
OF ARMED CONFLICTS

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. IHL in brief

2. Sources of IHL

2.1 Introduction
2.2 Customary laws
2.3 Treaties
2.4 General principles
2.5 The Martens clause
2.6 Other sources
2.7 Hierarchy

3. Protected persons and properties

3.1 Civilians in the power of the enemy
3.2 Prisoners of war
3.3 Wounded, sick and shipwrecked
3.4 Medical and religious personnel
3.5 Humanitarian workers
3.6 Cultural property
3.7 Civil defense

4. Conduct of hostilities

4.1 Methods and means of warfare
4.2 Air warfare
4.3 Naval warfare
4.4 Environment
4.5 Information warfare

5. Emblem

5.1 The emblems
5.2 History of the emblems
5.3 Unity and plurality of the emblems
5.4 Use and protection of the emblems
5.5 Misuse of the emblems
5.6 Repression of misuse

6. Women in war

6.1 Women and wars
6.2 Women and armed conflicts
6.3 Instruments of enhanced protection
6.4 Efficacy of the IHL to protect women

7. Children in war

7.1 Children and war
7.2 Children and armed conflicts
7.3 Instruments of enhanced protection
7.4 Efficacy of the IHL to protect children

8. Refugees and Internally Displaced People

8.1 War and displacement
8.2 Refugees
8.3 Convention protecting refugees
8.4 Internally displaced persons
8.5 Legal protection of Internally Displaced People
8.6 IHL, Human Rights and Refugee Law.

9. Missing persons

10. Weapons of Mass Destruction

10.1 Chemical weapons
10.2 Biological weapons
10.3 Nuclear weapons
10.4 Neurobiology and the militarization of Biology

11. Conventional weapons and new weapons

11.1 Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons
11.2 Protocol I on Non Detectable Fragments
11.3 Protocol II on Mines, booby-traps and others
11.4 Protocol II amended in 1996
11.5 Protocol III on Incendiary weapons
11.6 Protocol IV on Blinding lasers weapons
11.7 Protocol V on Explosive Remnants of War
11.8 New weapons

12. National implementation

12.1 Treaties and States parties
12.2 Bodies involved
12.3 Topics
12.4 Database
12.5 Publications

13. Reaffirmation and development

13.1 The main currents: The Hague, Geneva, New York
13.2 The law before the Protocols of 1977
13.3 The Protocols of 1977
13.4 Post 1977 developments: Substantive Law
13.5 Post 1977 developments: Enforcement

14. International criminal jurisdiction

14.1 Ad hoc tribunals
14.2 International Criminal Court

15. Other issues

15.1 Terrorism
15.2 Occupied territories
15.3 Private military
15.4 Respect for IHL
15.5 Multinational forces
15.6 Economic sanctions
15.7 Media
15.8 Internal violence

16. IHL in non-Christian major religious traditions

16.1 Islam and IHL
16.2 Hinduism and IHL
16.3 Judaism and IHL

The Legacy of Agent Orange

From 1961 through 1971, The U.S. waged massive chemical warfare campaign against Vietnam known first as Operation Trail Dust, then as Operation Hades, and lastly as Operation Ranch Hand. The program was pursuing two objectives. Firstly, the military wanted to deprive the enemy from a cover under which he could hide, and secondly to deny food to them. Between 1962 and 1964, The U.S. military tested several herbicides such Agent Orange, Agent Purple and Agent White. The colors refer to the stripes painted on their 55 gallon containers. Last year the Canadian Defense Department admitted that the U.S. had tested Agent Orange over a New Brunswick Canadian Military Base during the early 60s, provoking the outrage of local residents.By the end of 64, Agent Orange was chosen for the operational phase of the program. The herbicide, mixed with kerosene or diesel fuel, was mostly sprayed from modified US Air Force C-123K Provider aircrafts. The operation reached its height in 1967 and 1968, at which time an improved version known as "Orange II" was introduced. The program was abandoned in 1971. By then, thousands of square kilometers had been sprayed with about 77 million liters of herbicide. A 2003 American report, paid for by the National Academy of Sciences, estimates that 3,181 villages were sprayed and that as many as 4.8 million people "would have been present during the spraying."Some area were particularly targeted such the delta of the Mekong River or the city of Ben Tre where, according to Red Cross statistics, 58,000 out of 140,000 residents are victims of Agent Orange. Read full story

War Crimes or Not War Crimes?

Because of the high density of the material, depleted uranium munitions (DU) are particularly suitable to pierce armor-vehicle or bunkers. They have been used in Kuwait, Iraq, and Kosovo. There are some allegations that they may have been used in Palestine. The analysis of samples gathered from two bomb craters in Khiam and At-Tiri indicates that the Israeli Defense Force probably used some kind of uranium-based weapons in Lebanon last summer. Although Israel has neither confirmed nor denied the use of such weapons, the question of their legality is once more in the spotlight.

"Israel does not use any weaponry which is not authorised by International Law or International Conventions," said Mark Regev, the Israeli Foreign Ministry spokesman. The illegality of a weapon under International Law may result either from the existence of a treaty that specifically bans it and/or from the violation of Law, as well as Customs, of War known together as Humanitarian Law. While the first source of illegality is rather obvious, the second one follows from the so-called "Martens Clause" to the Hague Convention of 1907. Read full story