LONDON (AlertNet)- The laws of war spelt out in the Geneva Conventions are as relevant today as 60 years ago but persuading everyone, from rebels to government forces, to abide by them has proved a gargantuan task.
The four conventions, ratified by all of the world's 194 states, demand humane treatment of prisoners of war and wounded and sick members of armed forces, protection of civilians from attack and forbid torture and hostage-taking during conflict.
In the 60 years since the fourth treaty was signed, warfare has changed. But as the accords mark their anniversary this week, academics, lawyers and aid workers agree they are still suited to today's civil wars and the fight against terrorism.
Despite many obvious abuses, experts say the conventions - the first of which was signed in 1864 - have successfully limited suffering in many conflicts.
"There is a good deal of implementation -- as well as some pattern of either violating the rules or claiming that the rules aren't applicable in a particular situation," said Adam Roberts, a politics and international relations professor at Oxford University and the editor of the "Documents on the Law of War".
For example, during the 1990-91 Gulf War, he said, the U.S.-led coalition observed the rules to limit the casualties and treated prisoners of war "extremely correctly".
But the conventions have also been routinely violated across the world, from genocide by Rwandan leaders to kidnappings by FARC rebels in Colombia.
"Among the top-level commanders I think there is some sort of awareness about the Geneva Conventions but they don't care," former FARC rebel, Jorge, told Reuters AlertNet but declined to give his surname.
PLAYING BY THE RULES
For many militants, however, adhering to the laws of war could help them realise their aims.
"Many of them claim to have a political agenda and to have negotiations, to get some recognition from the international community, and so they know that they must not appear as responsible for mass atrocities," said Nicolas Vercken, an official at Oxfam.
The same argument can be made for governments, he added, citing the U.S.-led invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan which killed many civilians at the start.
"If you have operations ... with massive casualties among civilian populations ... you won't win hearts and minds and you will be defeated in the end."
Roberts made a similar point: "Sometimes implementation of the rules has been associated with success in military campaigns whereas the most extreme violations of the rules are associated with failure."
He cited Rwanda, where the genocide, illegal under the Geneva Conventions, drained popular support away from the government, boosting the rebels that eventually took power.
Aid agencies and voters everywhere can help enforce the Conventions by speaking out about abuses and putting pressure on their governments to stop the violations by either their own forces or those of other countries, experts said.
Aid workers should know the Geneva Conventions and use them to negotiate with governments the conditions of their work, said Francoise Saulnier, legal director at medical relief organisation Medecins Sans Frontieres.
EDUCATION
"You need to get the trust of the authorities and to prove that you're not seeking to overthrow the government ... you are just seeking to provide appropriate assistance with good will, according to the appropriate legal framework," she said.
Militants and armed forces should also be better educated about these laws and the possibility of prosecution in the International Criminal Court.
"I've never heard about such Geneva Conventions," said a 19-year-old former fighter from FARC, who calls herself Natalia.
People like Natalia can learn about the laws of war in ad-hoc classes for rebel fighters run by the International Committee of the Red Cross. The organisation also uses less conventional teaching methods, such as giving out playing cards and pocket calendars with pictures of prohibited actions.
Greater compliance with the Geneva Conventions will come with time, said Philippe Sands, professor of law at University College London.
He quoted a former colleague as saying that the English law had taken 500 years "to sort itself out", while the Geneva Conventions were only 60 years old.
"Respecting Geneva is a long game and we are at very early stages," Sands said.
(Additional reporting by Anastasia Moloney in Bogota)
1. Sarah says:
13 Aug 2009 22:17:47 GMT
There are a lot of things that we need to keep in mind when we are talking about the Geneva Convention. And I think the biggest one is that you\re right, we are in the very early stages of working with these laws. 60 years isn't all that much time to sort out what does and does not work. The US media is talking about changing things within the convention, but I think it is to early to start doing that. If we change the wording now, it would just cause problems, and those problems could result in letting corrupt people go. I found an interesting video that talks about what could happen with some of the new changes that people are talking about. http://www.newsy.com/videos/geneva_turns_60_years_old
Our Standards: The Thomson Reuters Trust Principles.
