Talk:Fourth Geneva Convention

violations

From edit summary: 24.210.106.247 (Talk) (Balanced final paragraph by adding the 2nd side of the argument. It is sad that of all the egregious and horrible violations over the last half century that only Israel is mentioned here. - MH)

. Mrdice (Talk) (rv, stop inserting your POV anonymous)

Doesn't look like POV to me, looks like fact.24.144.15.243 02:34, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you're describing the mention to Israel as sad gives the impression that you didn't make your edit because it would help the usefullness of the article, but because you don't like the mention of Israel-critical viewpoints. However, as this article is about the Fourth Geneva Convention, the fact that they exist (never mind if they're correct or not), and that they play a part in a major conflict, makes mentioning them legitimate. It think it would be more productive if you could find other cases of comparable accusasions against other countries, instead of turning this into another Israel/Palestinian revert war. Mrdice 03:03, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

I didn't make the edit. I just commented on the edit that the other anon made. In the article it is mentioned that the Fourth Geneva Convention is used as the basis for accusing Israel. It seems to me that if this is mentioned one must put in both views of whether this accusation is true or false. You could easily put in information about how using it as the basis is correct instead of just deleting the information about how using it is false. The information that the anon put in the article is technically true....and you just deleted it rather than confront it logically with counter-arguments. By leaving out both the arguments about whether using it as the basis for accusing Israel is correct or incorrect you leave the default impression that it is correct. Which is what you want to do.24.144.15.243 03:11, 12 Jan 2004 (UTC)

You have a point. It's because that user (which I mistakenly thought was you) was in the habit of adding shameless pov like "The irony, of course, is that such Palestinian Arab attacks directed against Israeli civilians are themselves amongst the most egregious of war crimes." that I reverted where I might have edited the language. You have to agree, phrases like "nobody has yet bothered to" are not npov. I've re-added the part about Israels viewpoint, so it now shows both sides. Mrdice 17:11, 2004 Jan 12 (UTC)

As I see it, the entire paragraph is completely irrelevent. This is an article about the Fourth Geneva Convention, not who's violating the Fourth Geneva Convention. Israel may or may not be the worst violator, but this is not the place to discuss that. Removing completely. --Admbws 05:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

link correction

The link to avaliable on WikiSource is to Convention (III) not Convention (IV)

clarification on war crimes

The sentence "Under the 1949 Geneva Conventions collective punishments are a war crime." is misleading without reference to Art.2 and Art.3 first paragraph or a description what a "protected person" is. But why emphasese that particular part of GCIV Part III. Art.33 to the detrement of the rest of the convention?

suggestions for improved organization for the article

Between the first and last sentences the current article is IMHO too detailed on one specific issue. Would it not be better to give a brief description of each part of GCIV? Even just the part,section chapter and annex titles give a better understanding of GCIV than the present body of text:

• Part I. General Provisions
• Part II. General Protection of Populations Against Certain Consequences of War
• Part III. Status and Treatment of Protected Persons
  • Section I. Provisions common to the territories of the parties to the conflict and to occupied territories
  • Section II. Aliens in the territory of a party to the conflict
  • Section III. Occupied territories
  • Section IV. Regulations for the treatment of internees
    • Chapter I. General provisions
    • <snip>
    • Chapter XIII. Release, Repatriation and Accommodation in Neutral Countries
  • Section V. Information Bureaux and Central Agency
• Part IV. Execution of the Convention
  • Section I. General Provisions
  • Section II. Final Provisions
• Annex I. Draft Agreement Relating to Hospital and Safety Zones and Localities
• Annex II. Draft Regulations concerning Collective Reliefraft
• Annex II. Draft Regulations concerning Collective Relief
• ANNEX III, I. Internment Card,II.Letter,III. Correspondence Card

Philip Baird Shearer 12:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Yes, that would definitely be better. --Zero 13:17, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

This article is in need of attention

Given that pir has put at the top of the page:

This article is in need of attention. Please improve it and then remove this

notice and the listing on pages needing attention. On the pages needing attention#Military, war, peace, international relations he has written:

although the most important information seems to be there, most of the article remains unwritten. This is an essential article for an encyclopaedia, and with Fallujah about to be flattened, many people might be looking for information on what the Geneva Conventions actually say about collective punishment and other war crimes. - pir 12:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The trouble is I am not sure what to put because it comes done to legal definitions and the article should not be about a specific war. For example Article 6 says In the case of occupied territory, the application of the present Convention shall cease one year after the general close of military operations; however, the Occupying Power shall be bound, for the duration of the occupation, to the extent that such Power exercises the functions of government in such territory, by the provisions of the following Articles of the present Convention: 1 to 12, 27, 29 to 34, 47, 49, 51, 52, 53, 59, 61 to 77, 143.

• Are the coalitioin forces still occupying the country or is it under local government? I don't know what the 'de jure position is.
• If they are occupying the country had the occupied territory been occupied for a year? What about those areas which are (to borrow a phrase from Northern Ireland and Operation Motorman "no go areas" for the US forces do they count as occupied?

--Philip Baird Shearer 12:33, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Ahmmm... well, the most obvious thing about this article is that it mostly consists of headings with no written text below. Unfortunately I don't know anything about the Geneva Convention that's not in this article, so I can't help with the article. Also, I didn't want to imply that this article should directly deal with the razing of Fallujah, or give any answers to the question of whether it's a war crime or not, I just wanted to point out that this article is quite topical and important. So, basically, I just wanted to suggest that the article should generally be fleshed out a bit, if there's anybody who has the appropriate expert knowledge. - pir 20:53, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am removing the heading as I disagreed with it and no one else seems to agree with pir Philip Baird Shearer 02:26, 3 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article 3

Note there is some conroversy over whether or not Artcle three applies only to "internal" conflicts, or to conflicts that cross national boundaries but are not "international" in the sense of between nations.

This question has taken on great significance in the context of the Bush Administrations "War on Terror" because it may determine whether or not the Geneva Convention applies. See Hamdam v. Rumsfeld 415 F.3d 33 (DC Cir. 2005), Williams dissenting:

There is, I believe, a fundamental logic to the Convention's provisions on its application. Article 2 (¶ 1) covers armed conflicts between two or more contracting parties. Article 2 (¶ 3) makes clear that in a multi-party conflict, where any two or more signatories are on opposite sides, those parties "are bound by [the Convention] in their mutual relations"--but not (by implication) vis-à-vis any non-signatory. And as the court points out, Maj. Op. at 41, under Article 2 (¶ 3) even a non-signatory "Power" is entitled to the benefits of the Convention, as against a signatory adversary, if it "accepts and applies" its provisions.

Non-state actors cannot sign an international treaty. Nor is such an actor even a "Power" that would be eligible under Article 2 (¶ 3) to secure protection by complying with the Convention's requirements. Common Article 3 fills the gap, providing some minimal protection for such non-eligibles in an "armed conflict not of an international character occurring in the territory of one of the High Contracting Parties." The gap being filled is the non-eligible party's failure to be a nation. Thus the words "not of an international character" are sensibly understood to refer to a conflict between a signatory nation and a non-state actor. The most obvious form of such a conflict is a civil war. But given the Convention's structure, the logical reading of "international character" is one that matches the basic derivation of the word "international," i.e., between nations. Thus, I think the context compels the view that a conflict between a signatory and a non-state actor is a conflict "not of an international character." In such a conflict, the signatory is bound to Common Article 3's modest requirements of "humane [ ]" treatment and "the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples."

I assume that our conflicts with the Taliban and al Qaeda are distinct, and I agree with the court that in reading the Convention we owe the President's construction "great weight." Maj. Op. at 41. But I believe the Convention's language and structure compel the view that Common Article 3 covers the conflict with al Qaeda.

Article 32

I'm editing the comments on Article 32. The wording is not complicated, as previously stated; the definition of torture may be subject to debate, but the definition of corporal punishment is not. As the 32nd article specifically prohibits corporal punishments, there is no need for debate about what constitutes torture. Fortunately, the drafters of the convention foresaw the legal nitpicking that would inevitably follow, so they immediately followed their ban on torture with a ban on all manner of physical punishment. It's an often ignored phrase that clarifies their intent beyond discussion. Kafziel 16:03, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Empty Headings?

It seems that this page contains large amount of "headings" with no text underneath it. IMHO, please set this page as stub/need attention so that "knowledgable" people can look/modify this page. --Hurricane111 23:23, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Innappropriateness

Is it appropriate to note something as being disputed, and referencing the reader to the talk page? I thought the talk page wasn't supposed to be referenced in articles, except when there's a POV or someother sticker up top? I'm specifically talking about this:

Art 3 covers internal armed conflict (not of an international character) (disputed — see talk page) and it provides similar protections to the population as those described in the rest of this document for a Protected person. That Persons taking no active part in the hostilities, including POWs; shall in all circumstances be treated humanely.

Seems very innappropriate to me, so I'm gonna remove it, and if it is appropriate (somehow) you can replace it. --Phant 02:23, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

Removed the question about presidential elections and the Geneva conventions. It isn't a "reference" and is immaterial to an encyclopedia article about the Geneva Conventions.Es330td 18:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

non-signatories?

I read that Israel and the US didn't ratify the 4th Geneva Conventions. I don't see this references anywhere in the article, and the main article on Geneva Conventions doesn't mention how piecemeal the agreement can be.[1]

I did some digging and found some exceptions taken by Israel and the US, but they don't seem to say anything explicitly stating which conventions are being ratified or objected to. [2] [3]

Ancient history or current law?

The article treats the Convention with such abstractness that one simply can't tell how much or little of it is actually observed by its signatories, or even whether it's widely observed at all, or just a dead letter. In particular, why are there no examples of alleged violations or adjudications in recent years/decades (ever)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.229.62.47 (talk) 10:34, 1 February 2009 (UTC) Ah. Of course. I see what happened. "As I see it, the entire paragraph is completely irrelevent. This is an article about the Fourth Geneva Convention, not who's violating the Fourth Geneva Convention.... --Admbws 05:37, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)" OK, so, say, an article about oil tanker spills should avoid mentioning the Exxon Valdez? You might as well argue that an article about serial killers shouldn't mention serial killers, or that an article about vitamins shouldn't say anything about cases of vitamin insufficiency. Limiting such examples for reasons of length is one thing, but presenting the Convention without any consideration of violations at all renders the article rather pointless -- if no one is violating it, or even alleged to have, then what possible notability does the subject even have?

Articles being edited based on people taking offense that their particular ox is getting gored (by the facts) constitutes a form of censorship, not neutrality.