3 ms·
This certainly would not "automatically make digital resources with the emblem entitled to protection". The criteria for the humanitarian emblem were very speci
by leereeves 3y ago
This certainly would not "automatically make digital resources with the emblem entitled to protection". The criteria for the humanitarian emblem were very specific: a red cross/crescent/lion on a white background. Any other emblem (even a very similar emblem like the red star of David on a white background once used by Israel) doesn't qualify for protection.
But there is a legal mechanism for adding new emblems, which was used to add a "red crystal" in 2005 [1], and I imagine a similar mechanism could be used to add a digital emblem.
1: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_III https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protocol_III
- dmvdoug 3y agoRight, that’s why I said: “This is the sort of thing that you would need to include in an Additional Protocol.” I think some people were confused why they were calling it an emblem. It’s an analogy to the protective emblems agreed in the GCs and APIII. But analogy alone won’t make this binding, and the ICRC knows that. This “technical solution” isn’t like a solution that solves the problem today. It’s the first step in showing that doing the work of another AP is possible and needed.
- zozbot234 3y agoIt can be an NFT that's technically a red cross/crescent/lion/crystal on a white background, and verifiably endorsed/minted by the Red Cross organization for that specific use. That way the existing treaty applies by extension.