4 ms·

> Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like? You are free to quote where you think it says that. The prohibition is not condition

> Don’t the Geneva Conventions only cover official combatants or the like? You are free to quote where you think it says that. The prohibition is not conditional on the status of anyone. It is just a prohibition. > Hezbollah, Hamas, ISIS - none of them are combatants that enjoy the protections of the GC, as I understand it. That is a very controversial interpretation in itself. But even in the controversial cases where this was argued it was about the rights granted to prisoners of war. (That is, do the members of these organisations when captured count as prisoners of war? Should they be granted the same kind of protections?)

aspenmayer 2y ago
https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/394822229 https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222... https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 > This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this regard is Article 4A, which lays out who is entitled to POW status. Under Article 4A(2), irregular groups that are not part of the armed forces seeking to benefit from POW status must have a fixed distinctive sign, usually satisfied by wearing a uniform. The question addressed in the chapter is whether this requirement is implicit for members of the regular armed forces or groups incorporated into the armed forces, such that their failure to distinguish themselves results in forfeiture of POW status. There are two views. By the first, the wearing of the uniform or other distinguishing attire at the time of capture has no bearing upon status as a POW; it is the captured soldier’s inclusion in the enemy armed forces that accords that status. By the contrary view, and the better one as argued in this chapter, those captured out of uniform are unprivileged combatants. As such, they forfeit POW status and its attendant protections, as well as combatant immunity. Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, The Regular Armed Forces, Uniforms, and Prisoner of War Status In: Prisoners of War in Contemporary Conflict. Edited by: Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003
- rougka 2y ago
  Your quote concerns the convention on POWs His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield. This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org. I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here
  - aspenmayer 2y ago
    I'm not a lawyer either, but from my interpretation, they would be considered unprivileged combatants, and so would not get POW protections either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivileged_combatants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege... That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/ https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/ > Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps. The munition is not being manually emplaced in the manner required by the “other device” definition. The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon.
    - rougka 2y ago
      I read the site you linked and it was very interesting I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal. In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original
      - aspenmayer 2y ago
        > On 21 December 2001, the scope of application of the CCW and its then annexed Protocols was extended to apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). However, that extension in scope only takes effect for States that ratify the extension. Israel has not done so. Israel is, however, a party to Amended Protocol II, which also, inter alia, addresses booby-traps and defines them in identical terms to those given above (CCW, Amended Protocol II, art. 2(4)). Significantly, Amended Protocol II applies to NIACs (art. 1(2) & (3)). The lawfulness of the weapon should therefore be considered by reference to Amended Protocol II. > The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis. Both above quotes from the West Point link. Another view: https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-traps-pagers/ https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-t... > Based on the information that has emerged since the event, one of the law of war issues we are now better able to address is whether the pagers violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (to which Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are parties). Lebanon is a founding member of the UN. Article 7(2) definitely applies to them, as well as Israel.

aspenmayer 2y ago

https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/394822229 https://academic.oup.com/book/45604/chapter-abstract/3948222... https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 https://doi.org/10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003 > This chapter examines whether a member of the armed forces captured out of uniform or wearing a nontraditional uniform benefits from the extensive protections that POWs enjoy under the Third Geneva Convention, most of which is considered to reflect customary international law. The key provision in this regard is Article 4A, which lays out who is entitled to POW status. Under Article 4A(2), irregular groups that are not part of the armed forces seeking to benefit from POW status must have a fixed distinctive sign, usually satisfied by wearing a uniform. The question addressed in the chapter is whether this requirement is implicit for members of the regular armed forces or groups incorporated into the armed forces, such that their failure to distinguish themselves results in forfeiture of POW status. There are two views. By the first, the wearing of the uniform or other distinguishing attire at the time of capture has no bearing upon status as a POW; it is the captured soldier’s inclusion in the enemy armed forces that accords that status. By the contrary view, and the better one as argued in this chapter, those captured out of uniform are unprivileged combatants. As such, they forfeit POW status and its attendant protections, as well as combatant immunity. Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, The Regular Armed Forces, Uniforms, and Prisoner of War Status In: Prisoners of War in Contemporary Conflict. Edited by: Michael N. Schmitt and Christopher J. Koschnitzky, Oxford University Press. © Oxford University Press 2023. DOI: 10.1093/oso/9780197663288.003.0003

rougka 2y ago
Your quote concerns the convention on POWs His quoted convention refers to use of booby traps by armed forces on a battlefield. This is a supply chain operation by a clandestine intel org (Mossad presumably) against an ununiformed miltia/designated terror org. I am not an international lawyer but my opinion is that it is a stretch to apply it here
- aspenmayer 2y ago
  I'm not a lawyer either, but from my interpretation, they would be considered unprivileged combatants, and so would not get POW protections either. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivileged_combatants https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unlawful_combatant#Unprivilege... That being said, it doesn't really look like that means you can use booby traps when you wouldn't otherwise be able to do so, even against unlawful/unprivileged combatants: https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/ https://lieber.westpoint.edu/exploding-pagers-law/ > Where the exploding pagers are concerned, my provisional view is that we are dealing here with booby-traps. The munition is not being manually emplaced in the manner required by the “other device” definition. The pager is being adapted to convert it into a booby-trap of the sort addressed by Article 7(2) of Amended Protocol II and on that basis it would appear, considering what is currently known and assumed, to be an unlawful weapon.
  - rougka 2y ago
    I read the site you linked and it was very interesting I didn't see it was very definite in its conclusion that this was illegal. In any case they mentioned that this only may be illegal under an annex which Israel is not signatory to, while Lebanon never was signatory to even the original
    - aspenmayer 2y ago
      > On 21 December 2001, the scope of application of the CCW and its then annexed Protocols was extended to apply to non-international armed conflicts (NIACs). However, that extension in scope only takes effect for States that ratify the extension. Israel has not done so. Israel is, however, a party to Amended Protocol II, which also, inter alia, addresses booby-traps and defines them in identical terms to those given above (CCW, Amended Protocol II, art. 2(4)). Significantly, Amended Protocol II applies to NIACs (art. 1(2) & (3)). The lawfulness of the weapon should therefore be considered by reference to Amended Protocol II. > The information in the early reports suggests that once the arming signal has been sent, the devices used against Hezbollah in Lebanon fall within Article 7(2) and are therefore prohibited on that basis. Both above quotes from the West Point link. Another view: https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-traps-pagers/ https://www.justsecurity.org/103184/amended-protocol-booby-t... > Based on the information that has emerged since the event, one of the law of war issues we are now better able to address is whether the pagers violated Article 7(2) of the Amended Protocol II of the Convention on Certain Conventional Weapons (to which Israel, Lebanon, and the United States are parties). Lebanon is a founding member of the UN. Article 7(2) definitely applies to them, as well as Israel.