Sixty-first General Assembly

Sixth Committee

8^th Meeting (AM)

WITH HUMANITARIAN CONVENTIONS NOW WIDELY ACCEPTED, FOCUS MUST BE ON

IMPLEMENTATION, ASSEMBLY’S LEGAL COMMITTEE IS TOLD

 

Adoption of ‘Red Crystal’ Emblem by Latest Geneva Protocol

Widely Applauded, as Broadening Protections of Red Cross, Red Crescent

With the near-universal acceptance of the Geneva Conventions, the focus must now be on ensuring implementation of their provisions under international humanitarian law, the General Assembly’s Sixth Committee (Legal) was told this morning, after noting that there were now 194 States parties.

The first three Geneva Conventions cover wounded soldiers, warfare at sea and prisoners of war; the fourth relates to civilians under enemy control.  Two Protocols, adopted in 1977, relate to the protection of victims of international and non-international conflicts respectively.  In 2005, an Additional Protocol III on a distinctive emblem –- the “Red Crystal”-- was adopted, to join the “Red Cross” and the “Red Crescent”. 

The representative of Australia told the Committee that the Red Crystal was an additional protective emblem for humanitarian workers, free of any extraneous political or religious connotation.  It would have the same status as the Red Cross and the Red Crescent.  It furthered the universal character of international humanitarian law.

The United States delegate noted that her country had signed the third Protocol recognizing the Red Crystal emblem on the day the Protocol was adopted, and it was working towards its swift ratification.  However, the United States was not a party to the first two Protocols, and was concerned about the conclusion of a study by the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) that a significant number of rules contained in the Additional Protocols had achieved the status of customary international law applicable to all States, including a significant number of States that had declined to become a party to those Protocols. 

Also speaking on the status of the additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions were the representatives of Finland (for the European Union), Sweden (for the Nordic countries), Guyana (for the Rio Group), United Arab Emirates, the Sudan, Switzerland, Mexico, Qatar, Ghana, Malaysia, Japan, Kenya, Syria, Cuba, Israel and Lebanon.  The representative of the ICRC also made a statement.

The Committee today also discussed its agenda item on measures to enhance the safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.  Speaking on that subject were the representatives of Norway (for the Nordic countries), Finland (for the European Union), Canada (also on behalf of Australia and New Zealand), Malaysia, Israel, Cuba, Russian Federation, and the Sudan. 

The Committee will meet next on Monday, 23 October, at 10 a.m. to begin its two-week discussion of the annual report of the International Law Commission.

Background

The Sixth (Legal) Committee met this morning to continue its debate on its new agenda item on “The rule of law at the national and international levels”.  (For background information, see Press Release GA/L/3299 of 16 October 2006.)  It was also to begin consideration of the status of the two 1977 Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, which deal with the protection of victims of armed conflicts.  The Committee may also take up the question of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives

The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols -- Protocol I and Protocol II -- are part of international humanitarian law, a whole system of legal safeguards that cover the way wars may be fought and the protection of individuals.  They specifically protect people who do not take part in the fighting (civilians, medics, chaplains and aid workers) and those who can no longer fight (wounded, sick and shipwrecked troops, and prisoners of war).  The Conventions and their Protocols call for measures to be taken to prevent, or put an end to, what are known as “grave breaches”, for which those responsible are to be punished.

The first Geneva Convention, of 1864, dealt exclusively with care for wounded soldiers.  The law was later adapted to cover warfare at sea and prisoners of war.  In 1949, the Conventions were revised and expanded:  the First Convention covers wounded soldiers on the battlefield; the Second, those wounded and shipwrecked at sea; the Third deals with prisoners of war; and the Fourth Convention relates to civilians under enemy control.

Protocol I and Protocol II, both adopted on 8 June 1977, relate to the protection of victims of international and non-international conflicts respectively.  On 8 December 2005, an Additional Protocol III on a distinctive emblem -– alongside the Red Cross and Red Crescent -- was adopted. 

At its fifty-ninth session, in 2004, the General Assembly requested the Secretary-General (resolution 59/36) to submit to its current session a report on the status of the 1977 Additional Protocols, as well as on measures taken to strengthen the existing body of international humanitarian law.

In his report (document A/61/222), the Secretary-General describes measures taken by 25 Member States and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) to strengthen international humanitarian law.  The report also contains a list of States parties to the Additional Protocols of 1977.

Also before the Committee today was the Secretary-General’s report on consideration of effective measures to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives (document A/61/119 and Add.1 and Add.2) which summarizes communications from 13 States in respect to specific provisions of General Assembly resolution 59/37 on the subject.

Included in the report is a tabular update on the status of participation as of 20 June 2006, in relevant international conventions on the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.  These include the Vienna Conventions on Diplomatic Relations of 1961 and 1963; the Optional Protocols to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning Acquisition of Nationality of 1961 and 1963; the Optional Protocols to the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations concerning the Compulsory Settlement of Disputes of
1961 and 1963; and the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Crimes against Internationally Protected Persons, including Diplomatic Agents of 1973.

Measures to protect diplomatic and consular missions

Statements

MARI SKARE ( Norway), speaking also for the other Nordic countries ( Denmark, Finland, Iceland and Sweden), recalled that the item was introduced by those countries 26 years ago.  The subject matter was still of great concern, as shown by the fact that the General Assembly had continued to consider the item regularly, and to strongly condemn violent acts against diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.  Their protection was among the first principles and rules deemed essential for the conduct of foreign relations.  The very system of international cooperation depended upon the protection of representatives of States.  Receiving States were obliged to ensure their protection and premises, as well as those of representatives to international organizations.

She said respect for the principles and rules of international law governing diplomatic and consular relations was a basic prerequisite for the normal conduct of relations among States, and for the fulfilment of the purposes and principles of the United Nations Charter.  She stressed that representatives of sending States had a duty to strictly respect the laws and regulations of the receiving States, as stated in the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations.  The Nordic countries once again drew attention to the reporting procedures on violations of the protection of diplomatic and consular premises and personnel.  It was their view that those procedures were important in raising awareness in the world community of those violations, and in promoting efforts to enhance the protection, security and safety of diplomatic and consular missions and representatives.

ANNA SOTANIEMI (Finland), speaking for the European Union, said it should be kept in mind that the privileges and immunities under Vienna Conventions were not to benefit individuals but to protect the sending State and to ensure efficient performance and functions of diplomatic and consular missions.  Diplomatic personnel were, of course, under obligation to respect the laws of the receiving States.  The responsibility of the receiving State to provide protection to the diplomatic and consular missions in its territory was at the heart of the international law relating to diplomatic relations. Their safety was in the common interest and must be secured.  Where attacks had occurred, they must be fully investigated and prosecuted.

HUGH ADSETT ( Canada), speaking on behalf of Australia, New Zealand and his own country, said that they welcomed the return of that important item, as delegates had a personal interest.  He said they mourned the loss of a senior Canadian diplomat, Glyn Berry -– known to many at the United Nations in New York as the Chairman of the Working Group of the Special Committee on Peacekeeping Operations -- at the hands of a suicide bomber in Kandahar, Afghanistan.

Mr. Adsett said other Missions in New York had lost colleagues in Baghdad and elsewhere.  Today’s diplomats were often the new front line in the struggle to help most vulnerable and dispossessed people.  They worked under extreme circumstances, often in conditions of great danger; no one knew that better than those working for the United Nations in conflict zones around the world.

He said measures needed to protect them in those situations went beyond the traditional.  Ratification of the relevant treaties and criminalization of offences against diplomatic and consular personnel were important steps, and prosecution of offenders was absolutely essential.  But they must ensure that the work of diplomats, especially in crisis and conflict zones, was better understood and appreciated by the local population.  Outreach and education were important tools, on which they often sold themselves short.  The work of modern diplomats must be better understood if they were to be able to carry out their work.  The Secretary-General, in his next report on the issue, should consider how that goal could be achieved.

He said this year had seen unrestrained attacks on diplomatic missions and at least one commendable instance in which local security forces prevented greater harm.  Diplomatic premises could not be made the convenient lightning rod for political dissatisfaction, and host countries should be vigilant and active in their defence, and rigorous in prosecuting offenders.

ABDUL RAHIM BAKRI ( Malaysia) said it was unquestionably important for States to ensure the protection and safety of diplomatic and consular missions to allow the missions to carry out their work.  The relatively small number of reports on serious violations augured well.  However, he said, he remained concerned at the continuing attacks upon diplomatic and consular missions and United Nations offices.  Those offices were generally easy targets as they were the “public face” of their respective States or organizations. Their vulnerability was increased due to the need for public accessibility.  He agreed with the point that reciprocity was particularly pertinent to ensure adequate protective measures were in place and that timely and effective action was taken.

TAMAR KAPLAN ( Israel) said that, in the past few years, violent attacks and threats against diplomatic and consular missions had rapidly increased.  Israel had suffered from such incidents. She called upon States to take swift action to prevent attacks, especially when attacks were aimed at destabilizing friendly relations between countries.  The Vienna Conventions required receiving States to take all appropriate measures in assuring the protection of diplomatic and consular missions.  The obligation required the receiving State to do its utmost.  That duty was of special relevance when missions were faced with mass demonstrations.  She urged all receiving States to honour their obligation to provide a risk-free environment that enabled diplomatic and consular missions to carry out their duties.

JUANA ELENA RAMOS RODRIGUEZ ( Cuba) expressed concern about continuing attacks on diplomatic missions and their representatives.  She said Cuba unequivocally condemned those acts and those responsible for them; it had signed covenants to protect envoys and diplomatic representatives, and had adopted the necessary measures to protect them.  It provided public security services to diplomats and their residences.  Those found guilty of attacks against diplomats and their premises were given severe sentences.  She called for strict protection for diplomatic missions and representatives, and welcomed the fact that many States were becoming parties to the relevant international instruments.

GENNADY KUZMIN ( Russian Federation) said the international community must secure the necessary protection for diplomats and their missions.  He called on States to honour their obligations under the relevant international instruments.  He considered it essential that General Assembly resolution on the topic call on States to take all measures to protect diplomats and their premises and to ensure that perpetrators of attacks on diplomats and diplomatic missions were brought to justice.  States had the responsibility to protect diplomatic missions and their representatives, he said.

YASIR A. ABDELSALAM ( Sudan) expressed regret that his country had not been able to meet the deadline for reporting on the item.  However, the Sudan had recently established a special unit to ensure that diplomatic and consular missions were able to carry out their duties.  He cited as an example the Sudan’s agreeing to a request by one mission to close a busy street to help that mission’s compliance with its Government’s worldwide plan for its buildings.

Protocols additional to Geneva Conventions

Statements

BEN PLAYLE (Australia), speaking also for Canada and New Zealand, applauded the adoption last December of the Third Additional Protocol to the Geneva Conventions, which established the “Red Crystal” as an additional protective emblem for humanitarian workers, free of any extraneous political or religious connotation.  He said the Red Crystal would have the same status as the Red Cross, and the Red Crescent.  That represented an important advance in furthering the universal character of international humanitarian law.  The adoption of the Third Additional Protocol, and the consequent amendments to the Statutes of the International Red Cross and Red Crescent Movement, allowed for the simultaneous admission into the Movement of the Israeli Magen David Adom Society and the Palestinian Red Crescent Society.  He said that was a crucial step towards ensuring that access to humanitarian assistance was universally available.  The Protocol would enhance the protection of people affected by conflicts and natural disasters, and humanitarian workers who provided critical assistance to those in need.

He said that more than 70 States had signed the Third Additional Protocol and six had ratified.  Their group emphasized the need to ensure that fundamental rights, as enshrined in the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, were afforded to both civilians and combatants to mitigate the humanitarian impact of armed conflicts.  They firmly believed that the principles of international humanitarian law and human rights law must be respected by all, to enhance the legal and physical protection of civilians in armed conflict.  He said Australia, Canada and New Zealand were all parties to the Optional Protocol to the Convention on the Rights of the Child, on the involvement of children in armed conflict.

Ms. SOTANIEMI (Finland), speaking for the European Union, urged Member States to accede to the Additional Protocols of 1977, as well as the extra Protocol establishing the extra emblem of the Red Crystal.  As most of the provisions of the Conventions and their Protocols were generally recognized as customary law, it was clear that the focus was on the full implementation and dissemination of international humanitarian law.  She said the studies by the ICRC on Customary International Humanitarian Law deserved careful study by Member States.  Without proper training of armed forces in particular, the norms of international humanitarian law remained without practical relevance.  She called upon all States to ratify or accede to the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

ANDERS LIDÉN ( Sweden), speaking for the Nordic countries, said States had a duty to respect and ensure respect for international humanitarian law, which continued to be extended and refined.  He welcomed the recent publication by the ICRC of its study on Customary International Humanitarian Law.  The study on situations of non-international armed conflict was particularly useful.  The International Criminal Court was of paramount importance in the quest for compliance with international humanitarian law and, also, to ending impunity for war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide.  He urged States to make the declaration accepting the competence of the International Humanitarian Fact-Finding Commission to inquire into any facts alleged to be grave breaches; it was of the utmost importance that the international community reacted to breaches at an early stage.  The international community must become more effective in that respect to deter future breaches.  The training of military and armed forces in international humanitarian law remained a priority.

GEORGE TALBOT ( Guyana), speaking for the Rio Group, said the Geneva Conventions were considered landmarks in the development of international humanitarian law.  While 194 States were parties to the Conventions, not all of them were parties to the Protocols.  There had been an intense United Nations effort to promote a better understanding and implementation of the Protocols.  He was pleased that the ICRC had continued to play a significant role in promoting compliance with the Conventions, and appreciated its help in clarifying and developing them.   He particularly appreciated its efforts to affirm important concepts related to the so-called “war against terrorism” and the status and rights of detainees.

SAEED ALWAN AL-HEBSI ( United Arab Emirates) expressed deep concern at the continued violations by Israel of its obligations under the four Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols both inside the Palestinian and Arab territories occupied since 1967 and “in its recent wars in the region”.  Over the past summer, he said, television viewers had seen and heard reports by humanitarian agencies of the sad and heinous events that took place in the civilian communities in Lebanon and Gaza, including the massacres committed by Israeli forces.  He said the reports had also depicted the demolition of hospitals, electricity and water facilities, and humanitarian corridors.  He said the “shameful Israeli violations” which continued against the besieged people of Gaza could have been prevented if the international community had taken preventive measures to deter the repeated aggression by Governments in Israel during the past six decades.

He called upon the international community, represented by the States parties to those Conventions and their Additional Protocols, especially the effective members of the Quartet in the Security Council, to shoulder their responsibilities.  They should make the necessary efforts, away from double standards, to stop Israel’s grave violations and to ensure full compliance with those instruments.  He said the continued international tolerance of Israel’s repeated aggressions against the Arab peoples would reduce the credibility and universality of those noble Conventions.  The perpetrators of those crimes and of grave violations of the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols must be tracked down and brought to justice.  They should also be made to pay compensation for the material and emotional damages to the victims.

Mr. ABDELSALAM ( Sudan) expressed appreciation for the efforts of the ICRC.  He also thanked the representative of Australia for welcoming the Sudan to the States parties to the Geneva Conventions.  The political agreement reached over the Sudanese conflict in the south of the country had succeeded in ending that conflict and in bolstering the agreement reached in Darfur.  Throughout the conflicts, the Sudan was always careful to abide by the four Geneva Conventions and the Protocols.  He attached special importance to the second Protocol which covered conflicts of a non-international nature.  Sometimes armed groups had arsenals larger than the country they were fighting.  He welcomed the fact that the second Protocol assigned responsibility to armed non-State actors.

JURG LAUBER ( Switzerland) informed the Committee that Nauru and Montenegro had acceded to the Geneva Conventions bringing the total number of States parties to 194.  There were now 166 parties to the first Protocol and 162 to the second Protocol.  On 8 December 2005, he said, the third Additional Protocol, on Red Crystal, was adopted, and it had been signed by 70 States and ratified by six.  He also said Member States must commit themselves to supervising private military enterprises in conflicts.  He thanked the ICRC for developing and promoting international humanitarian law.

ALEJANDRO ALDAY ( Mexico) said that the debate was important for several reasons, particularly because of the historic role of international humanitarian law since the middle of the nineteenth century.  He said the obligation of States to respect such law required that the International Law Commission work on its implementation.  The accession to the Geneva Conventions was the first step and it was important that State parties assumed their responsibilities.

He said the norms of international human rights could not have several interpretations.  International humanitarian law was a way to limit atrocities inflicted in times of war.  States could not limit the rights of people protected by humanitarian law.  International security was multidimensional in nature, he said, and threats had different causes.  Mexico condemned terrorism precisely because of the suffering inflicted on civilians.  International human rights forbade acts of terrorism.  Moreover, the fight against terrorism must take place within the respect of international humanitarian law and the United Nations Charter.

Finally, he said Mexico welcomed efforts being made by States to strengthen international humanitarian law and preserve the humanitarian spirit that had saved thousands of lives.

JASSIM AL-OBAIDLI ( Qatar) said wars were a sad reality that had been with humanity since its first days.  The Geneva Conventions and their Protocols had become customary international law.  What was important today was their implementation.  He believed that if the Conventions were fully implemented, they could provide reasonable protection for the victims of war.  He commended the efforts of the ICRC to find practical ways to ensure respect for international humanitarian law.  The international community must tackle the violations, since the basis of international humanitarian law might collapse if they continued not to be addressed.  He said the protection of civilians was needed today more than ever given the nature of today’s conflicts as well as the widespread destruction today’s weapons were capable of inflicting.  He called all on parties to a conflict to respect the provisions of the Geneva Conventions.

ROBERT TACHIE-MENSON ( Ghana) said that any assessment of the Conventions and the Additional Protocols should be within the context of the current international scene, which was wracked by internal and regional conflicts, and the war against terrorism.  That also brought into sharp focus the question of adaptability and applicability of the rules to meet the challenges of new systems and methods of warfare.  Within the current international scene, he said, the validity and relevance of the Geneva Conventions and Additional Protocols had never been greater.  The war on terror posed a particularly difficult challenge.  The problem was whether rules designed to govern the conduct of State parties to a conflict could be applied to non-State actors such as an extremist group.

He said it was possible to argue that international humanitarian law which prohibited acts or threats of violence covered terrorist activities, if those activities were defined as “armed conflicts” within the meaning of the Geneva Convention and Additional Protocols.  For those reasons, he said, it was important that suspected terrorists were not denied their basic rights and due process.

KRISHNAN MANIAM ( Malaysia) said that even though adherence to the existing international humanitarian law treaties was almost universal, atrocities against civilians continued unabated.  He commended the ICRC for its study on Customary International Humanitarian Law and said he looked forward to greater detail on evolving State practice.  Greater knowledge of the principles of international humanitarian law was the cornerstone of greater compliance.

He noted that Malaysia contributed to United Nations peacekeeping operations which were often in hostile and perilous environments.

HIROSHI TAJIMA ( Japan) said his country had submitted information documenting that it had acceded to the first two Additional Protocols in 2004 and recognized the competence of the International Fact-Finding Commission in 2005.  The significance of international humanitarian law could not be overemphasized.  Japan attached great importance to its implementation, which would further strengthen the rule of law in the international community.

KAREN R. ODABA-MOSOTI ( Kenya) paid tribute to the ICRC for its relentless efforts to promote and strengthen respect for international humanitarian law.  She also praised the support of the ICRC for national committees on international humanitarian law.

She said that in a world replete with armed conflicts, adherence to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and the Additional Protocols was of paramount importance to ensure the safety of innocent civilians.   Kenya was a party to the Geneva Conventions and the two Additional Protocols of 1977.  Her Government, in 2002, established a national committee on the implementation of international humanitarian law that coordinated and monitored its implementation in Kenya.  The national committee had been actively involved in training activities for personnel of key Government departments such as the police and the prison service.  The committee was also working with the University of Kenya to prepare a training manual on international humanitarian law.

NAJJIB ELJI ( Syria) said the Geneva Conventions had become part and parcel of international customary law.  History affirmed their relevance and the need for their provisions to be applied strictly to avoid the horrific acts that could be perpetrated in war.  In the early years of Islam, an international Islamic humanitarian law had been developed.  It outlawed the targeting of women, children and the elderly.  It also prohibited the destruction of trees and places of worship and homes.

He said the elaboration of the Geneva Conventions followed the bloody wars in Europe.  Wartime atrocities had confirmed their necessity.  The Conventions, however, had not prevented Israel from violating international humanitarian law in its attacks on Lebanon when it had deliberately targeted civilians, massacred women and children and purposely destroyed infrastructures.  He said that Israel clearly did not respect the international legal system and its actions not only bore witness to that country’s barbarism but also to the indifference of the world in its refusal to take action against Israel for its violations.

He said the system of international humanitarian law and the United Nations faced a major challenge in deciding how to ensure implementation of the provisions of the Conventions.

JUANA ELENA RAMOS RODRIGUEZ ( Cuba) said the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols must achieve universal acceptance.  The international community must respect international norms.  The rejection of war must be a commitment of all States through multilateral instruments and the United Nations Charter.  Only in that way could protection of humanitarian law be respected

Cuba was State party to the Geneva Conventions of 1949 and their Additional Protocols, she added.  The provisions and relevant instruments had been incorporated into national law.  Her country had considerable experience in the dissemination of information about international humanitarian law.  Information on the international humanitarian law had been disseminated among the armed forces and the police.

ELISABETH WILCOX ( United States) said her country was not a party to either of the first two Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions and that the reasons were well known.  She did note, however, that the United States had signed the Third Protocol recognizing the Red Crystal emblem on the day the Protocol was adopted, and was working toward its swift ratification.  Any consideration of the obligations of States under the law of armed conflict must therefore take into account the different treaty regimes to which States had subscribed. 

She noted the recent ICRC study entitled Customary International Humanitarian Law and welcomed the study’s discussion of the complex and important subject.  The United States appreciated the major effort that the ICRC and the study’s authors had made to assemble and analyse a substantial amount of material.  However, she said the United States was concerned about its conclusion that a significant number of rules contained in the Additional Protocols had achieved the status of customary international law applicable to all States, including a significant number of States that had declined to become a party to those Protocols. 

The United States was also concerned about the conclusion that those provisions had become binding as a matter of customary international law in internal armed conflicts.  It questioned the basis for either of those conclusions, and looked forward to engaging in constructive debate with the ICRC and others on those issues.

TAMAR KAPLAN ( Israel) said that recent events exemplified the effect of the dilution of the law of armed conflict and the profound distinction between civilians and combatants on which the laws of armed conflict were predicated.  Those principles constituted the raison d’etre of the international laws of armed conflict, and had become their universally recognized foundations.  Today they continued to represent a unique challenge, in light of the increase in armed conflicts around the world, both national and international, and in view of the ongoing struggle against terrorism.

She said Israel had taken an active and substantive role in the diplomatic conference convened between 1974 and 1977, during which the two Additional Protocols were formulated.  She acknowledged the important contribution of the ICRC to the codification and development of international humanitarian law.

She said Israel had not been alone in expressing its concerns about certain aspects of the Additional Protocols; a significant number of States, as well as leading scholars, had questioned whether various provisions of the Protocols had a sound legal basis and actually advanced the humanitarian interests.  When instruments of international humanitarian law were manipulated and politicized, as was being seen today, the result was necessarily to weaken the stature of those instruments and in so doing risk harming the very people they were designed to protect.

Israel considered the adoption of the third Additional Protocol to be a historic move, creating an opportunity to solve an anomaly that had troubled the Red Cross Movement for decades.  It provided a significant improvement to humanitarian protection in many circumstances.  She expressed her country’s appreciation to Switzerland, the depositary State.

HASSAN SALEN ( Lebanon) said that, for several years now, international humanitarian law was an integral part of the training curricula of all military academies at all levels.  The will to impose certain rules on the conduct of war dated back several centuries and arose out of necessity and concern.  Over the years, those rules had developed and become more assertive.  Unfortunately, the principles enshrined in the Conventions, deriving from moral values, were constantly being violated by some States.

He said that during the last Israeli aggression against Lebanon, the Israeli forces blatantly violated those principles in every possible way.  He cited specific violations and said the international community was duty bound to push Israel to observe its obligations under international law, to abide by the principle of the rule of law and to refrain from violating the international humanitarian law.

CRISTINA PELLANDINI, the representative of the ICRC, said the four Geneva Conventions had recently achieved universal acceptance.  Another significant achievement was the adoption in 2005 of the third Additional Protocol recognizing the Red Crystal as a new symbol to provide an additional protective device for the medical services of armed forces, and for Red Cross and Red Crescent humanitarian workers in conflicts where the existing emblems could not provide protection because of political, religious or other connotations.  Next Spring, the ICRC was convening a second Universal Meeting of National International Humanitarian Law Committees, with a specific focus on the role of those bodies in the adopting measures to avoid persons from becoming missing and to assist their families.  She drew attention to the ICRC study on Customary International Humanitarian Law, saying it represented the first global and thorough assessment of the subject.

* *** *

For information media • not an official record