Geneva Conventions’ Additional Protocols Key to Protecting Civilians in Armed Conflicts, Sixth Committee Speakers Say, Urging Greater Compliance Despite Changing Nature of Wars
The Sixth Committee (Legal) completed its debate this morning on the status of the Protocols Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 1949, with speakers underscoring the key role of these instruments in protecting victims of armed conflicts, while some pointed to an ‘international silence’ amidst the ongoing international humanitarian law violations and others urging greater compliance to the Protocol’s tenets. (For background, see Press Release GA/L/3735.)
The representative of Lebanon, speaking for the Arab Group, said that the Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols is the broadest legal framework that reflects customary international law aiming to protect the victims of armed conflict. “It is shameful that we still see international silence in the face of the series of violations of the international humanitarian law in the context of the genocidal war carried out by Israel,” she said, condemning that country’s genocide against the Palestinian people and its systematic large-scale violations. “The Israeli war machine spares no one, even those providing aid,” she observed, emphasizing that the challenges posed by contemporary armed conflict should lead to a better implementation of the treaty and ensure that all countries abide by its provisions.
The 1949 Geneva Conventions and the Additional Protocols thereto are the “cornerstone of international humanitarian law,” stressed the representative of the Russian Federation, underlining the need for further universalization of the Additional Protocols. Observing that, over the seventy-five years, the nature of armed conflict has undergone changes, he said that protection mechanisms for the victims of armed conflict remain as relevant as ever. He recalled that, during the Second World War, the people of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics were confronted with the crimes committed by the Nazis, to which the international community was unable or unwilling to respond. While the basis of international law was laid long before that war, neutrality and norms enshrined in international treaties have been tested in these times.
For his part, Azerbaijan’s representative recalled that serious violations of international law – amounting to war crimes, crimes against humanity and genocide — were committed during the aggression against his country in the 1990s and the “subsequent occupation of its territories for almost thirty years”. Despite the end of the conflict and progress achieved in advancing peace, serious challenges continue to impact civilians’ lives. Noting that the denial and ignorance of the most serious crimes, coupled with the attempts to discredit and obstruct justice, constitute a contempt for international law and the rule of law, he added: “Accountability and redress are essential to ensure the rights of the victims, prevent the recurrence of violations.”
Meanwhile, the representative of Slovakia said that her country is party to all four Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols, noting that “these are only a few manifestations of my country’s deep commitment to full and unconditional respect for international humanitarian law”. Despite the Conventions’ seventy-fifth anniversary, however, armed conflict continues around the world alongside a dangerous trend of disregard for the norms and principles of such law. It is a shared responsibility, she stressed, to protect victims of armed conflict and demand accountability for all violations of international humanitarian law — “no matter where or by whom committed”.
“The importance of Geneva Conventions cannot be overstated,” concurred the Singapore’s delegate, noting that States have a responsibility to disseminate knowledge and raise awareness of international humanitarian law. Adding to that, El Salvador’s representative said that her country has protected its cultural heritage in armed conflict by establishing an inter-institutional committee on international humanitarian law. Through the system of ‘blue shield’ markings, her Government can identify and protect its cultural goods – of which there are currently more than 40 – in armed conflict. It is also drafting a virtual handbook about the wealth of El Salvador’s cultural assets and the importance of international humanitarian law, she reported.
“The principal cause of suffering during armed conflict is not the lack of rules, but insufficient respect for the law,” the representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) declared. The 1949 Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols contain provisions that continue to be fully relevant to the current multiplying crises. However, too often, opposing sides of a conflict dehumanize each other and deny the protection of the law to their enemies. More so, too many States are still outside the framework of the Additional Protocols to the Geneva Conventions, among them are several currently involved in armed conflict. “States who stay outside the quasi-universally agreed framework create doubt as to what the common rules are,” he stressed, observing that each new ratification increases the protection during armed conflict and secures the universality of international humanitarian law.
Noting that ICRC will work towards the broadest possible adherence by States to the treaty, he reiterated his appeal for new, legally binding rules on autonomous weapons systems by 2026. For its part, ICRC will continue to provide national authorities with assistance in adopting the legislative, regulatory and practical measures needed to ensure full implementation of international humanitarian law in domestic law and practice. Citing the President of the ICRC, he quoted: “International law is under strain, disregarded, and undermined to justify violence. More than ever, the world must recommit to this robust protective framework for armed conflict, one that follows the premise of protecting life instead of justifying death.”
Speaking in exercise of the right of reply, Israel’s representative said that the Observer State of Palestine and Lebanon delegations have mixed the Geneva Conventions’ articles and International Court of Justice opinions with melodramatic exclamations. Yet their rhetoric cannot hide attempts to justify terrorism. On one side stands a democratic State that does everything in its power to minimize civilian casualties, while on the other side stand genocidal terrorist organizations that strive to maximize civilian casualties among both Israelis and Palestinians. “And in the middle, you stand” — those who cannot condemn terrorist attacks “or distinguish between good and evil”, he declared.
Responding, the observer for the State of Palestine noted that when Israel’s delegation is confronted with the truth of their crimes, it attacks anyone who exposes these crimes. “He accused us of glorifying terrorism,” she stressed, pointing out that Israel’s diplomacy is not of “respect for the law but of incitement, hate and racism”. Israel’s delegate represents a “genocidal Government that is high on blood and impunity”, she said, adding: “You accuse us of glorifying terrorism – you were founded upon terror”. “History will remember you with as much ‘kindness’ as it does to enslavers, settlers, génocidaires, supremacists and apartheid apologists who also sat in this room.”
For his part, Israel’s delegate recalled that he has not heard any condemnation from the Palestinian representative for the 7 October 2023 massacre that murdered 1,200 innocent Israeli civilians. “We are still waiting, for more than a year now, for this condemnation,” he said. To that, the observer for the State of Palestine asked: “Can the Israeli delegate condemn the killing of at least 40,000 Palestinians by the State he is representing without justifying their murder or without holding us responsible for our killing?”
NEW – Follow real-time meetings coverage on our LIVE blog.